Seattle, Washington · Cedarland Homes et al. v. Ferguson et al.
Washington Forced Landlords to House People for Free. The Constitution says They Have to Pay for it.
Cedarland Homes LLC, et al. v. Robert Ferguson, et al. · Case No. 3:26-cv-05090-BJR
Class action filed December 18, 2025 · Removed to federal court · Motion to dismiss pending (noted April 3, 2026)
All named plaintiffs are members of the Rental Housing Association of Washington, each representing a jurisdiction where the moratoria were in effect.
Imagine being told by your government that you have to let someone live in your property — for free — and there's nothing you can do about it. That's what happened to thousands of Washington housing providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Your neighbor owns a small rental property down the street. A duplex, maybe. A single-family home they bought after years of saving. For a lot of Washingtonians, a rental property isn't a business—it's a retirement plan. Something they built slowly, one paycheck at a time.
​
Then COVID hit. And the State of Washington, along with nine local governments, told those owners they could no longer remove tenants who stopped paying rent. For nearly two years, housing providers across Washington kept the lights on, paid their mortgages, covered their property taxes, and collected nothing. The bills never paused. The income did.
The Gap Nobody Talked About
Rental assistance programs existed for part of that time. They were limited, underfunded, and short-lived—and they ran out long before the eviction moratoria ended. When federal and state rental assistance dried up, the moratoria kept going. Housing providers were expected to continue absorbing losses—unpaid rent, property damage, inability to enforce lease contracts—with no assistance, no program, no path to recovery.
​​
And no expectation of compensation. The state never budgeted to make landlords whole. There was never a line item for it. The unspoken assumption was that this cost—shouldered disproportionately by small, private property owners—was simply the price of the public response.
​​
Washington's answer, late in the arc, was a program called the Landlord Mitigation Fund. It capped reimbursement at $15,000 per landlord—regardless of actual damages. Accepting that limited amount required landlords to waive their legal right to pursue the tenant for the remainder. Much of the fund was never distributed. Many housing providers received nothing at all.
This fig leaf of a program provided little assistance to the landlords it compelled to carry the public burden of housing Washingtonians during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- FROM THE CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
On December 18, 2025, a class of Washington housing providers—all RHAWA members, each representing a jurisdiction where the moratoria were in effect—filed a class action in Thurston County Superior Court. The case, represented by Davis Wright Tremaine (DWT), challenges the State of Washington, King County, and the cities of Seattle, Bellevue, Burien, Everett, Kenmore, Kirkland, Olympia, and Spokane.
​
The State removed the case to federal court. It is now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma before Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. On March 20, 2026, DWT filed its response in opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss.
The legal principle at the center of this case is not new. It is not novel. It is foundational—and it has been affirmed by the United States Supreme Court across more than four decades of property-rights jurisprudence.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE
The Right to Exclude & Why it Matters Most in an Emergency
Property ownership in American law is often described as a "bundle of rights." The right to sell. The right to lease. The right to pass property to your heirs. And the right to decide who can enter your property and who cannot.
​
That last right—the right to exclude—is the foundation of everything else. The U.S. Supreme Court has called it "one of the most treasured rights of property ownership" and "the sine qua non"—the essential condition—of property itself. Without the right to exclude, the other rights collapse.
The right to exclude is "one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property." When the government authorizes physical occupation of private property, it has taken that property—and the Takings Clause requires it to pay.
- CEDAR POINT NURSERY v HASSID, 594 U.S. 139 (2021)
This is a constitutionally protected right. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth, prohibits government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. When the government physically occupies property, or authorizes a third party to do so, that is a "per se" physical taking—and compensation is categorically required.
​
Some argue that emergencies are different—that in a crisis, rights bend. The opposite is true. Constitutional rights matter most precisely when the pressure to violate them is greatest. Emergencies are when the temptation to push costs onto a small group of citizens is highest, and emergencies are when the constitutional protections are most needed. A right that disappears during a crisis is not a right. It is a preference, contingent on convenience.
​
That principle isn't theoretical. It has been the subject of Supreme Court decisions for decades:
1982
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV
Government-required physical occupation—even minor—is a per se taking. Compensation is required.
​
2022
Heights Apartments v. Walz
Eighth Circuit: Eviction moratoria that force continued occupation are physical takings requiring compensation.
​
2021
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid
Physical invasions of property—including temporary ones—are takings. "The government must pay for what it takes."
2024
Darby Development v. United States
Federal Circuit: The CDC's eviction moratorium was a physical taking under Cedar Point.
​
2021
Ala. Ass'n of Realtors v. HHS
Preventing landlords from evicting tenants "intrudes on one of the most fundamental elements of property ownership—the right to exclude."
2024
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado
A physical taking occurs when government "physically appropriates property or otherwise interferes with the owner's right to exclude others."
Two federal appellate courts—the Eighth Circuit and the Federal Circuit—have already applied this doctrine to pandemic-era eviction moratoria and concluded they were per se takings requiring compensation. The Ninth Circuit, where Washington sits, has reached a different conclusion.
