Novel Constitutional Claims: Rent Control, Means-Ends Tests, and the Takings Clause

Abstract

Many commentators have criticized the due process roots of the substantially advance test, a means-ends test, of current takings jurisprudence. This Note revisits the issue in the context of rent control in Santa Monica Beach, Ltd. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles. Employing the means-ends test with deference to government actions, the Santa Monica Beach majority concludes that Santa Monica's rent control program does not violate the Takings Clause. Several dissenters, applying a less deferential standard of review in takings claims, would have found that a taking had occurred. This Note argues that the majority reached the right conclusion but erred by applying a means-ends test in its just compensation analysis. Such a test is doctrinally inconsistent with takings jurisprudence and potentially expands government liability more than is constitutionally required. Ultimately, as the concurring opinion suggests, the propriety of a means-ends test in the analysis of takings claims must be resolved by the United States Supreme Court, whose recent takings decisions suggest that a means-ends test should not be part of just compensation analysis. This Note further argues that, although rent control may be invalid if it violates a few specific protections, it should as a general matter withstand constitutional scrutiny.