Block v. Hirsch

Supreme Court of the United States · 1919 · Property

256 U.S. 135 (1921)

Updated July 23, 2026

Propertypolice poweremergency legislationrent controlholdover tenantpublic interestdue processtemporary regulation

Facts

Block remained in possession of the cellar and first floor of a building in Washington, D.C., after his lease expired on December 31, 1919. Hirsh had purchased the building during the lease term and notified Block on December 15, 1919, that possession would be required when the lease ended. Block refused to surrender possession, relying on Title II of the Act of October 22, 1919, which allowed tenants to continue in possession at their option subject to regulation and rent control by a Commission. The statute also allowed an owner to recover possession for actual and bona fide occupancy by himself or certain family members upon thirty days' written notice, but Hirsh did not give that notice because he denied the act's validity.

Issue

Whether Congress constitutionally could, as emergency wartime legislation, allow tenants in the District of Columbia to remain in possession after lease expiration, subject to administrative rent regulation, without effecting an unconstitutional taking or deprivation of property without due process of law. The case also raised whether the statute's displacement of ordinary possessory proceedings and jury trial was constitutionally permissible.

Rule

A legislature may, in response to a genuine public emergency, temporarily regulate the letting of property, including rent and continued possession by tenants, when circumstances have clothed that business with a public interest great enough to justify regulation. Such regulation is valid under the police power if reasonably related to the public exigency, includes provision for a reasonable rent, and does not go so far as to become a taking without due process of law.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After a major naval mobilization, Congress finds that Baltimore has a severe housing shortage that threatens public health and disrupts federal operations in the region. It enacts a statute lasting 18 months that lets residential tenants remain after lease expiration if they continue paying rent, subject to adjustment by a housing board to a reasonable amount.

A landlord challenges the statute solely because it prevents immediate recovery of possession at the end of the lease term. Under the governing doctrine, how should a court most likely rule?

Explanation. The majority held that, when a genuine public emergency exists, letting property may become affected with a public interest sufficient to justify temporary regulation. A law may therefore temporarily restrict a landlord's usual right to immediate possession if it is reasonably related to the emergency and secures a reasonable rent. The mere continuation of possession after lease expiration does not automatically make the law unconstitutional.