HAPCO Philadelphia | Case Update — The Court Sets the Road to Resolution
HAPCO Philadelphia | Case Update — The Court Sets the Road to Resolution
Floyd & Hadley v. City Council of Philadelphia | July 2026
Dear HP Community,
Quick update on our lawsuit challenging Bills 250329 and 250330. The court has now set the schedule that carries this case toward resolution, and it ordered the two sides to the settlement table. Here’s what that means for you.
Where We’ve Been
You’ve followed this from the start: what looked like a rushed, closed-door process at Council; the fast court order forcing the City to comply with the Sunshine Act and the Home Rule Charter; the contempt fight; the City’s attempt to escape to federal court; and the expansion of the case into constitutional and property-rights claims that kept it alive after the bills passed. Along the way, the pressure of this litigation already won housing providers real, concrete revisions to the bills. Here’s the new updates.
The June 25 Conference — What Happened
On June 25, 2026, the federal court held a case-management conference. This is the stage where a court decides whether a case moves forward or gets disposed of — and the court chose forward. Two things came out of it:
• A full schedule into 2027. The court established a discovery and case-management schedule that extends into early 2027. That means both sides are ordered to exchange documents, information, and evidence about how these bills came to be and how they affect Philadelphia’s housing providers and renters.
• An order to the settlement table. The court referred the case to a Magistrate Judge to schedule a settlement conference after July 15, 2026. In other words, the court is actively steering the parties toward a negotiated resolution.
Neither of those is what a court does when it plans to throw a case out. A year-long schedule and a court-ordered settlement conference are what a court does when it takes the claims seriously and wants results. That’s exactly the posture we want to be in.
What Comes Next
Between now and the settlement conference, our counsel will file an amended complaint tailored to the enacted bills and continue pressing discovery. The bills take effect November 1, 2026, so the timing of this settlement window matters. We’ll keep you posted at every meaningful step — and we’ll get you compliance guidance ahead of November 1 so you’re covered no matter how the timeline plays out.
Help Us Finish Strong
This is the stretch that counts. The litigation runs entirely on the Legal Action Fund, and heading into a court-ordered settlement process, every contribution strengthens our ability to hold the line and push for a real win. If you own rental property in Philadelphia, these bills reach you — a single duplex or a full portfolio, this is your fight.
Support the fund at hapcophiladelphia.com/legal-action-fund, or call us at 215.684.1684. Let’s bring this home together.
Bartram Village Redevelopment Moves Forward After Emergency Action
A recent Philadelphia Inquirer report explains that vacant buildings at Bartram Village in Southwest Philadelphia were taken over by squatters and suffered significant damage, contributing to unsafe conditions across the site. In response, Mayor Cherelle Parker declared a public safety emergency to speed up the process of clearing and demolishing the remaining structures. The Philadelphia Housing Authority will now move forward with redevelopment of the site into a mixed-income community with hundreds of new housing units, including affordable homes.
Philadelphia Housing Market Shows Fewer Price Cuts and Canceled Contracts Than Many Major Cities
Recent data shows the Philadelphia-area housing market has fewer price reductions and canceled contracts compared to many other major U.S. metros, indicating a comparatively steadier spring market.
Philadelphia Sheriff Seeks Major Staffing Increase as Eviction Delays Stretch to Months
Eviction timelines in Philadelphia remain significantly delayed, now averaging around six months, due to ongoing staffing shortages in the Sheriff’s Office. With the office now solely responsible for evictions, the backlog continues to grow and is creating real challenges for housing providers, including prolonged loss of rental income. The Sheriff is requesting additional funding to expand staffing, but it is still unclear whether City Council will approve the increase.
Amended Safe Healthy Homes Bills (Bill Nos. 250329 & 250330)
The amended Safe Healthy Homes bills — Bill Nos. 250329 and 250330 — are now posted.
These documents reflect the latest amended versions introduced in City Council. We are sharing them here for review by members and the broader housing community.
The full text of both bills can be accessed below.
Transparency Matters: Why This Fight Isn't Over
If City Council can promise a court it will follow the law, proceed to do otherwise anyway, and still insist the public simply trust the process, then Philadelphia has a far bigger problem than any single housing bill.
