Just Cause

Just cause eviction protections (also known as “good cause” or “for cause”) are designed to prevent arbitrary, retaliatory, or discriminatory evictions by establishing that landlords can only evict renters for specific reasons — just causes — such as failure to pay rent. Currently in many cities and states, landlords can evict tenants or not renew leases without providing any reason at all, leaving tenants little time to plan their next steps. Just cause eviction ordinances are an important policy tool to prevent displacement and promote tenant stability, especially in neighborhoods where rents are rising and vacancies are low, and where landlords may seek to evict existing tenants to renovate their buildings and attract wealthier renters at higher prices. Just cause also protects tenants who report uninhabitable housing conditions or request repairs, making it less risky to exercise their right to livable conditions. 

In concert with other anti-displacement strategies, just cause policies can help shift the power imbalance between landlords and tenants in the housing ecosystem and achieve housing stability. A study of just cause ordinances in four California cities found that the policies were effective in decreasing eviction, which can be a destabilizing force in many communities.  Eviction protections like just cause also promote racial equity since people of color disproportionately rent and face greater eviction risks: studies have found that Black renters experience evictions at higher rates than other racial/ethnic groups. And by stemming eviction, just cause policies can prevent the negative health consequences of eviction including depression, poorer health, higher levels of stress, and higher rates of material hardship, especially among low-income mothers. Just cause policies can, therefore, help slow the processes of gentrification that can displace entire neighborhoods and maintain neighborhood stability — allowing all residents, regardless of race or income, to stay and benefit from community reinvestment and growth.  Municipalities also have a bottom-line interest in housing stability: when financially insecure residents are evicted from their homes, city budgets pay a big price due to lost tax revenue, unpaid utilities, and increased costs associated with services for people experiencing homelessness.

In addition to PolicyLink resources, see the Community Service Society of New York and National Low Income Housing Coalition for more resources on just cause ordinances.

• Elected and appointed state officials can champion and pass just cause legislation or just cause-enabling legislation to give local officials the option to pass their own just cause eviction ordinances and allocate sufficient resources for enforcement. The latter is especially important in Dillon’s Rule states, in which local governments can only exercise powers that are explicitly granted by the state. 
   
• Elected and appointed city officials can champion and pass just cause eviction ordinances and allocate sufficient resources for enforcement. In most jurisdictions, an administrative agency, such as a rent board, oversees and enforces the just cause ordinance.
   
• Tenant organizers, community-based organizations, movement lawyers and other advocates can develop broad coalitions and advance grassroots campaigns to build public will for the passage of just cause ordinances, putting political pressure on local electeds to take action to reduce evictions and prevent displacement. Once laws are passed, these groups play an important role in notifying tenants of their new rights and holding agencies accountable for implementation and enforcement.
   
• Local universities and research institutions can support eviction prevention advocacy efforts by investing in and conducting quantitative and qualitative research on the detrimental effects of housing instability and evictions on households and communities. For example, the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs produced, “The Illusion of Choice: Evictions and Profit in North Minneapolis” illustrating the impacts of evictions on the city’s housing market. Once policies are passed, these institutions can conduct proactive evaluation research focused on tracking the benefits and positive impacts of just cause on eviction rates and housing stability.
   
• Legal aid organizations, in addition to supporting tenants facing eviction with legal support, can leverage their intake data to demonstrate the need for eviction prevention policies like just cause. Even when limited by funder restrictions or Legal Services Corporation (LSC) lobbying restrictions, organizations can publish reports sharing client stories and their experiences in the housing market related to eviction and displacement. These stories can then be used by local partners in their advocacy to advance housing justice.

Just cause ordinances are often established by city councils or state legislatures; in some instances, policies have been passed or strengthened through a ballot initiative process. The key steps to success include mobilizing a strong case and broad base of support, drafting a strong law that can withstand legal challenges, pairing just cause with rent stabilization efforts, and ensuring adequate enforcement and community education.

Cities and states seeking to implement a just cause eviction ordinance must consider a range of related legal and logistical questions.
 

• Preemption: Take into account how state legislatures pass laws that prevent local officials from enacting ordinances to address just cause evictions and advocate for state level protections against preemption. Related, be aware of state governing doctrines like Dillon’s Rule, which require state governments to explicitly grant municipalities’ the power to pass certain local policies.
   
