301, 712, 2103 and 3151 LLC v. City of Minneapolis, 0:20-cv-01904

Minneapolis Ordinance No. 244.2030 (2019) requires landlords to screen applicants by either (1) inclusive screening criteria (bars rejection for specific criminal, credit, or rental history) or (2) individualized assessment (landlords may reject but must consider all supplemental applicant evidence and provide written, specific reasons if denying).
Owners/managers of multi-unit residential buildings sued the City, alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause (and parallel Minnesota claims); district court denied a preliminary injunction.
Landlords argued the Ordinance effects a physical-invasion taking or, alternatively, a Penn Central regulatory taking because the individualized-assessment procedure is onerous and effectively forces acceptance of tenants.
Landlords also argued violation of substantive due process by infringing a fundamental right to exclude tenants; City defended as a valid, procedurally limited regulation advancing housing access.
The district court found landlords offered only conclusory evidence of economic harm and interference with investment-backed expectations, and that the Ordinance regulates screening procedures rather than effecting a physical occupation; it denied preliminary relief.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed: no physical taking, Penn Central factors not met, and the Ordinance survives rational-basis review under substantive due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Physical-invasion taking	Ordinance compels landlords to rent to people they would otherwise exclude; a forced occupation	Ordinance is a use restriction; landlords voluntarily rent and the individualized-assessment option lets them reject applicants who fail screening	Not a physical-invasion taking; individualized-assessment option means it is a regulation of use, not compelled occupation
Regulatory taking (Penn Central)	Individualized assessment is illusory and imposes heavy economic and procedural burdens amounting to a taking	Landlords produced no evidence of economic loss or impaired investment-backed expectations; action resembles a public program adjusting economic benefits and burdens	Penn Central factors not satisfied; landlords unlikely to prevail on a regulatory-taking claim
Substantive due process (right to exclude)	Ordinance infringes fundamental right to exclude unwanted tenants	Right to exclude is not a fundamental substantive-due-process right here; at most the Ordinance regulates screening procedures and serves legitimate housing objectives	No fundamental-right violation; ordinance is rationally related to legitimate government interests and survives rational-basis review

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct. 2063 (2021) (distinguishing physical takings from regulatory restrictions; Penn Central framework for nonphysical regulatory takings)
Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (factors for analyzing regulatory takings)
Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992) (renting property voluntarily limits per se physical-taking claims based on loss of exclusion)
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (statutory compelled physical occupation is a per se taking)
Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., 576 U.S. 350 (2015) (rejecting voluntariness defense to compelled appropriation of produce)
Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002) (distinguishing temporary moratoria and regulatory takings)
PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) (state-imposed access rights on private property do not necessarily trigger substantive-due-process protection)