That conflict is the legal terrain this case is being fought on—and it is the kind of conflict the United States Supreme Court exists to resolve.
What's at Stake
01
Compensation for housing providers who were forced to bear a public cost. The Constitution requires it. The state has not provided it. This case seeks to make those providers whole.
02
A precedent that blanket eviction moratoria are per se physical takings. A final ruling—at whatever level of the federal judiciary this case ultimately reaches—would set a national standard for what government can do to private housing providers during the next emergency.
03
The principle that constitutional rights do not vanish in a crisis. When the government asks private citizens to carry a public burden, those citizens do not get left holding the bill alone. The Fifth Amendment is not suspended during emergencies. It was written for them.
04
The future of Washington's rental housing supply. Policy environments that quietly absorb losses from private owners drive rentals off the market. The industry's willingness to provide housing depends on the industry's ability to recover its costs, and, when those costs are imposed by government, to be compensated for them.
Case Timeline
Every filing, ruling, and hearing—updated as the case progresses.
Mar. 18, 2020
State eviction moratorium begins
Governor Inslee issues Proclamation 20-19. Local governments follow with parallel ordinances. Housing providers prohibited from evicting nonpaying tenants.
Jun. 30, 2021
Initial moratorium ends—Bridge Proclamation begins
The State's Eviction Moratorium Bridge takes effect July 1, 2021, extending eviction restrictions through October 31, 2021.
Dec. 31, 2021
Statutory ban on late fees and interest ends
RCW 59.18.625 prohibited late fees, interest, and other charges on unpaid rent accruing between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021. None of it was recoverable.
Oct. 31, 2022
State of Emergency Proclamation ends
The Washington State Public Health State of Emergency formally concludes after 32 months. Many local eviction restrictions had already been tied to this date.
Oct. 31, 2023
Seattle late-fee ban expires
Seattle's ordinance prohibited late fees on rent due between February 29, 2020 and October 31, 2023—extending the damages window nearly four years past the pandemic's onset.
2023
Gonzales v. Inslee decided
Washington Supreme Court rules that the state's moratoria did not constitute a taking under state law—a holding in direct tension with federal appellate decisions from the Eighth and Federal Circuits.
Jul. 1, 2023
ERPP requirements expire
RCW 59.18.660 expires. Housing providers are no longer required to work with the Eviction Resolution Pilot Program before filing unlawful detainer actions. The full procedural apparatus tied to the moratoria finally concludes.
Dec. 18, 2025
Class action complaint filed
Cedarland Homes et al. v. Ferguson et al. filed in Thurston County Superior Court. Represents a class of Washington housing providers.
​
Feb. 2026
State removes case to federal court
The case is moved to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma. Case No. 3:26-cv-05090-BJR · Judge Barbara J. Rothstein.
Early 2026
Defendants file motion to dismiss
The State and local government defendants move to dismiss the class action, arguing primarily under Ninth Circuit precedent that forecloses the plaintiffs' takings theory.
Mar. 20, 2026
DWT files response in opposition to motion to dismiss
Seventeen-page brief arguing the moratoria were per se physical takings under Supreme Court precedent. The judge will consider the motion on or after April 3, 2026.
​
Apr. 3, 2026
Motion ready for the court's decision
Briefing complete. The judge will rule on the motion to dismiss on or after this date.
Upcoming
Class certification and further briefing
As the case progresses, RHAWA will update this page at every material milestone—filings, rulings, hearings, and appeals.
THE DEFENDANTS
The State and Nine Local Governments
STATE
State of Washington
CITY
Bellevue
CITY
Kenmore
CITY
Seattle
EXECUTIVE
Gov. Robert Ferguson
CITY
Burien
CITY
Kirkland
CITY
Spokane
COUNTY
King County
CITY
Everett
CITY
Olympia
Lead Counsel
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP is a prominent American law firm founded in 1944 and headquartered in Seattle, Washington, with more than 600 lawyers across multiple U.S. offices, offering a wide range of business, litigation, and industry-focused legal services.
​
Davis Wright Tremaine represents a class of RHAWA member housing providers—each representing a jurisdiction where the moratoria were in effect—in partnership with the Rental Housing Association of Washington. The firm brings constitutional litigation experience, Washington appellate expertise, and the resources to see a case of this scale through to final resolution—at every level of the federal judiciary.
Supported by RHAWA IMPACT
The RHAWA IMPACT Team has supported Davis Wright Tremaine and the plaintiff class throughout this effort. RHAWA IMPACT has served as a crucial partner in maintaining a consistent message and ensuring media outlets have up to date and accurate information on the ongoing litigation.
​​
RHAWA IMPACT's Efforts Include:
​​
-
Gathered, vetted and connected plaintiff class with DWT.
-
Coordinated with key media outlets to share plaintiff experiences.
-
Created and distributed media content on behalf of plaintiff class and DWT.
-
Consultation on messaging, strategy and timelines.
