The California Apartment Association’s recent court work could affect rent control, gas-appliance rules, eviction rights, and property-rights claims for housing providers in California and beyond.

CAA is participating through its own lawsuits, coalition litigation, and amicus, or friend-of-the-court, briefs.

“A successful challenge to a local ordinance in one city can help protect housing providers well beyond that city or that county,” Whitney Prout, CAA’s executive vice president of legal affairs, told members at the association’s mid-year meeting.

CAA’s recent court work includes a CAA victory, a CAA-supported victory, three pending cases, and one forthcoming amicus brief.

CAA wins key parts of Pasadena challenge

CAA challenged Measure H, Pasadena’s 2022 rent control initiative, on several grounds. The measure created an independent rent board with a guaranteed tenant supermajority, imposed eviction delays, and required housing providers with units exempt from rent control to pay relocation assistance when renters moved after receiving a rent increase.

The association argued that the measure made fundamental changes to the city charter that could not be adopted by ballot initiative and that the structure of the rent board violated constitutional protections. CAA also argued that the rent increase-triggered relocation requirement conflicted with the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and that a required notice to cure before a three-day notice to pay rent or quit was preempted by state law.

While the trial court largely upheld the measure, on appeal CAA prevailed on the relocation-assistance and eviction-delay challenges. The case produced a published opinion.

That published opinion has already shaped another case. A California appeals court relied on the Pasadena precedent to strike down a similar Los Angeles relocation-assistance mandate in litigation brought by the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles. The city did not seek California Supreme Court review, leaving the ruling final.

Massachusetts court removes rent control measure from ballot

CAA also supported a landlord-backed challenge to a Massachusetts ballot measure that would have repealed the state’s longstanding ban on rent control. The measure would have capped rent increases at inflation, with a 5% ceiling, and eliminated vacancy decontrol.

In an amicus brief, CAA argued that abruptly shifting an entire statewide housing market from no controls to near-universal strict rent control raised concerns under the Takings Clause. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court removed the measure from the ballot. The plaintiffs credited CAA’s brief as a “difference maker” in the outcome.

Coalition seeks rehearing of gas-appliance ruling

CAA and a broad coalition of businesses, unions, and housing advocates are challenging South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1146.2. The zero-NOx rule phases out covered gas-fired water heaters and boilers across most of Southern California. It began taking effect for new buildings in 2026, with the first compliance deadline for existing buildings arriving in 2029.

Converting covered equipment from gas to electricity often requires major infrastructure work, including electrical-panel upgrades and equipment relocation.

The coalition argues that the rule is preempted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act. A federal district court and a divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the regulation, reasoning that it targets emissions under the Clean Air Act rather than energy use. The plaintiffs argue that the rule conflicts with the same federal law that the 9th Circuit applied when it struck down Berkeley’s gas-piping ban.

“This rule may be framed as an emissions standard, but as Judge Lee recognized in his dissent, its practical effect is to force covered gas appliances out of the market — which is exactly what the Berkeley decision found preempted,” said Prout, who leads CAA’s legal team.

The coalition is petitioning the 9th Circuit for rehearing before a larger 11-judge panel. The case would be reconsidered by that panel if the request is granted.

Oakland lawsuit seeks expansion of rent control

In Smith v. City of Oakland, renters with mobility disabilities allege that Oakland’s Rent Adjustment Program violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. They argue that the program limits their access to rent-controlled, accessible units because most housing built to meet accessibility standards was constructed after 1983, while Oakland’s program covers units built before 1983.

The plaintiffs seek to expand rent control to post-1983 housing covered by accessible design requirements. CAA filed an amicus brief arguing that the requested relief is not a reasonable accommodation and would fundamentally alter state law. The federal district court has not issued its ruling.

CAA appeals Alameda County moratorium case

CAA is appealing the dismissal of its lawsuit against Alameda County’s COVID-19 eviction moratorium. The ban lasted more than three years, broadly prohibited evictions for nonpayment and did not require renters to demonstrate a COVID-related hardship.

The association argues that the moratorium violated the Takings Clause by requiring housing providers to continue tenancies despite nonpayment without compensation from the county. Its lawsuit also raises claims under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

The federal district court rejected the claims, and CAA appealed to the 9th Circuit. Briefing is complete, and the association is awaiting oral argument.

CAA supports Supreme Court review of rent control challenge

Tedford’s Tenancy, LLC v. City of New York asks the U.S. Supreme Court whether courts can refuse to hear a constitutional rent control challenge unless a housing provider first pursues administrative remedies — even when those remedies are allegedly unavailable or unable to provide meaningful relief.

The case arises from a six-unit New York City building where regulated rents do not cover operating costs. The lower courts declined to consider the merits of the takings claim.

CAA is joining a coalition amicus brief supporting Supreme Court review. CAA sees the case as an opportunity to reduce procedural barriers that can prevent courts from reaching constitutional property rights claims.

Across the six matters, CAA appears as a plaintiff, coalition participant, or amicus. The cases raise questions that could affect housing providers beyond the immediate parties.