 inversecondemnation.com Here's the cert petition filed yesterday. We won't be saying much about this one because it is one of ours.
Here's the Question Presented, which pretty much says it all:
The City of Lathrup Village, Michigan, prohibits leasing commercial property without a license. But the City will not issue a license unless the property owner first discloses the names of prospective tenants and a description of the tenants’ principal business activity.
Petitioners omitted this information in a license application to comply with a nondisclosure provision in its lease agreements, were denied a license, and are therefore prohibited from renting their property. They sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the disclosure requirement as an unconstitutional “Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 10.
The Sixth Circuit, joining the Fourth, held that “an alleged Contracts Clause violation cannot give rise to a cause of action under § 1983.” App. 37a. In contrast, the Second, Third, Eighth, and Ninth circuits have concluded either expressly or implicitly that a Contracts Clause claim may be brought under Section 1983.
The question presented is:
Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action for a Contracts Clause claim.
More to follow, so stay tuned.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Lathfield Inv., LLC v. City of Lathrup Village, No. ___ (U.S. Sep. 25, 2...
Content mobilized by FeedBlitz RSS Services, the premium FeedBurner alternative. |
