Proportional Possession

American eviction proceedings are governed by a fusion of property and contract law. The law's narrow understanding of eviction ignores the importance of a dwelling place to its occupants. Property is not merely land or a structure on that land, it is a home with the power to shape communities, social relationships, and human values. Current eviction law, however, is not designed to consider these facets of property. Rather than balancing the interests of the landowner against those of the tenant, courts render judgment based on superior title and contract obligations without regard for what will happen to the tenant after displacement. The result is a system where the average hearing concludes in under two minutes, and landlords succeed in over eighty percent of cases. It doesn't have to be this way. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, signed and ratifed by nearly every nation except the United States, obligates member states to protect tenants against eviction. In Europe, specifcally, tenants can invoke a proportionality defense in eviction proceedings. Asserting their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, tenants may implore courts to weigh the harms of eviction against the rights of the landlord. The result is increased residential stability, improved health, and decreased unemployment. Scholars have thus far ignored the possibility of incorporating such a balancing test into American eviction jurisprudence in large part because there is not a constitutionally protected right to housing in the United States. This Article argues that the absence of a constitutional right to housing does not bar the introduction of proportionality into American eviction proceedings, a change that has the potential to reshape the lives of individuals and communities.