Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheNormalAlternative t1_j7gzrbl wrote

Reminder that Gothamist does not employ legal scholars and this headline is definitely hyperbole. Like any time a party loses on appeal at the circuit court level, there's a possibility that the Supreme Court may get involved, but usually the high court stays out unless there is a "circuit split" - that isn't the case here.

The Second Circuit's decision (link) relied on a number of Supreme Court cases, including Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992), a case where the Supreme Court previously rejected the argument that rent control laws were unconstitutional under the Takings Clause.

Gothamist doesn't explain their belief for a showdown other than quoting a sore loser who insists it will try to appeal, but appeals to SCOTUS are rarely made as of right.

76

Die-Nacht t1_j7h8sle wrote

> The landlords say they will next try to get the U.S. Supreme Court and its conservative majority to weigh in.

That's what's different this time around.

38

TheNormalAlternative t1_j7hrhtz wrote

Ah yes, how can I forget the famous conservative cause of aborting your tenants.

5

ManhattanRailfan t1_j7huf9t wrote

I mean, yeah, fucking working people over and generally being a piece of shit is the whole basis of American conservatism so that tracks pretty well.

25

TheSpaceBetweenUs__ t1_j7jgyxb wrote

Conservative ideology revolves wholely around the wishes of people highest on the social hierarchy having all power to fuck over those lower on the hierarchy. That includes in tenant landlord relationship.

You can't seriously pretend like conservatives aren't on the side of landlords

6

Phaedrusnyc t1_j7kn1l5 wrote

Lord, all you have to do is look at this sub to figure that out.

1

Die-Nacht t1_j7hww71 wrote

idk if you are trying to make a joke or you truly have been living under a rock for the last decade.

Yes, the thing "conservatives" are trying to conserve nowadays is crazy fascist and capitalist ideas. They would definitely rule against tenant protections.

I would like to think that they wouldn't dare touch such a local issue, but idk what to expect anymore.

5

williamwchuang t1_j7hung8 wrote

It's utter BS but that's the situation that we find ourselves in. Roe v. Wade was precedent for decades until SCOTUS stepped in and found that it was so wrong that it wasn't precedent.

4

Junk-trash t1_j7hwoy2 wrote

They are anti human-rights which is anti tenant-rights

2

nonlawyer t1_j7hdm2a wrote

True, but this is less of a hot button issue on Fox News, where the rightwing grievances are developed before eventually becoming SCOTUS law.

Like we’re not talking about domestic violence abusers being denied guns or tech companies banning hate speech on their privately owned platforms, so I don’t think this will really get Alito’s juices flowing. We’ll see though.

4

LivefromPhoenix t1_j7hfci9 wrote

>I don’t think this will really get Alito’s juices flowing

It is an opportunity to screw with blue cities though. I'm sure that's more than enough to get Clarence and Alito excited.

12

nonlawyer t1_j7hopoa wrote

Could be. Even this SCOTUS still denies the vast majority of cert petitions though.

3

ER301 OP t1_j7hapkh wrote

When would we know if the Supreme Court accepts, or rejects, this case? Is there a way to follow it?

1

[deleted] t1_j7i7v5x wrote

[deleted]

1

TheNormalAlternative t1_j7ig1un wrote

There is an appeal as of right from any three judge panel under 28 USC 1253, very rare selection of cases listed under 28 USC 2284, particularly given the recent narrowing of justiciable cases concerning apportionment.

2

djphan2525 t1_j7i8hlg wrote

frankly that's how a lot of cases are getting to the supreme court these days...

1