Today, on behalf of the Manufactured Housing Institute, we filed this amicus brief (also available below) in the U.S. Supreme Court in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, No. 10-1125 (petition for cert. filed Mar. 11, 2011).

In that case, California mobile home park owners are asking the Court to review the decision of a sharply divided en banc Ninth Circuit which held that Goleta's mobile home rent control ordinance did not work a regulatory taking under Penn Central. The core of the majority opinion is based on the court's supposition that the Guggenheims could not have "investment-backed expectations" because the rent control regulations were in place when they purchased their property. See Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, No. 06-56306 (9th Cir., Dec. 22, 2010) (en banc).

This brief argues that the Ninth Circuit wrongly refused to apply the rule of Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), which held that post-enactment purchasers did not lose their Fifth Amendment rights simply by virtue of the fact that they purchased property subject to restrict regulations. The brief also details the disarray in the lower courts, many of which have similarly refused to adhere to Palazzolo's rule.