The rent control debate is gaining momentum at the top of the legal food chain. New York landlords are asking the Supreme Court to overturn lower court decisions on a 2019 rent stabilization law, and several national real estate groups are showing support. If the high court takes the case and rules in their favor, experts say it could “destabilize” rent stabilization laws across the nation.   Hi, I'm Kathy Fettke and this is Real Estate News for Investors. If you like our podcast, please subscribe and leave us a review.   The two landlord groups pushing for a Supreme Court review of the lower court rulings are the Community Housing Improvement Program and the Rent Stabilization Association. They are both based in New York, and claim that the 2019 “Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act” is unconstitutional. The law is also known as the Rent Stabilization Law or RSL. (1)   Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act   The landlords lost their case in federal court and the court of appeals, so they are now hoping that the conservative-leaning high court may offer a different opinion. Within the past few weeks, several major business and real estate groups threw their weight behind the plaintiffs including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Apartment Association, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and others. They showed their support by submitting amicus briefs, which is like saying they are friends in support of the plaintiffs who would like the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari or, in plain English, a review of the case. In other words, they want the Supreme Court to accept the case.   The lawyer representing the plaintiffs, Andrew Pincus, told the National Review that the RSL is a property rights infringement. He says: “The Constitution has certain property protections, one of which is the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause.” That means that the government is not allowed to take private property for public use without “just compensation.” He says that that concept is at the heart of the lawsuit. (2)   Property Rights Infringement Under the “Takings” Clause   Under the umbrella of the takings clause concept are two supporting arguments. One claims that the RSL is equal to a regulatory “taking” based on a 1978 case out of New York City. It’s related to the economic impact of the law, the extent of the government interference, and the kind of government action being taken. The second argument is based on a 2021 case out of California where the court ruled that a law allowing union organizers onto private property amounted to a physical taking. Pincus compared this to a landlord’s situation by saying: “They can’t choose their tenants freely, nor can they reclaim their property as they wish.”   In the case of the RSL, critics say it dictates who can live on the property, how long they can live on the property, how much or how little they should pay in rent, and how much the property owners can invest to maintain the property – all of which have an impact on the financial viability of being a landlord and whether the landlord is allowed to make reasonable use of the property.   On the other side of the argument, are New York City officials and rent stabilization supporters who say the law does “not” amount to a taking because the property owners are not deprived of the economic benefits, according to certain standards known as Penn Central standards which resulted from one of the previous lawsuits I mentioned. Pincus disagrees, saying it runs contrary to the requirement of “just compensation” when private property is taken for public use.   Other RSL Issues Undermine Benefits for Needy Tenants   Critics also highlight other downsides of the law that actually hurt tenants. One is the lack of a method for determining whether tenants truly need low cost housing. Pincus says it’s more of a lottery, where some lucky tenants get a great de