States, 572 U.S. 844, 858, 134 S. Ct. 2077, 189 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2014) (internal quotation
marks omitted) (quoting Gregory, 501 U.S. at 460). When legislation will influence “the
federal balance, the requirement of clear statement assures that the legislature has in fact
faced, and intended to bring into issue, the critical matters involved in the judicial
decision.” United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 349, 92 S. Ct. 515, 30 L. Ed. 2d 488
(1971).
The United States Supreme Court has applied the clear statement federalism rule
when interpreting statutes touching on areas of “traditional state responsibility.” Bond,
572 U.S at 858 (citing Gregory, 501 U.S. at 460 (qualifications for state officers); BFP v.
Resol. Tr. Corp., 511 U.S. 531, 544, 114 S. Ct. 1757, 128 L. Ed. 2d 556 (1994) (titles to
real estate); Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 531 U.S. 159, 174, 121 S.
Ct. 675, 148 L. Ed. 2d 576 (2001) (land and water use)). Here, the area of traditional
state responsibility is the landlord-tenant relationship. Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of
Health & Hum. Servs., 594 U.S. 758, 764, 141 S. Ct. 2485, 210 L. Ed. 2d 856 (2021);
Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 68-69, 92 S. Ct. 862, 31 L. Ed. 2d 36 (1972). 2 Courts
2
Numerous courts have recognized that landlord-tenant law is an area traditionally regulated by
state and local governments and one that has never been federalized. E.g., Chateau Foghorn LP
v. Hosford, 455 Md. 462, 490-91, 168 A.3d 824 (2017) (citing Lindsey, 405 U.S. at 68 (holding
that “[t]he Constitution has not federalized the substantive law of landlord-tenant relations”
(alteration in original)); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 440, 102