• Defining applicable cases: Decide what type of rental units or lease terms the just cause protections should apply to, such as tenants in multifamily buildings larger than a certain number of units, tenants with certain lease lengths, or even tenants in specific zip codes that experience higher eviction rates. Given research on the heightened eviction rates seen in single family rentals with large corporate owners, it is especially important to consider a just cause policy that includes renters in single-family homes. An ordinance can also provide further protections for vulnerable populations like seniors, disabled, or terminally ill people by exempting them from certain allowed eviction causes. Just cause policies should aim for maximum coverage by minimizing exemptions. Ultimately, everyone – regardless of what type of building or neighborhood they live in – deserves the stability of just cause protections.
   
• Defining just causes: Defining "just causes" for lease termination  is at the heart of just cause ordinances.  Seattle's policy includes 18 such causes, while Oakland's includes only 11. Commonly covered “good” or “just” causes are non-payment of rent, material violation of lease, and nuisance, disturbance or negligent damage to property. Cities should also carefully define instances where "no fault" evictions are allowed, such as owner or relative move-in, especially given rising accounts of loopholes these exemptions create. The same problem emerged in California with “renovictions”, through which landlords use renovation work as a reason to evict residents and replace them with higher rent-paying tenants. This tool by PolicyLink and Colorado Homes for All serves as a helpful comparison tool for just cause legislation across seven states.
   
• Protecting renters in foreclosed units: Tenants living in rental properties where the property owner faces foreclosure can end up being evicted, even when in full compliance with their lease terms. Just cause ordinances can define tenancy as surviving foreclosure in order to protect these renters against unfair evictions, such as New Jersey’s Foreclosure Fairness Act.
   
• Support for tenants facing just cause eviction: In the case of allowed "no fault" evictions, such as instances of owner move-in, cities can provide support for displaced tenants, such as relocation assistance. Ordinances should also include a method for tenants to contest lease terminations and defend against evictions within an adequate window of time, which can be strengthened by complementary right to counsel programs that provide tenants with legal assistance when facing evictions. In Philadelphia, for example, tenants can file a complaint with the Fair Housing Commission (FHC) if they believe the reason for a lease termination is not covered by the local just cause ordinance. In most circumstances, this prevents an eviction case from being filed in court until the FHC complaint has been resolved.
   
• Effective enforcement: Cities and states should define and enforce meaningful penalties for landlords who illegally evict tenants, which may include fines paid to the city and the reinstatement of tenancy. Policymakers should lay out a clear and expedited legal process for tenants to fight unjust evictions and require an adequate notice period for tenants to exercise their rights. Incorporating a private right of action into the law is one way that policymakers can ensure tenants can directly file a lawsuit against a landlord in court if they believe their rights have been violated.
   
• Tenant education: When just cause eviction ordinances are passed, community education and outreach to existing and future tenants can help ensure that they understand their rights and the legal means to contest unjust evictions.
   
• Establishing complementary tenant protections:  Just cause policies work best when coordinated with other tenant protection policies, such as rent stabilization or vacancy control laws. Without these protections, exorbitant rent hikes can serve as an effective round-about way of displacing tenants outside of a formal eviction process that would be governed by a just cause ordinance. It is critically important that policies include protections such as relocation assistance and right to counsel as well.

Grassroots campaigns across the country are calling for just cause ordinances to protect tenants from arbitrary, retaliatory, and discriminatory evictions. These ordinances are most effective when matched with rent control policies and part of a larger ongoing strategy to protect tenants' rights. For an overview of the seven state-level just cause ordinances passed and implemented since April 2024, review PolicyLink and Colorado Homes for All’s comparison tool.

• After a multi-year campaign by tenants and housing justice advocates across the state, the New York legislature passed a good cause policy in 2024. The legislation not only gives tenants the right to remain in their unit unless their landlord can prove there is good cause for eviction, but also protects tenants from excessive rent increases. The rent increases are limited to 5% + CPI or 10%, whichever is lower. Tenants living in units covered by the law can challenge rent increases above the annual limit by requiring the landlord to prove to a court that the increase is reasonable.
   
• In 2024, Colorado legislators passed for cause legislation after advocates’ increased demands for laws to advance tenant stability. The law clarifies allowable reasons for eviction during a lease, permissible reasons for a landlord to refuse lease renewal, and increases the non-renewal notice period to 90 days. The Colorado Homes for All coalition led this 2-year campaign through which renters, organizers and advocates built political power to win a strong law that centered the needs of their most deeply impacted community members.
   
