A Washington court recently invalidated a Seattle ordinance that mandated landlords rent to the first qualified prospective tenant who submitted an application. This law, often referred to as a “first-in-time” rule, was enacted with the stated aim of mitigating the effects of unconscious or implicit bias in the tenant selection process.
Grounds for the Decision
In her ruling, Judge Suzanne Parisien concluded that the ordinance was unconstitutional on three distinct grounds: the violation of fundamental property rights, the infringement of due process rights, and the contravention of the First Amendment.
Violation of Property Rights
The court determined that the law violated a landlord’s fundamental property rights by effectively stripping them of the ability to “freely dispose of property” and choose their own tenants. The ruling characterized the ability to select tenants as a “fundamental attribute of property ownership.” By restricting this choice, the ordinance was deemed to exceed the permissible scope of government regulation concerning private property.
Violation of Due Process Rights
Judge Parisien also concluded that the ordinance violated landlords’ due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the law imposed its mandatory renting rule without necessary limitations. The judge stated, “A law that undertakes to abolish or limit the exercise of rights beyond what is necessary to provide for the public welfare cannot be included in the lawful police power of the government.” In the court’s view, the ordinance went too far beyond what could be justified under the government’s police power to promote public welfare.
Violation of the First Amendment
Finally, the court found the law to be in violation of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. This conclusion was based on the fact that the ordinance broadly banned certain types of advertising by property owners without requiring an individualized suspicion of discriminatory intent.
The invalidation of this “first-in-time” ordinance has significant implications for both landlords and tenants in Seattle and serves as a notable example of a municipality’s efforts to regulate rental practices running afoul of established constitutional protections.
Citations/Sources: [David Kroman, Crosscut, earlier]; Ilya Somin.
