Block v. Hirsh - Hirsh Needs A Home

A certain Hirsh (the records do not mention his or his tenant's first name) purchased an apartment building on F Street in Washington, where Block occupied the cellar and ground floor. Hirsh claimed that he wanted Block's apartment for his own use; however, he did not give Block 30 days notice as the law provided.

Instead, Hirsh challenged the constitutionality of the entire rent control law. The act was unconstitutional because it took away Hirsh's property and put it under Block's control. Thus the law took private property for public and not for private use. By taking private property without compensation, it deprived its owner of due process of law, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals invalidated the rent control law and held that Hirsh was entitled to occupancy. Block appealed to the Supreme Court, where the United States appeared as amicus curiae to defend the rent control law.

The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court and upheld the law by 5-4. Justice Holmes wrote the majority decision supported by Justices Day, Pitney, Brandeis, and Clarke. Justice McKenna wrote a scathing dissent, supported by Chief Justice White and Justices Van Devanter, and McReynolds.