Whether an ordinance that compels the possession of property by an unwelcome occupant is a categorical physical taking

Question Presented In March 2020, the State of Washington prohibited almost all residential evictions. It stripped rental property owners of the right to possess and exclude, and, for the next 15 months, the State dictated the terms, conditions, and duration of tenants’ occupancy. Petitioners are housing providers in Washington who were thus forced to relinquish possession of their rental units to unwelcome occupants. Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health & Human Sucs., 141 8.Ct. 2485, 2489 (2021) (“preventing [property owners] from evicting tenants who breach their leases intrudes on one of the most fundamental elements of property ownership—the right to exclude”). The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that this compelled occupation was not an unconstitutional physical taking because it merely regulated an existing landlord-tenant relationship and was not actionable in accord with Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992). The question presented is: Whether an ordinance that compels the possession of property by an unwelcome occupant is a categorical physical taking, as the Eighth Circuit held in Heights Apartments, LLC v. Walz, 30 F.4th 720 (8th Cir. 2022), or a permissible regulation of use under Yee v. City of Escondido?