In a June 2019 ruling (Fletcher
Props v. City of Minneapolis), the Minneapolis Appeals court reversed a
lower court ruling and found that a city ordinance prohibiting apartment owners
from refusing to accept voucher holders did not violate the owner’s property
rights.
- An owner sued the city over a new law that
bars owners from screening out prospective tenants who use Housing Choice
Vouchers under the Section 8 program;
- The ordinance has an exception for owners
who can show that having to accept voucher holders would create an "undue
hardship," though owners may only use this defense after the filing of a
discrimination case with the city’s Civil Rights Department;
- The suit argued that the mandate conflicts
with state law and unfairly forced the owner to comply with requirements of
federal housing voucher programs for low-income residents; and
- The owner also claimed that the law
violates the state’s Constitution because it reduces owners’ property values,
forces owners to enter into contracts unwillingly, and represents an
unnecessary government intervention in their businesses.
Decision of the District Court
The district court
granted the owner a judgment without a trial, concluding that the ordinance
deprives the owner of its right to substantive due process and equal protection
under the state Constitution. The city appealed.
Decision of the Appeals Court
The Minnesota Appeals
court reversed the lower court decision.
- Factors to consider in determining whether
a right is fundamental include historical practice and whether the right has
uniform and continuing acceptance across the nation;
- When a fundamental right is not implicated
(and such a right was not implicated in this case), the court applies a
rational basis analysis, meaning that the court seeks to determine only whether
a law is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest;
- The court did not consider the right to
rent property as implicating a fundamental right and the court, in a recent
decision, applied rational-basis analysis in considering other legislation
affecting rental units;
- The court concluded that neither the state
nor the nation overall has a history of recognizing the right to rent property
as a fundamental right. The right to rent property isn’t a right "implicit in
the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would
exist if it were sacrificed;" and
- The court ruled that the city ordinance
rationally serves the public purpose of increasing housing opportunities for
voucher holders and is not an unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious
interference with a private interest. As a result, the ordinance was deemed to
be constitutional.
There is a growing
national trend toward protection for voucher holders, with at least 14 states
and 75 local jurisdictions offering such protection. This is an important case
that establishes that such protections do not violate the fundamental rights of
property owners.
Back to news