The Fair Housing Act is a groundbreaking federal law enacted in 1968 during the civil rights movement. Reflecting a policy judgment that the public’s interest in eliminating housing discrimination outweighs a prejudicial landlord’s property right to exclude, it prohibits landlords from rejecting tenants on a discriminatory basis. However, as the Act’s promises remain in the process of fulfillment, the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid has placed it into unprecedented danger: by holding that a regulation authorizing temporary occupations of private property constituted a per se taking that requires compensation under the Takings Clause, Cedar Point threatens the constitutionality of the Act, which grants tenants a similar temporary right to access rental properties.

This Comment takes up the task of finding an escape valve for the Act within the current legal landscape. Looking to Cedar Point’s Court-created exceptions, this Comment argues that the Act should fall under the “open to the public” exception because case law, common law considerations, and the normative value in preserving an important antidiscrimination law all support a finding that the Act regulates the business of offering dwelling rentals, a type of business open to the public.

《公平住房法》是一项开创性的联邦法律，于 1968 年在民权运动期间颁布。它反映了一种政策判断，即公众在消除住房歧视方面的利益超过了有偏见的房东排除财产的权利，它禁止房东以歧视为由拒绝租户。然而，由于该法案的承诺仍在履行过程中，最高法院 2021 年在 Cedar Point Nursery 诉 Hassid 案中的裁决 将其置于前所未有的危险之中：认为一项授权临时占用私有财产的法规本身构成了一项需要Cedar Point征用条款下的补偿威胁到该法案的合宪性，该法案授予租户类似的临时权利来使用出租物业。

本评论承担了在当前法律环境中为该法案寻找逃生阀的任务。考虑到 Cedar Point法院创造的例外情况，该评论认为该法案应属于“向公众开放”的例外情况，因为判例法、普通法考虑因素以及维护重要反歧视法的规范价值都支持一个发现该法规范了提供住宅租赁的业务，这是一种向公众开放的业务。