• The Washington legislature passed a statewide just cause eviction law in 2021, requiring landlords to provide a valid reason – such as failure to pay rent, unlawful activity and nuisance issues, as well as cases in which a landlord intends to sell or move into a rental – for ending certain leases with tenants. The main exception is that landlords can still end a tenancy at the end of an initial lease without cause if the initial rental term is between six months and one year and the tenant is given 60 days notice. Landlords who violate the law may be subject to a penalty of up to three months’ rent, attorney fees and costs.
   
• Both Oregon and California passed statewide rent stabilization and just cause laws in 2019, seeking to give tenants all-around protections from both economic evictions (through unaffordable rent increases that force people out of their homes) and no-cause evictions. In both states, tenants must meet a 12-month tenancy minimum to trigger just cause protections. Key differences between the state laws are that California’s just cause only applies to buildings built at least 15 years ago, whereas Oregon does not have a new construction exemption. Furthermore, Oregon’s just cause protections apply to mobile home renters, while California’s do not.
   
• In 2018, City Councilmembers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania nearly unanimously passed a “good cause” bill, which requires landlords to give an approved reason for evicting a tenant. Currently, the law applies to tenants who have lease terms less than twelve months long, which is where protections are most needed. This campaign was led by a coalition of renters, legal and advocacy organizations who simultaneously ran a successful campaign for right to counsel, which Philadelphia City Council unanimously passed in 2019 and went into effect early 2022. 
   
• In 2017, San Jose took action after decades of community activism to enact the Tenant Protection Ordinance implementing just cause protections. Amid soaring Silicon Valley rents and a shortage of affordable housing, the city council required landlords to cite one of a dozen reasons for eviction, distinguishing between "just causes" based on tenant actions and "no-fault just causes," which would require relocation benefits paid to tenants. The ordinance covered existing rental agreements and was initially set to take effect after 45 days. However, shortly after the ordinance passed, at least 30 families received no-cause eviction notices. To curb these last-minute evictions, the council passed an urgency ordinance within weeks to enact the recently passed ordinance immediately. A 2024 audit of the city’s policy found that it covers over 40,000 San Jose homes, but lacks an administrative enforcement process that can catch violations and hold bad actors accountable. Per the ordinance, city officials can sue landlords who violate the policy for up to $2,500 per day, or $10,000 per violation; however, the city has no enforcement policy to determine what merits a warning or citation.
   
• The City of Oakland passed its Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance in 2002, which includes 11 legally defined "just causes." Within weeks, the Rental Housing Association of Northern Alameda County filed a petition seeking to invalidate several provisions. The most significant provision, prohibiting landlords from evicting tenants without cause, was upheld.  The case was unsuccessfully appealed, and several advocacy groups came together to reach an agreement with the Rental Housing Association. In recent years, average rent in Oakland more than doubled due to the Bay Area housing crisis. Facing unprecedented displacement pressures, voters passed Measure JJ in 2016 to strengthen the city's just cause protections and expand coverage to about 12,000 more units. Voters made even more improvements to Oakland’s just cause in 2018 through the passage of Measure Y, which expanded protections to tenants of owner-occupied duplexes and triplexes. Most recently, voters passed Measure V in 2018, which eliminated the landlord’s ability to evict a tenant if they decide not to renew their lease, and prohibited evictions of educators and families with children during the school year. Like San Jose’s just cause policy, Oakland’s legislation was further strengthened by the passage of California’s Just Cause for Eviction law in 2019. Oakland’s history of just cause amendments demonstrates the importance of an engaged housing justice movement in continuing to push the city to better protect its residents from eviction.
   
• Connecticut has had a limited set of good cause eviction protections for over forty years. This long-standing law prohibits no-fault evictions against renters who are at least 62 years old or have a disability and live in a building with five or more units. Through HB 6889, organizers and advocates are fighting to expand these protections to a much broader tenant population – to all tenants living in buildings with five or more units. 
   
• Owners of low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) buildings must have good cause to evict tenants, but many state tax credit allocating agencies have failed to implement and enforce this requirement. Due to demands from advocates and tenants, some states have taken the necessary steps to make good cause a reality in LIHTC properties. For example, California requires all LIHTC properties to have a good cause lease rider, Massachusetts refers to good cause in its LIHTC regulatory agreement, and Wisconsin includes good cause in its LIHTC compliance manual.