Case Explained: Rafael Marfil; Verge Productions, L.L.C.; Enrico Marfil; Naomi Marfil; Korey A. Rholack; Daniel Olveda; Douglas Wayne Mathes Plaintiffs— v. City of New Braunfels, Texas Defendant—

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-18 The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the City of New Braunfels, Texas, rejecting the property owners’ constitutional challenges to the city’s zoning ordinance prohibiting short-term rentals in certain residential districts. The court held that the Appellants failed to state a valid claim under the Due Process Clause because Texas law does not recognize a constitutionally protected property interest in “the right to lease one’s home on a short-term basis.” Relying on an *Erie* guess based on recent Texas appellate decisions, including *City of Grapevine v. Muns* and *Modern Builders, LLC v. City of Fort Worth*, the court determined that while property owners have a vested right to lease their property generally, they do not possess a vested common-law right to lease for less than 30 days. Consequently, without a protected property interest, the due process claims failed as a matter of law. Regarding the Equal Protection claims, the court applied rational-basis review, noting that no suspect class or fundamental right was implicated. The court found that the city’s distinction between rentals of twenty-nine days (banned) and thirty days (permitted), as well as the prohibition of short-term rentals in specific residential zones, satisfied this deferential standard. The court concluded that preserving the residential character of neighborhoods is a legitimate government interest and that the ordinance was rationally related to that goal, even if the legislative line-drawing was imperfect or debatable. As the Appellants could not demonstrate that the ordinance was clearly arbitrary or unreasonable, the equal protection claims were also dismissed. The practical consequence of this ruling is that the City’s zoning ordinance remains in full force and effect, and the property owners are barred from engaging in short-term rentals in the designated residential districts under their current constitutional theories. The judgment of the district court stands, leaving the Appellants without a federal judicial remedy for their claims against the city’s regulatory scheme. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.