Federal government declines Supreme Court review in Darby, leaving major landlord victory intact

Nov. 6th, 2025 By Whitney Prout

CAA Executive Vice President, Legal Affairs

The federal government opted not to seek U.S. Supreme Court review in Darby Development Co. v. United States, a landmark case seeking compensation for the taking of property caused by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 eviction moratorium.

This development could influence ongoing legal battles in California, including the California Apartment Association’s challenge to Alameda County’s eviction moratorium.

The Darby ruling represents a significant breakthrough for property rights. It holds that when the government prevents landlords from removing nonpaying tenants, it can amount to a physical taking under the Fifth Amendment — essentially requiring private property owners to provide housing for free.

Importantly, Darby overcame an obstacle that has tripped up most other landlord takings cases: the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Yee v. City of Escondido.

While Yee recognized that governments have broad authority to regulate the landlord-tenant relationship, the Federal Circuit in Darby clarified that Yee does not categorically immunize all government actions involving that relationship from being treated as physical takings.

At a glance

What is the Darby case?

The case challenges the CDC’s nationwide COVID-19 eviction moratorium. The Federal Circuit ruled landlords have a valid claim that being forced to house nonpaying tenants may be a physical taking under the Fifth Amendment, allowing their compensation claims to move forward.

Why this matters to California landlords

The decision strengthens legal arguments in CAA’s lawsuit against Alameda County, which had one of the state’s longest eviction bans. A favorable outcome in Darby could bolster landlords’ efforts to recover losses or prevent similar policies.

Key Legal Terms

• Certiorari: The process by which the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to review a lower court decision.

• Physical taking: When the government requires property owners to let others use their property without compensation.

• Fifth Amendment: The constitutional protection that says private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation.

  
  

Although the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction, it only hears cases against the federal government. Its rulings therefore are not binding in challenges to state or local measures, such as CAA’s ongoing lawsuit against Alameda County. Still, the Darby decision carries significant persuasive weight and could pave the way for eventual Supreme Court review if other federal appellate courts — such as the Ninth Circuit, where CAA’s case is pending — reach different conclusions.

CAA’s lawsuit against Alameda County challenges one of the longest-running COVID-era eviction moratoriums in the nation. CAA argues that the county’s policy effectively required property owners to house tenants who did not pay rent for extended periods, imposing the costs of public housing policy on private landlords. After the district court dismissed CAA’s claims, it filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, where the Darby ruling is expected to bolster its argument that such mandates constitute unconstitutional takings.

The government’s decision not to appeal leaves in place a strong precedent affirming that property owners are entitled to seek compensation when government policy shifts the costs of housing nonpaying tenants onto them. However, the Darby plaintiffs have not yet won their case outright. The ruling simply allows their claims to move forward. The case now returns to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, where landlords must prove that the facts of their situation amount to a taking, not just that they have a valid legal theory.

Source Article