Federal Jurisdiction, Property Rights & the Pandemic Fallout: Inside the Supreme Court’s Relist Watch
As America slowly emerges from the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic, the legal aftershocks continue to rumble—especially in the realm of property rights and federal jurisdiction. This week, two closely watched Supreme Court relists—GHP Management Corp v. City of Los Angeles and Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist—highlight how emergency policies and jurisdictional technicalities are fueling complex constitutional debates.
🏠 GHP Management Corp v. City of Los Angeles: Are Pandemic-Era Eviction Moratoriums a “Taking”?
In the early days of the pandemic, cities across the U.S. scrambled to enact eviction moratoriums to prevent mass homelessness. One of the most sweeping measures came out of Los Angeles, which blocked landlords from evicting tenants unable to pay rent due to COVID-related hardships. The city’s ordinance imposed stiff penalties even for attempting eviction during the moratorium period, which stretched well into 2023.
But GHP Management Corp, representing owners of upscale rental properties, isn’t buying the narrative that these measures were just public health precautions. They argue the moratorium amounted to an unconstitutional taking—an uncompensated seizure of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.
GHP draws on the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, which held that a law requiring property access for union organizers was a physical occupation and therefore a compensable taking. GHP contends the Los Angeles ordinance forced landlords to keep non-paying tenants indefinitely, effectively nullifying their right to exclude—a core element of property ownership.
However, both the district court and the Ninth Circuit disagreed, leaning on the precedent of Yee v. City of Escondido (1992). In Yee, the Court held that if landlords voluntarily enter into rental agreements, governments may regulate those relationships without necessarily committing a taking. Because the landlords invited tenants onto their properties voluntarily and the moratorium didn’t force new tenants on them, the courts ruled that no constitutional violation occurred.
GHP claims this is a misapplication of Yee. They argue that Cedar Point changed the game, establishing that any government-mandated occupation, even if temporary, is a taking when it overrides an owner’s right to exclude.
Los Angeles, meanwhile, maintains that its ordinance simply created an affirmative defense to eviction, not a total prohibition. They note that no landlords actually attempted eviction, so no one truly invoked the ordinance. Moreover, the city argues that GHP is relying on outdated or misinterpreted circuit decisions and that similar challenges have already been repeatedly denied by SCOTUS.
⚖️ Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist: Jurisdictional Maze in Product Liability and Diversity Cases
In a seemingly unrelated but equally jurisdiction-heavy case, the Court is also considering a dispute that involves federal diversity jurisdiction and product liability: Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist.
The case began when Texas residents Sarah and Grant Palmquist sued Hain Celestial (a New York/Delaware baby food manufacturer) and Whole Foods Market in state court, alleging their son developed autism from consuming Hain’s Earth’s Best™ baby food, which was sold by Whole Foods and allegedly contained heavy metals.
To move the case to federal court, Hain argued that the Palmquists had fraudulently included Whole Foods—a Texas-based company—to defeat diversity jurisdiction. Texas law shields “innocent sellers” from liability, and Hain claimed Whole Foods fell into that category. The district court agreed and dismissed Whole Foods with prejudice, clearing the way for federal jurisdiction.
However, the 5th Circuit disagreed and vacated the entire federal trial, sending the case back to state court. They found that Whole Foods had never been properly dismissed under jurisdictional rules and that jurisdiction was never proper in the first place.
The crux of the issue revolves around whether the dismissal of a non-diverse party (Whole Foods) before final judgment is enough to “cure” a jurisdictional defect. Hain and Whole Foods say yes, citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, a 1996 case where the Supreme Court ruled that a case could remain in federal court if complete diversity existed at the time of final judgment—even if it didn’t at removal.
The Palmquists argue Caterpillar doesn’t apply. In their view, Whole Foods was never voluntarily dismissed and remained a party throughout. Their warranty claim was always present in the complaint but clarified after removal. Thus, they say, the jurisdictional defect was never remedied.
This dispute has big implications for forum shopping, pleading standards, and how courts interpret diversity jurisdiction after removal mistakes.
🧠 Why These Cases Matter to Lawyers and Law Students
These cases showcase the living, breathing tension between statutory interpretation, constitutional rights, and procedural nuance. In GHP, we see a classic battle between property rights and public welfare—a question the courts must revisit in light of post-pandemic realities. Meanwhile, Hain Celestial dives deep into civil procedure and jurisdictional gymnastics, critical for attorneys handling multi-party litigation.
For students, these are masterclasses in understanding how SCOTUS precedent can evolve, and for practitioners, they serve as powerful reminders: even small procedural rulings can overturn entire trials.
#EvictionMoratorium #SCOTUSRelist #ConstitutionalLaw #FederalJurisdiction #TakingsClause #LandlordRights #COVID19Litigation #CivilProcedure #LegalNews #SupremeCourtWatch
lawrota.com 
Leave a comment