Background
Tom Hutto, a short-term rental host in Rock Hill, South Carolina, challenged the city’s regulations limiting short-term rentals. The city adopted regulations in 2020, 2022, and 2023 to address concerns about noise, traffic, and the residential character of neighborhoods. Hutto filed a lawsuit alleging violations of his First Amendment rights, equal protection rights, due process rights, and the Dormant Commerce Clause. The district court granted summary judgment to the city on all claims.
The court’s reasoning
The court affirmed the district court’s decision on multiple grounds. First, Hutto lacked standing to bring claims on behalf of his guests because he failed to show a hindrance to the guests’ ability to protect their own rights. Second, the court held that local policymakers were entitled to legislative privilege during depositions regarding legislative activities. Third, the court found that the regulations did not constitute unconstitutional retaliation because the city’s motive was to address concerns raised in the lawsuit, not to punish protected speech. Finally, the court applied rational basis review to Hutto’s substantive due process, equal protection, and livelihood claims, concluding that the regulations were rationally related to the city’s legitimate interests in preserving housing stock and neighborhood character.
Because we agree that Hutto lacks standing to bring claims on behalf of his guests and that, as to his own claims, the regulations fit comfortably within Rock Hill’s traditional zoning authority, we affirm.
Opinion at 2
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces the ability of municipalities to regulate short-term rentals through zoning without facing successful constitutional challenges from hosts regarding their guests’ rights or claims of legislative privilege. It also clarifies that property owners cannot assert third-party standing for guests in short-term rental disputes.