ROCK HILL, S.C. — A federal appeals court has sided with the City of Rock Hill in a legal battle over the city’s short term rental regulations, rejecting all seven constitutional claims brought by a local property owner in an unpublished opinion issued Monday.
The three judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a lower court ruling against Tom Hutto, who owns roughly a dozen short term rental properties in Rock Hill. Judge Wynn authored the opinion, joined by Judges Thacker and Berner.
Hutto challenged a series of regulatory changes the city enacted between 2020 and 2023 governing short term rentals, defined as rentals of 30 days or fewer, many of which operate through platforms like Airbnb.
How The Regulations Evolved
Rock Hill first adopted short term rental regulations in 2020, requiring property owners to obtain permits. Among the provisions was a prohibition on marketing or using a rental unit as an event location or party house, including for weddings and holiday parties. Hutto testified that, before the 2020 rules took effect, he had allowed small gatherings at his properties for events like birthday parties and baby showers but was forced to change that policy to obtain permits.
The city revised the ordinance in December 2022 and again in November 2023. In adopting the 2023 regulations, City Council cited citizen complaints involving revolving occupancy, excessive noise, disorderly conduct, traffic congestion, parking limitations and trash accumulation.
Under the 2023 rules, short term rentals were limited to a designated number of commercially zoned areas. Properties outside those zones, including all but three of Hutto’s rentals, were given a five year amortization period to continue operating. After 2028, those properties must either be converted to long term rentals or cease operating as rentals entirely.
Hutto’s Seven Claims
Hutto initially filed suit in response to the 2022 regulations. After the city revised its rules again in 2023, partly in response to concerns raised in his complaint, he amended his lawsuit to challenge the updated ordinance.
His complaint raised seven claims. Two were brought on behalf of his guests, alleging violations of their First Amendment rights and their rights as out of state travelers under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The remaining five were brought on his own behalf, alleging First Amendment retaliation, violation of his fundamental right to livelihood, Equal Protection violations, substantive due process violations and a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge.
He lost on every count at the district court level before Judge Cameron McGowan Currie and appealed to the 4th Circuit.
The Court’s Reasoning
On the two claims brought on behalf of his guests, the court found Hutto lacked third party standing. The panel wrote that Hutto failed to show that the short term nature of his guests’ stays posed such a significant barrier to their ability to protect their own rights that he needed to step in on their behalf.
On the retaliation claim, the court acknowledged that the 2023 regulations were adopted partly in response to Hutto’s lawsuit, noting that Rock Hill’s Director of Planning and Development, Leah Youngblood, said as much at a 2023 Planning Commission meeting. However, the court found no evidence that Rock Hill’s motive was retaliatory, writing that adding clarity to an ordinance out of concern that it could be challenged is not retaliation. The court also noted the regulations apply equally to all property owners, not just Hutto.
On the fundamental right to livelihood claim, the court applied rational basis review and found the regulations were rationally related to Rock Hill’s legitimate interests in preserving its housing stock and maintaining the residential character of its neighborhoods.
The Equal Protection claim failed because the court found Hutto is not treated any differently from other individual property owners, all of whom face the same restrictions on operating short term rentals in certain areas. The court also rejected Hutto’s comparison to homeowners associations, calling them entirely different types of entities.
The substantive due process claim was rejected on similar grounds, with the court finding the regulations fell within the city’s traditional zoning and police powers.
Finally, the Dormant Commerce Clause claim was dismissed because the court found no evidence of discrimination against out of state guests, noting that both in state and out of state individuals use short term rentals and that out of state visitors can still stay in rentals within permitted zones or in other accommodations.
Legislative Privilege Upheld
The court also upheld the district court’s decision to allow two city officials, Council member John Black and Planning Director Leah Youngblood, to invoke legislative privilege during depositions, shielding their testimony about legislative deliberations from discovery.
Allegations Of Judicial Bias Rebuked
In a pointed footnote, the panel addressed repeated allegations from Hutto’s counsel that the district court judge had acted out of improper bias. Hutto’s opening brief had claimed the lower court’s handling of the case could not be explained by anything other than deliberate partiality.
The panel reminded counsel that allegations of judicial bias are extremely serious and not to be thrown about lightly because a court ruled in a way a party did not like.
Hutto was represented by Ina Shtukar Steinberg of Black & White Law in Rock Hill. The city was represented by William Mark White and W. Chaplin Spencer Jr. of Spencer & Spencer in Rock Hill.
The case is Hutto v. City of Rock Hill, No. 25-1431, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Source: 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion, April 27, 2026
Sign up for our Sunday Spectator. Delivered to your inbox every Sunday, with all the news from the week.
