Tom Hutto, a property owner in Rock Hill, South Carolina, operates approximately a dozen short-term rental (STR) units. In response to citizen complaints regarding noise, traffic, and neighborhood disruption, the City of Rock Hill adopted a series of regulations in 2020, 2022, and 2023 that restricted STRs to specific commercial zones and banned events like weddings at residential STRs. Hutto sued, challenging the regulations on seven constitutional grounds, including First Amendment retaliation, equal protection, substantive due process, and the Dormant Commerce Clause. He also attempted to assert the rights of his transient guests. The district court granted summary judgment to the city, ruling that Hutto lacked standing to sue on behalf of his guests and that the regulations were a valid exercise of the city's zoning authority. Hutto appealed, arguing the regulations were unconstitutional and that the city improperly invoked legislative privilege to block discovery into the lawmakers' motives.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on multiple grounds. First, the court addressed Hutto's attempt to assert the rights of his guests. Under the third-party standing doctrine, a plaintiff must show a close relationship with the third party and a hindrance to the third party's ability to protect their own interests. The court found that Hutto failed to demonstrate such a hindrance, noting that guests could seek injunctive relief or damages after their stays and that there was no risk of mootness or privacy concerns preventing them from suing. Consequently, the court dismissed the claims regarding the guests' First Amendment and Privileges and Immunities rights. Second, the court addressed the legislative privilege issue. It held that local legislators and their staff are entitled to legislative privilege to protect the integrity of the legislative process, preventing discovery into their motives during depositions. The court rejected Hutto's argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Benisek v. Lamone created a broad exception for retaliation claims, noting that Benisek was limited to redistricting cases and that Hutto had not preserved a broader argument. Third, regarding the substantive constitutional challenges, the court applied rational basis review. It found that the city's regulations were rationally related to legitimate government interests in preserving the residential character of neighborhoods and preventing commercial disruption. The court emphasized that rational basis review requires only a conceivable rational relationship between the means and ends, and Hutto failed to negate every conceivable basis for the city's actions. The court also rejected the equal protection claim, finding that STR hosts are not similarly situated to homeowners associations or other property owners who are not subject to the same restrictions, and that the regulations applied equally to all STR hosts. Finally, the court dismissed the substantive due process and Dormant Commerce Clause claims, finding no evidence of discrimination against interstate commerce and confirming that the regulations fell within the city's traditional police power.
The decision leaves Rock Hill's short-term rental regulatory scheme intact. Property owners like Hutto must comply with the city's zoning restrictions, which limit STRs to specific commercial areas and ban events at residential units. The ruling clarifies that property owners cannot litigate on behalf of their guests and that local zoning decisions regarding short-term rentals are subject to a highly deferential rational basis standard. The decision also reinforces the scope of legislative privilege for local officials, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to discover the subjective motives behind zoning ordinances in civil rights litigation.