Clarifying Standing and Upholding Consent-Conditioned Rental Inspections:
The Sixth Circuit’s Decision in Herschfus v. City of Oak Park (2025)

1. Introduction

In Brian H. Herschfus v. City of Oak Park, Michigan, No. 24-1451 (decided 5 Aug 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit confronted a familiar tension between property owners’ Fourth Amendment protections and municipalities’ need to enforce minimum-housing standards.

The plaintiff, landlord Brian Herschfus, refused to sign a consent clause that Oak Park requires before issuing a biennial rental license. When the City withheld the license and repeatedly fined him for renting without one, he sued, alleging:

• a Fourth Amendment “unconstitutional-conditions” violation,
• a related procedural due-process claim, and
• an Equal Protection Clause violation.

The Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment to the City, holding that Herschfus lacked standing to press the Fourth Amendment claim and that, in any event, the claims failed on the merits. On appeal the Sixth Circuit:

• reversed on standing, recognizing that the “forced choice” between surrendering a constitutional right and receiving a license is itself a cognizable injury, but
• affirmed on the merits, upholding the inspection scheme as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and rational under Equal Protection analysis.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Judge John B. Nalbandian (joined by Judge Griffin) delivered the opinion; Judge Moore concurred only in the judgment, believing Vonderhaar v. Village of Evendale controlled the standing inquiry. The majority holding can be distilled into three key propositions:

1. Standing Exists: A plaintiff who forfeits a government benefit (here, a rental license) rather than waive a constitutional right (here, protection against warrantless searches) sustains a monetary and regulatory injury sufficient for Article III standing (Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. followed).
2. The Consent Condition Is Constitutional: Requiring landlords to permit an initial code inspection as a condition of licensure does not impose an unreasonable search. The City’s scheme resembles:
   • welfare home-visitation in Wyman v. James, not
   • the compelled, criminally-enforced inspections struck down in Camara or Patel.
3. No Equal Protection Violation: Differential treatment of one- and two-family rentals (vis-à-vis owner-occupied homes and large multi-unit buildings) rationally advances public-health and parity goals already addressed by state law for bigger complexes.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595 (2013) – Recognized denial of a permit as injury for unconstitutional-conditions claims; formed cornerstone of standing analysis.
• Stavrianoudakis v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 108 F.4th 1128 (9th Cir. 2024) – Persuasive authority; “forced choice” doctrine applied to falconry licensing echoed here.
• Vonderhaar v. Village of Evendale, 906 F.3d 397 (6th Cir. 2018) – Distinguished by majority; invoked by concurrence; previously denied standing absent past or imminent search.
• Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) & City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015) – Show warrantless administrative searches are unreasonable when refusal is punishable criminally; used to demarcate constitutional boundary.
• Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309 (1971) – Main analogue; welfare benefits may hinge on a non-criminal home visit; supports City’s limited-search condition.
• Benjamin v. Stemple, 915 F.3d 1066 (6th Cir. 2019) – Earlier Sixth-Circuit landlord challenge; cited to show cognizable Fourth Amendment interests.
• Liberty Coins, LLC v. Goodman, 880 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 2018) – Demonstrates when inspection schemes do cross the line (criminal penalties).

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Standing (Art. III)
   • Monetary fines and ongoing liability equal “classic pocketbook harm.”
   • The denial of a license for refusal to consent is a present injury (not speculative).
   • Koontz & Stavrianoudakis trump Vonderhaar when the gravamen is a condition, not an actual search.
2. Fourth Amendment Merits
   • Administrative-search jurisprudence asks: Is the search reasonable in light of its purpose and the safeguards offered?
   • Oak Park supplies three safeguards:
     1. Inspection limited to health-and-safety code compliance.
     2. No criminal penalty for declining the inspection; consequence is only denial of license.
     3. Owner may always refuse future “subsequent” inspections and insist on an administrative warrant.
   • The scheme thus parallels Wyman; differs from Camara/Patel where refusal constituted a misdemeanor.
3. Equal Protection
   • Classification = “landlord of 1-2 family rental” (non-suspect).
   • Rational basis satisfied: state law already polices larger complexes; Oak Park seeks parity and targets units statistically more prone to code violations.

3.3 Potential Impact

The opinion crafts two significant guideposts for courts and municipalities within the Sixth Circuit:

• Clarified Standing Doctrine: Plaintiffs who forfeit a license or benefit under protest can access federal court without awaiting an actual search. This lowers the barrier for pre-enforcement challenges.
• Inspection-Scheme Blueprint: Municipalities may require a one-time, pre-occupancy health-and-safety inspection if (a) refusal only triggers denial of license, not criminal sanction, and (b) subsequent inspections allow for warrant procedures.
• Circuit Harmony / Potential Split: The ruling parts company with the Sixth Circuit’s own earlier Vonderhaar logic (per concurrence), and aligns with the Ninth Circuit’s Stavrianoudakis. Other circuits may now confront whether to adopt the “forced-choice” injury model.
• Guidance for Landlords & Tenants: Landlords retain leverage to insist on warrants for subsequent inspections, but cannot obtain a license without consenting to an initial code check.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Unconstitutional-Conditions Doctrine: The government cannot make you “trade” a constitutional right in exchange for a public benefit – unless the trade is reasonable and voluntary. Example: Airport security screening to board a plane.
• Administrative Search: A non-criminal inspection carried out to enforce health, safety, or regulatory codes. Think of a fire-marshal visit, not a police drug raid.
• Pre-Compliance Review: An opportunity (often by warrant request) to have a neutral judge decide whether an inspection is justified before it happens.
• Rational-Basis Review: The most lenient constitutional test. A law survives if any conceivable legitimate purpose could justify the classification.
• Standing: The requirement that a plaintiff show a personal, concrete stake in the dispute (injury-in-fact, traceability, and redressability) before a federal court can decide the merits.

5. Conclusion

Herschfus v. City of Oak Park is now the leading Sixth-Circuit authority on two fronts:

1. It articulates that denial of a license for refusal to waive Fourth-Amendment rights is itself a cognizable injury, broadening access to pre-enforcement review.
2. It affirms that municipal rental-inspection regimes can survive constitutional scrutiny when they rely on a voluntary-consent model for initial inspections and reserve warrants for later entries.

Although Judge Moore’s concurrence highlights an unresolved intra-circuit tension with Vonderhaar, the majority opinion offers municipalities a constitutionally safe harbor and provides property owners clear notice of their rights and obligations. In the evolving landscape of housing regulation, Herschfus stands as a carefully balanced precedent that both enables effective code enforcement and preserves essential constitutional protections.