The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in *Marquardt v. City of New Orleans*, a case challenging New Orleans's short-term rental permitting regulations that affects property owners operating platforms like Airbnb throughout the city.
The case, decided January 9, 2026, arose from property owner Tina Marquardt's constitutional challenge to the city's short-term rental permit system. Marquardt sought a permanent injunction, declaratory judgment, and attorney fees against the City of New Orleans, arguing that the permitting regime violated her constitutional rights.
In February 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana partially granted Marquardt's summary judgment motion. The district court concluded that the City violated the Takings Clause during a specific period preceding the expiration of Marquardt's 2023 permits. Under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, governments cannot take private property for public use without just compensation.
The district court's ruling found that the city's actions during this brief period constituted a constitutional violation. However, the scope and implications of this finding remained limited to the specific timeframe identified by the court. Following this ruling, the district court directed Marquardt to brief what remedies, if any, were appropriate given the Takings Clause violation.
By the court-ordered deadline, Marquardt had briefed only the issue of attorney fees, rather than addressing the full range of potential remedies. The district court granted the attorney fee request in part and entered what it styled as a "judgment."
Both parties appealed different aspects of the district court's decision, leading to cross-appeals before the Fifth Circuit. Marquardt, serving as appellant and cross-appellee, challenged certain aspects of the lower court's ruling, while the City of New Orleans, as appellee and cross-appellant, contested other portions of the decision, particularly regarding the Takings Clause finding and attorney fee award.
The case represents another chapter in ongoing litigation surrounding New Orleans's regulation of short-term rentals. The city has faced multiple legal challenges to its permitting system as it attempts to balance neighborhood concerns about the proliferation of short-term rentals with property owners' rights to use their properties for such purposes.
New Orleans, like many cities across the country, has implemented increasingly stringent regulations on short-term rentals in response to concerns about their impact on housing availability, neighborhood character, and quality of life for permanent residents. These regulations typically include permitting requirements, operational restrictions, and enforcement mechanisms.
Property owners operating short-term rentals have frequently challenged such regulations on various constitutional grounds, including claims that they constitute regulatory takings, violate due process rights, or exceed municipal authority. The Takings Clause challenges, in particular, have become a common legal strategy for property owners seeking to protect their ability to operate short-term rentals.
The Fifth Circuit's opinion was issued per curiam, meaning it was decided by the full panel without attribution to a specific judge. The three-judge panel consisted of Chief Judge Leslie Elrod and Circuit Judges Andrea Richman and Don Willett. Notably, the court designated the opinion as unpublished, indicating it was not intended for publication and has limited precedential value under Fifth Circuit rules.
The procedural complexity of the case, involving cross-appeals on multiple issues, reflects the multifaceted nature of disputes over municipal short-term rental regulations. Such cases often involve questions of constitutional law, municipal authority, property rights, and appropriate remedies when violations are found.
The district court's finding of a Takings Clause violation, even for a limited time period, could have implications for how cities structure and implement their short-term rental permitting systems. The requirement that governments provide just compensation for takings means that regulatory schemes found to constitute takings can expose municipalities to financial liability.
The case also highlights the importance of procedural compliance in litigation. Marquardt's failure to brief the full range of potential remedies beyond attorney fees may have limited her ability to obtain broader relief, despite the court's finding of a constitutional violation.
For property owners operating short-term rentals in New Orleans and similar jurisdictions, the case underscores both the potential for successful constitutional challenges and the importance of thorough legal advocacy. The partial success on the Takings Clause claim demonstrates that courts will scrutinize municipal regulations that may go too far in restricting property rights.
The ongoing nature of litigation over short-term rental regulations reflects the continued evolution of this area of law as courts, municipalities, and property owners navigate the competing interests at stake. As cities continue to refine their regulatory approaches and property owners persist in challenging restrictions, additional litigation is likely to shape the legal landscape governing short-term rentals.