478 F.Supp.3d 199
D. Conn.2020Background:
- Plaintiffs are seven Connecticut residential landlords who sued Governor Ned Lamont challenging Executive Orders 7G, 7X, and 7DDD (COVID-19 measures) that temporarily barred residential eviction proceedings and allowed tenants to apply security-deposit funds (above one month’s rent) to past-due rent.
- Governor issued the orders under Connecticut emergency statutes (§§ 19a-131a, 28-9) as part of pandemic public-health measures; the State also announced rental-relief funding and banks agreed to mortgage forbearance programs.
- Connecticut Judicial Branch separately stayed evictions through the summer of 2020, creating potential redressability issues for plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs sought a TRO/PI asserting violations of the Contracts Clause, Takings Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection, and alleged the orders were ultra vires; they claimed lost rent and compelled relinquishment of security deposits.
- The district court held a hearing, considered briefs and amici supporting the state, and denied the motion for TRO/PI on August 7, 2020.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Redressability | Plaintiffs: eviction moratorium causes concrete injury (lost rent, forced use of deposits) and relief would allow evictions. | Lamont: Judicial Branch’s independent stay may block relief; redressability is uncertain. | Court: Not dismissed for standing now despite redressability concerns; proceeded to merits. |
| Ultra vires (state-law claim) | Plaintiffs: Governor exceeded statutory authority in issuing Executive Orders. | Lamont: Eleventh Amendment bars federal review of state-law ultra vires claims. | Court: Ultra vires claim barred by Eleventh Amendment; no jurisdiction. |
| Takings Clause (physical & regulatory) | Plaintiffs: Orders effect a physical/state-sponsored occupancy and force landlords to bear tenants’ occupancy (and lose deposit control). | Lamont: No physical invasion; temporary economic regulation; remedies are monetary; not a taking. | Court: No physical taking; regulatory-taking factors fail (no categorical loss, no sufficient economic impact or upset of investment-backed expectations); claim unlikely to succeed. |
| Contracts Clause | Plaintiffs: Orders substantially impair contract rights (security-deposit use; eviction remedy). | Lamont: Orders are legislative police-power measures addressing public health and are foreseeable in a heavily regulated field. | Court: Measures are legislative, not a substantial impairment in context; even if impairment, they serve a legitimate public purpose and are reasonable—claim fails. |
| Due Process (procedural & substantive) | Plaintiffs: Orders eliminate access to courts and meaningful process, arbitrarily depriving property rights. | Lamont: Orders are temporary, legislative public-health measures; do not eliminate liability or future hearings. | Court: Plaintiffs failed to identify independent protected interest distinct from other claims; no procedural or substantive due-process violation established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary-injunction standard)
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (state public-health emergency powers deferentially reviewed)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment limits federal adjudication of state-law claims against state officials)
- Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992) (distinguishing physical occupation takings from landlord-tenant regulation)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (multi-factor test for regulatory takings)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (physical-occupation takings rule)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (procedural-due-process balancing test)
- Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002) (categorical takings analysis)
- Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 560 U.S. 702 (2010) (takings and proper remedy analysis)
- Buffalo Teachers Fed'n v. Tobe, 464 F.3d 362 (2d Cir. 2006) (regulatory-taking/ad hoc Penn Central application)
- Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal, 83 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 1996) (government regulation of rental relationships not per se a taking)