A legal battle is brewing over New York City's rent stabilization law, with property owners claiming it infringes on their rights. The Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP) and the Rent Stabilization Association of NYC (RSA) have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their case, arguing the law has negatively impacted both landlords and tenants for over 50 years.

The lawsuit contends that the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL), considered the nation's strictest rental housing regulation, unfairly restricts property owners' control over their units. They argue it prevents owners from reclaiming their property, altering its use, or even leaving it vacant after a lease expires, effectively granting tenants perpetual lease renewals unless they violate the law.

The case, initially dismissed by lower courts, has garnered support from prominent organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, real estate groups, and think tanks like the Manhattan Institute and Cato Institute. These groups have filed amicus briefs backing the plaintiffs' argument that the RSL is unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs emphasize they aren't seeking financial compensation, but rather a legal declaration against future enforcement of rent stabilization. They believe this would not only protect property owners' rights but also encourage the government to explore alternative solutions for affordable housing, such as increasing housing supply and providing targeted assistance.

CHIP and RSA, representing thousands of property owners and managing a substantial portion of rent-stabilized units in NYC, await the Supreme Court's decision on whether to hear the case, which could happen as early as this fall.