The more likely scenario for most landlords is probably a tenant advocacy group that decides to sue over an issue for the publicity more than for the potential remedy (the test case they hope convinces the Supreme Court to make a landmark decision).

--However, a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling might result in changes; CStat is apparently reviewing their rules: https://www.kbtx.com/content/news/Texas-Supreme-Co...Also, I know people still rent out whole condos, etc in CStat - my family stayed in one for graduation last year.

I'm hoping rent control eventually becomes debated by the Supreme Court.

The recent TX Supreme Court case has opened up some neighborhoods that were not previously, but the HOAs/COAs can be a challenge in many places. 

ET June 18, 2015WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that cities and towns generally cannot limit roadside signs based on what they say.The justices unanimously said the town of Gilbert, Ariz., violated the First Amendment by giving signs promoting a church's worship services vastly inferior treatment compared to political campaign signs.Writing for the court's majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said the town law limiting the size of the church's signs and the length of time for which they could be displayed was a "content-based" restriction on the church's speech.

Michael Cohen of Supreme Lending, Judy Aleman and Troylynne Perrault of Latter & Blum

As well, it is not known that any lender has been indicted or anything yet, nor has the SC Supreme Court made a ruling.

The guy would not accept cash to leave, he would not accept help finding another place, he just wanted to be a royal loser and make everyone miserable, in the end it took 2 different court orders, 2 different sherriffs, 2 different times to physically remove him from the property, the first time he was removed, he filed an appeal with the supreme court claiming he was a military veteran and in hardship, all false. in the end, i lost about $6,000, by having to extend the close date multiple times, and having to keep extending my rate lock, as well as losing the money from the potential rents I was expecting and having to pay bills in a property I was no longer supposed to be in as well. the sellers constantly tried to get me to close, but the sale was contigent on that apartment being vacant so my daughter and I could live in it. they offered escrow to cover the rent he wasnt paying until he moves out, but I needed to move in and it took 3 more months to get him out after they offered the escrow. either way It wouldn't have worked.

Any links to documents or guidelines would be supremely helpful.

I know all the internet Supreme Court judges say otherwise, but I have never had an issue with them.