Donald Trump’s housing proposal called constitutionally dead on arrival by legal experts

Trump’s proposal to ban institutional investors from buying single-family homes might be well-intentioned, but Today in Ohio hosts laid out Monday the significant constitutional hurdles that would likely render the plan impossible to implement.

The proposal, which has received support from Senator Bernie Moreno, aims to “stop Wall Street from competing with Main Street home buyers” by having the attorney general and Federal Trade Commission forbid large investors from purchasing single-family homes. While the intention may be popular, the legal foundation is not there.

Case Western Reserve University law professor emeritus Jonathan Entin provided a detailed analysis to reporter Sabrina Eaton, whose story was the basis for Monday’s discussion.

“The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized business entities as legal persons for 140 years. And he (Entin) says the government would need a pretty powerful justification to say that a type of business can’t buy property,” said Lisa Garvin.

The constitutional issues don’t stop with corporate personhood. The ban would potentially violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which prevent both federal and state governments from depriving people – including corporate entities – of property without due process.

A key problem is how the proposal could harm people looking to sell their houses. Removing those buyers, says Entin, could depress home values. And that could be a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Chris Quinn continued to express skepticism about the plan’s viability: “This pretty much confirmed everything I thought. You can’t do this. You can’t do it because companies are viewed as people in America, have been for years and years… It makes my house less valuable if people that want to buy it can’t buy it.”

The podcast hosts also noted that the executive order itself contains problematic elements beyond its constitutional issues. Trump’s directive is to the Federal Trade Commission, which is an independent branch of government.

“Entin says it’s unclear if the president can direct the FTC to do anything,” Garvin said.

Despite the legal issues that would likely doom such a ban, the proposal may still achieve political aims by appearing to address housing affordability concerns. Today in Ohio’s panel remained unconvinced by the substance behind the announcement.

Listen to the discussion here.