Yesterday’s post was at pains to show how the Supreme Court, in Yee v. Escondido, both the decision itself (blue Georgia) and its syllabus (black Georgia), didn’t exculpate all rent control, such as New York City’s rent control being challenged in James Harmon’s lawsuit against New York City, from being a taking, it merely exculpated it of being a physical taking.  (And not every rent control, just the Escondido ordinance.)  The Yee court also clearly understood that laws can have economic consequences while also having public purpose, with this passage whose meaning and relevance will undoubtedly be a central focus of argument should the Court take the case: