Whether a law that prohibits owners from terminating a tenancy at the end of a fixed lease term, except on grounds outside the owner's control, constitutes a physical taking

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioners own small apartment buildings in New York City that are subject to New York’s Rent Stabilization Law (“RSL”). Once an owner leases a unit for a fixed term, the RSL grants the tenant and the tenant’s successors a perpetual right to renew the lease, regardless of whether the owner consents. That renewal right strips owners of their right to exclude others from their property and prevents them from living in their own apartments. The Second Circuit held that these facts failed to state a physical-takings claim because Petitioners voluntarily entered the rental market in the first instance and could, in some circumstances, evict tenants who breach their leases. Petitioners’ regulatory-takings claims likewise failed because, among other reasons, the RSL serves an important purpose and does not deprive petitioners’ property of all value. In so holding, the Second Circuit deepened or created circuit splits at each step of its analysis. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a law that prohibits owners from terminating a tenancy at the end of a fixed lease term, except on grounds outside the owner’s control, constitutes a physical taking. 2. Whether allegations that such a law conscripts private property for use as public housing stock, and thereby substantially reduces its value, state a regulatory takings claim.