Does Seattle's restriction on private owners' right to exclude potentially dangerous tenants from their property violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?

QUESTION PRESENTED The City of Seattle’s “Fair Chance Housing Ordinance” declares it unlawful for private property owners to consider a prospective tenant’s criminal history when deciding who may occupy their property—even though criminals are substantially more likely to reoffend in and around their residences. The Ordinance bans such consideration regardless of the gravity of an applicant’s crimes, the number of convictions, the time since the last conviction, or other indicators that the applicant poses a risk of harm to an owner’s family or other tenants, and the Ordinance furthermore subjects owners to massive civil penalties for considering that history when selecting tenants. The City exempts itself and other public housing providers from these restrictions. Chong and MariLyn Yim own a triplex in Seattle. As is often necessary in housing-deprived cities nationwide, the Yims and their three children shared their living and intimate spaces with tenants—they live in one unit and rent the other two. The Ordinance deprived the Yims of their fundamental right to safeguard their home, to keep dangerous convicted criminals out of their property, and of their obligation to protect their children and their tenants. The question presented is: Does Seattle’s restriction on private owners’ right to exclude potentially dangerous tenants from their property violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?