Stanford research informs legislative proposal on California eviction laws

Anita had never failed to pay her rent before. But when she lost her job, she fell behind. Her landlord gave her three days to pay up or face eviction. Anita quickly found a new job and secured rental assistance, but by then, the landlord had already filed an eviction case. Under California law, that meant she had no legal right to stay in her home, even though she now had the money.

Anita’s story, drawn from a number of real tenant experiences, is featured in a new Stanford Law and Policy Lab report detailing how a short-term financial setback can quickly lead to eviction in California, even when a solution is within reach.

Now a state senator is trying to change eviction laws in California to offer more options for tenants. And research from a team of Stanford Law students, working on behalf of their client Public Advocates, a nonprofit civil rights law firm and advocacy organization, has informed the proposed law. The student team was part of a recent Stanford Law and Policy Lab, an “only at Stanford” offering that addresses real policy issues for real clients, using analytic approaches and traditional legal analysis.

The Keeping Californians Housed Act (SB 436), introduced in February by State Senator Dr. Aisha Wahab, is grounded in findings from the students’ recently published report, “Win-Win: Paying Landlords and Keeping Californians Housed,” an extensive analysis of eviction laws across the country. Wahab’s proposed legislation aims to give tenants more than the current three days to catch up on overdue rent. Once eviction proceedings have begun in California, tenants must rely on the landlord’s discretion to accept payment and agree to halt the eviction case. However, as the Policy Lab report explains, 21 states do it differently: New York, Oregon, and Washington, among others, allow tenants to “redeem” their tenancies by paying overdue rent at various points later in the eviction process. Under Sen. Wahab’s proposed law, California renters could avoid eviction by paying all back rent or providing proof of approved rental assistance covering the full amount at any time prior to the actual physical eviction by a sheriff.

‘A common-sense approach’

“A right to redeem is intuitive in cases of nonpayment of rent, and is analogous to rights enjoyed by homeowners who are delinquent on their mortgages,” says Community Law Clinic Director Juliet Brodie, who instructed the policy lab and works frequently on eviction matters in the clinic. “The research that went into the report shows that many states have created a right of redemption as a common-sense approach that preserves eviction as a remedy for situations where the tenancy is truly financially unsustainable.”

Suzanne Dershowitz, senior staff attorney at Public Advocates, the Policy Lab’s client, says the students’ research “added a level of comprehensive research and analysis that enabled our coalition to answer questions from policymakers about how our proposed bill fits into the national landscape, which is an enormous contribution.”

Samuel Akira Mori, JD ’26, a co-author of the report, notes that the right to redeem a tenancy is embraced by states across the political spectrum. “We were surprised to find that California is out of step with other Western states such as Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and Arizona in not providing tenants the right to redeem a tenancy” he says. “As our report suggests, adopting a right to redeem would fairly equalize the balance of power between landlords and tenants.”

According to a separate Community Law Clinic report, Evictions in San Mateo County, 2019-2023, eviction cases there returned to pre-pandemic levels in 2023, with most (85% in 2023) due to unpaid rent.

Among the findings in “Win-Win” was that in states with redemption laws, eviction cases are more likely to be dismissed once tenants secure rental assistance. This aligns with evidence from Oregon, where a new right-to-redeem statute took effect in 2023. Data shows that since the law passed, the percentage of eviction cases dismissed due to back rent being paid has nearly doubled.

Real-world impact

For the students involved in the evictions policy lab, seeing their research influence legislation has been a powerful experience: “In law school, so much of our time is spent in the classroom learning for our own sake,” says report co-author Nathan Levit, JD ’26. “Often, the real-world impact does not feel like it extends far beyond the end-of-term exam. This policy lab was a fantastic opportunity to take what we are learning in the classroom, apply it, and immediately see the impact.”

Working under Brodie’s guidance, the group of seven law students and one undergraduate spent months analyzing eviction laws nationwide. They looked at the mechanics of other states’ redemption statutes, reviewed policies in every state, conducted case studies in Oregon and New York, and interviewed legal aid attorneys and rental assistance providers.

“California landlords frequently end up with uncollected money judgments against evicted tenants, which are essentially worthless IOUs, while the tenants are displaced,” Brodie says, “A right to redeem isn’t just about keeping renters in their homes; it ensures landlords get paid too. In other words, it’s a win-win.”