| Court: | US Supreme Court |
| Facts: | San Jose has rent control: you can raise the rent up to 8%. If you want to raise more, you need to justify it before a commission. Pennell wants to assert this is unconstitutional. |
| Posture: | Appeal from CA Supreme Court rejecting the 14A claims. |
| Issue: | Is this per se unconstitutional? |
| Holding: | No. Affirmed. |
| Rule: | We only decide the constitutionality of statutes when an actual factual setting warrants it. |
| Reasoning: | Rent control is not unconstitutional per se. Price control is related to the rational goal of consumer welfare. This ordinance only requires a hearing for additional increases-- it's sensitive to the factual context. |
| Dicta: | Dissent: the fact that some renters are too poor to keep up with the market isn't a landlord's fault, so why should we burden them with it? If we want to subsidize folks, well and good, but that should be via tax-and-spend (i.e., the public should bear the cost). |