⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Seventh Circuit hears a dispute over a hotel operating license in Indianapolis. Patel and his company, P M K Corporation, operate the Budget Eight Inn. In February 2023, city officials refused to renew the hotel's license amid public-safety concerns, including emergency-service calls at the property. Patel disputes the city's account. For roughly five weeks, the hotel could not rent rooms to new guests, though it did not stop operating altogether. Permission to accept new guests was later restored while the licensing challenge continued. Patel and the company sued, and a federal court initially kept the hotel open while the case proceeded. The district court later ruled against them, concluding that the hotel license and its renewal were not constitutionally protected property interests. This appeal focuses on procedural due process: before deciding whether the government's procedures were adequate, the judges must decide whether there was a protected property interest to begin with. The hotel side will argue that an existing license deserves protection, and that the city cannot take it away without due process. The city will defend the district court's ruling, arguing that its broad licensing discretion defeats that constitutional claim. Listen for the distinction between an existing license and a later renewal, and between a restriction on new bookings and shutting down the business.

Kartik Patel v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis/Marion County (No. 26-1654) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued November 6, 2026.