Whether the destruction of a fundamental attribute of property ownership constitutes a taking without the need to prove diminished value or interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Based on its interpretation of federal law, the Washington Supreme Court overruled 68 regulatory takings and due process cases—130 years of jurisprudence—that had (1) held that the government lacks authority to destroy a fundamental attribute of property without just compensation; and (2) prohibited laws that are unduly oppressive of individual rights. The court took this drastic action to uphold a uniquely intrusive and novel City of Seattle ordinance that declared it unlawful for a residential landlord to choose among qualified tenant applicants. Instead, the law grants the first qualified person to apply for a vacancy an exclusive right of first refusal. This “first-in-time” rule is vastly broader than civil rights laws, which are not challenged here, because it prohibits any discretion whatsoever, even for entirely legitimate reasons. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the destruction of a fundamental attribute of property ownership suffices to establish a taking without the need to prove diminished value or interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, as recognized by cases like Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704, 716-17 (1987), and Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 179-80 (1979); and 2. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against an unduly oppressive legislative act that destroys a fundamental attribute of property ownership as established by Goldblatt v. Town of ii Hempstead, N.Y., 369 U.S. 590, 594 (1962), and Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 137 (1894).