Pennell v. San Jose

Media Items

Oral Argument

Opinion Announcement

Advocates

Harry D. Miller (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Joan Gallo (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Case Basics

Docket No.:

86-753

Appellee:

San Jose

Appellant:

Pennell

Heard By:

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By:

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion:

485 U.S. 1 (1988)

Argued:

Tuesday, November 10, 1987

Decided:

Wednesday, February 24, 1988

Issues:

Due Process, Takings Clause

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Pennell v. San Jose , 485 U.S. 1 (1988)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_753)

Facts of the Case:

The City of San Jose enacted a rent-control ordinance in 1979 in an attempt to alleviate the problem of skyrocketing rent prices due to the growing shortage of and the increasing demand for housing. Part of the ordinance allowed a Mediating Hearing Officer to consider as one factor "hardship to a tenant" when evaluating rent increases imposed by landlords.

Question:

Did the ordinance violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?

Conclusion:

No. The Court held that the ordinance was rationally crafted to protect the financial investments of landlords while simultaneously preventing tenants from becoming victims of burdensome rent increases. The City argued the ordinance satisfied a need. This view was uncontested and, according to Justice Rehnquist, represented a "legitimate and rational" means to protect "consumer welfare."

Decisions

Decision: 6 votes for San Jose, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

Sort by Ideology