In 2016, Gotham City Council enacted a rent control law, which limited the rent that landlords were permitted to charge tenants, contingent upon the size and location of the rental unit, to provide more affordable housing for lower-income people. Bill Ockham, a landlord, and Bob Frost, one of his tenants, brought suit against the city, protesting the constitutionality of the law. The city prevailed at the trial court. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The case has been granted certiorari before the United States Supreme Court. Do you agree or disagree with the court's decision? (interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment)You may draw freely from history, philosophy, or economics if you feel it strengthens your argument. Appellant's Contention: Ockham and Frost argue that Ockham's apartment building is old and in need of renovations, including an elevator and an HVAC system. Ockham would like to provide these, among other amenities, to his tenants, however he cannot afford to perform the desired upgrades without increasing the revenue generated from his rentals. Indeed, the profit margin he extracts from his rentals after enactment of the law are barely better than break-even. Frost would be delighted to have an elevator, air conditioning, and other amenities, and he would be willing to pay the proposed increase in rent to have them. His fellow tenants unanimously agree that they would prefer to pay more rent in order to have the upgrades to their building. Such increases were contemplated in the original lease agreement, however they were subsequently invalidated due to the city's rent control law. The appellants jointly allege that the city's rent control law violates their fundamental right to form consensual, mutually beneficial agreements and interferes unlawfully with the terms of their original lease agreements. Ockham also contends that the rent control law is a taking, in effect converting his privately owned residential real restate into de facto public housing.

Respondent's Contention: The city contends that the public has an interest in ensuring access to affordable housing for lower-income citizens. The city maintains that its rent control law achieves this objective. Yet regardless whether the policy is a good one, the respondent urges that it is a matter squarely within the discretion of the elected city council, which carefully considered the issue and approved the law by a decisive majority. If landlords and tenants were permitted to sidestep the requirements of the rent control law by mutual consent, then unscrupulous landlords would employ coercive and underhanded tactics to extract consent from tenants who were not truly capable of paying higher rent rates. Landlords could moreover reject lower-income tenants who are less likely to agree to contracting around the rent control, thus obviating the very objective of the law. Therefore, the respondent maintains that its rent control law is necessary to achieve the legitimate aim of making housing in Gotham more affordable.