If it wasn't in the rules when they bought into the HOA, they should have been grandfathered in because those were not the terms they agreed to when they moved in..
Methinks the Courts need to move to cut the teeth out of HOAs...
The terms they agreed to when they moved in were that the HOA bylaws were subject to amendment.
They have no legal grounds to claim exemption.
And what other forms of binding contracts between private citizens do you think the Government should move to invalidate?
Anyone who buys into an HOA and still wants to claim property rights is a fool. You knew the rules when you signed the contract. Suck it up (or, in this case, stop sucking it up) and move if your habit is that important to you. Next time understand what you are signing.
I agree about grandfathering but not about HOAs.
I have an HOA and it keeps neighbors from doing weird stuff like parking their massive motor home out in front of your house without moving it for weeks on end, or piling junk in front of their house.
Each owner signs an agreement that they will abide by the HOA rules. They also have a vote. If they want complete freedom from HOAs they should not move into an area that has one ... they should not sign an agreement that they will abide by the HOA rules.
That way they will not be asked to comply. But they won't be able to live within the parameters covered by the HOA. It's a contract. Honor it or don't sign it.
Again, I agree with the grandfathering.
Still, you know that the HOA can change the rules. What an HOA can't do however is force a non-signatory to comply. IE, an HOA cannot form and compell existing home owners to comply. When you buy property with an HOA overlord, it's your own fault.