How The Courts Affect Social Change Through Rent Control

Abstract

This article explores the Supreme Court’s attitude toward one solution to the unaffordability of rental housing: rent control. This policy, more formally known as rent stabilization, allows jurisdictions to cap the amount landlords can charge for rent to curb exploitative practices. The policy is controversial, as some economists believe it is inefficient and ineffective at making housing more affordable. In contrast, others view it as a quick, easy, and relatively low-cost remedy to an ongoing crisis. The Supreme Court has upheld rent control laws, though not without exceptions, as this article outlines. These laws are drafted, debated, enacted, and implemented by other branches of government in cities and states. The Court generally steps aside to let the democratic process decide whether a city or state adopts or rejects this policy. This article argues that courts cannot affect social change regarding rent control because they are limited by the legislative process and their own judicial doctrines. Despite these constraints, the Supreme Court’s deference helps maintain these laws in cities where they have been enacted, thereby assisting many in affording their homes.