The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, November 10, 1987
Decision: Wednesday, February 24, 1988
Issues: Due Process, Takings Clause

Advocates

Joan Gallo (Argued the cause for the appellees)
Harry D. Miller (Argued the cause for the appellants)

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."

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 6 votes for San Jose, 2 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement
Did not participate
Kennedy
Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Brennan
Voted with the majority
White
Voted with the majority
Marshall
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the minority, joined Scalia's dissent
O'Connor
Wrote a dissent
Scalia
Full Opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist

Cite this page

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