The California Apartment Association and four other housing organizations have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear two cases involving property owners who were denied the opportunity to pursue constitutional takings claims.

The Aug. 21 amicus brief focuses primarily on Tedford’s Tenancy, LLC v. City of New York, which involves a couple who inherited a century-old rent-stabilized apartment building in Manhattan. Some rents were as low as $200 per month, while the building needed more than $1 million in repairs.

The owners challenged New York’s rent-stabilization laws as an unconstitutional taking. But the courts never reached that question. Instead, they found the case premature because the owners had not applied for a hardship exemption.

The owners argued that applying would be pointless. Pending tax proceedings made the building ineligible for the exemption, and even if granted, it would limit rent increases to 6%, far short of what the owners say is needed to operate and repair the building.

The case turns on a legal doctrine known as “prudential ripeness.” The doctrine can give a judge discretion to decide whether the courthouse doors are open based on whether a property owner has jumped through enough procedural hoops, even when the remaining hoops are known to be inconsequential or incapable of changing the outcome.

CAA’s brief argues that this is not what the U.S. Supreme Court’s takings decisions require. Once the government’s position is clear, an owner should not have to pursue pointless procedures before asking a court to decide whether the government has violated the Constitution.

The brief makes the same argument in Walls v. Prince George’s County. In that case, Maryland officials told a property owner they could not approve the well and septic system needed for him to build a home, despite an approved site development plan. A federal appeals court nevertheless found his takings claim premature because he had not asked the County Council to change the law.

Together, the cases show how property owners can be left in procedural limbo while government agencies insist there is always one more application, exemption or political process to pursue.

The brief also points to the broader housing consequences. Regulatory delays add costs, discourage construction and hit smaller housing providers and developers especially hard. When courts allow governments to avoid making final decisions, those delays become easier to prolong.

CAA filed the brief with the National Association of Realtors, National Association of Home Builders, San Francisco Apartment Association and Greater Boston Real Estate Board. The petitions are pending before the Supreme Court.