It is a well-worn principle in the legal profession that when a party cannot prevail on the merits, it may resort to attacking the character of its opponent. In this matter, however, we are confident in the strength of our legal arguments and therefore have no need to engage in personal attacks against any member of City Council.
Following the initial hearing on the legislation at issue, a lawsuit was filed alleging that City Council violated the Sunshine Act. Prior to any adjudication, the City agreed to grant the full relief sought by the plaintiffs by executing a stipulation which later became a court order. Specifically, the City stipulated that it would not proceed with a vote on the bills at that time, but instead would return them to committee for a new hearing conducted in compliance with the Sunshine Act. The City further agreed that it would adhere to the requirements of the Act at that subsequent hearing.
The Sunshine Act mandates that deliberations by a legislative body occur openly, ensuring that the public can observe and understand the legislative process. A fundamental component of this requirement is the presence of a quorum during deliberations.
Despite this, it appears the City has taken the position that a quorum need not be present for the entirety of a Councilmanic hearing and has suggested that no deliberation occurs during such hearings. This position mirrors the plaintiffs’ central concern: that meaningful deliberations are occurring outside of public view, rendering the public hearing little more than a formality or “rubber stamp” of decisions already made.
Events at the subsequent hearing appear to reinforce that concern. During the proceedings, Councilmembers reportedly left the hearing, convened privately across the hall, and discussed amendments to the legislation while the public hearing was still ongoing. Additionally, there were extended periods during which a quorum was not present in the hearing room.
Some members of City Council appear to have forgotten that elected officials are still public servants, not political actors exempt from oversight, procedural safeguards, or judicial authority. In a constitutional system, government officials are not trusted blindly to police themselves. They are expected to follow the law, comply with court orders, and remain accountable when they do not. The moment public officials begin treating transparency requirements and legal safeguards as obstacles to maneuver around rather than obligations to honor, public trust in government itself begins to erode.
As a result, the plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt, asserting that the City violated the Sunshine Act, the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, and a binding court order requiring compliance with both. Critically, the court did not conclude that the City had complied with that order. Instead, it scheduled a June 25 contempt hearing to determine whether City Council and the City proceeded in violation of judicially mandated procedural safeguards, whether they acted in violation of a court order, and whether they should be held accountable for doing so.
If the court finds that the City violated its obligations, one potential remedy is the invalidation of the legislation. We believe the facts will support such a finding. Separately, the underlying lawsuit regarding the alleged Sunshine Act violations remains pending, and a future ruling in that case could likewise result in the legislation being overturned if violations are proven.
Against this backdrop, it is difficult to understand why Councilmember O’Rourke has chosen to criticize HAPCO for pursuing these legal claims. The organization has acted within its rights in seeking transparency and compliance with the law. Notably, HAPCO requested copies of the amended bills—documents that had historically been provided as a matter of course. In this instance, however, those requests were denied, raising concerns about whether the refusal was retaliatory in nature.
This is particularly troubling given that the legislation introduced by Councilmember O’Rourke includes provisions prohibiting landlords from retaliating against tenants for asserting their legal rights. It is inconsistent to champion anti-retaliation protections in one context while appearing to dismiss them in another.
If there were truly no merit to the claims raised, it is fair to ask why the City agreed to halt the original vote, withdraw the bills from consideration, and return them to committee for a new hearing conducted under court ordered procedural safeguards. Governments do not typically abandon scheduled legislative action absent serious concerns about the legality of the process that produced it.
At its core, this dispute is not about personalities. It is about whether laws in Philadelphia will be enacted openly, lawfully, and in compliance with the same rules that bind everyone else. It is also about recognizing that the consequences of unlawful process do not fall in a vacuum. These bills affect fundamental property rights, housing stability, and the economic survival of many small, community based landlords and the tenants who rely on them, particularly in historically underserved and minority neighborhoods. The housing market is an ecosystem that must work for everyone or, eventually, it works for no one. No public official and no legislative body should be permitted to pursue sweeping social and economic change while disregarding the legal safeguards that exist to protect the public from arbitrary government action.