Whether a law that bars termination of a tenancy, and compels the occupation of property by an unwanted tenant, amounts to a per se, physical taking

QUESTION PRESENTED Frank and Rachel Revere and David and Judith Kagan (Owners) own a duplex in Los Angeles, California, as tenants in common. The Reveres live in one unit. In 2019, the Reveres applied to the City to displace a month-to-month tenant in the other unit, so they could move in their own family members. The City denied the request, concluding the tenant was protected from eviction for a family move-in under Los Angeles’ Rent Stabilization Ordinance. The Owners sued, alleging the City’s decision forced them to suffer a physical taking of their property. The question presented is: Whether a law that bars termination of a tenancy, and compels the occupation of property by an unwanted tenant, amounts to a per se, physical taking, as the Eighth Circuit held in Heights Apartments, LLC v. Waiz, 30 F.4th 720 (8th Cir. 2022), or is instead a permissible regulation of property under Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992), as the Ninth Circuit held below.