Here’s a recently-filed cert petition which asks this Question Presented:
This Court held that a government violates the Takings Clause the moment it takes private property without compensation. Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. 180, 184–85 (2019). Government cannot nullify or moot a property owner’s Fifth Amendment right to compensation by rescission of its action. Id. Property owners may sue for compensation without first exhausting other remedies. Id. at 185.
City served Rogne with a second cease and desist order and then physically took possession of Rogne’s property by constructing a barrier fence, denying him from stockpiling dirt on his vacant lots. Rogne sued in state court for a taking without just compensation and lost on a prudential rule of exhaustion and mootness based on City’s rescission.
He refiled his Takings Clause claim in federal court under the Oklahoma savings statute because the prior action failed other than on the merits. The district court dismissed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding Rogne’s Takings Clause claim was resolved on the merits, citing the state appellate court, “ . . . as a matter of law there was no taking because Mr. Rogne was granted relief as soon as he sought an administrative remedy and the City rescinded the Cease and Desist Order.”
The Question Presented:
Is the application of a prudential rule of exhaustion, where the only relief is voluntary cessation of government’s physical possession, a decision on the merits of an uncompensated Takings Clause claim?
Follow along on the Court’s docket here.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Rogne v. City of Catoosa, No. 25-1320 (U.S. May 18, 2026)