If asked, would you say that property owners should expect that when seeking their local government’s permission to make a legal use property, the government will respond by correctly applying its own law in a timely manner? Or are you so jaded that your reaction is “naw, anyone who has dealt with government knows how it really is”? Or as Chief Justice Roberts noted in this case, are property owners “chumps” if they are so naive as to believe they’d be treated fairly and their requests considered without delay?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit came down on latter side in its recent opinion in Rubicon Real Estate Holdings, LLC v. City of Pontiac, No. 25-1631 (June 18, 2026), which held that even though the owner’s “saga with the City of Pontiac may have fallen short of an experience in good governance[,]” the city’s treatment of Rubicon was within the behavior we expect from government and that “City officials at worse simply lagged in granting discretionary zoning and licensing approvals[.]” Slip op. at 3.

And here’s the money quote:

When, then does a government’s delay in issuing a permit or zoning change amount to a taking? Seldom, if ever.

Slip op. at 16.

The first few paragraphs of the opinion might lead you to believe the court was heading in the opposite direction, with a philippic on “entrenched bureaucracies,” “Yorktown, Gettysburg, and Midway,” and even Silent Cal. The court acknowledged that “the reality facing Rubicon Real Estate” was that it was trying to work with this entrenched bureaucracy, and not having a good time.

For President Coolidge, “[o]f all forms of government, those administered by bureaus are about the least satisfactory to an enlightened and progressive people.” Id.

Still today, entrenched bureaucracies—from Washington, D.C., to our local communities—maintain their firm grip. That was the reality facing Rubicon Real Estate Holdings, LLC, a Michigan-based real estate developer, who complains of the trials and tribulations it faced in working with the bureaucracy of the City of Pontiac. In 2019, Rubicon began efforts to revive a beleaguered commercial property in the reemerging city with the hope that future tenants could operate several medical marijuana cultivation and processing facilities at the site. Yet that process proved to be easier said than done. Approvals for various zoning changes lagged. Licensing for Rubicon’s future tenants bounced back and forth between the city clerk’s office for a year and a half. At one point, the city clerk created another bottleneck by pressing an arguably specious argument that the entire project violated the City’s medical marijuana ordinances. Ultimately, the venture fell apart in 2021 when Rubicon’s prospective tenants backed out of their commitments. And following the project’s collapse, a separate business owned by Rubicon’s managing member, Joseph Brown, lost out on a contract to assist another development project in Pontiac.

Slip op. at 2-3.

But the opinion promises much more than it ultimately delivers, and in the end the court concludes that whatever the city did or didn’t do, that’s all part of the system and the Rubicon had been crossed long ago, meaning Rubicon had no reasonable expectation otherwise.

Due process? No. The usual reason: no property interest in — no legitimate claim of entitlement to — using property as a “medical marijuana cultivation” site:

Here, neither Rubicon nor its potential tenants possessed a “legitimate claim of entitlement” in using the Glenwood site for medical marijuana cultivation or processing prior to when its injuries were inflicted in May 2021. Pontiac does not award zoning and permitting allowances for medical marijuana businesses as a matter of right. Quite the opposite. Pontiac’s regime requires a number of regulatory hoops before a medical marijuana business can operate in the City, with each step in the process contingent on the subjective judgment of City officials on whether to award a zoning change or a license.

Slip op. at 12.

A taking? Again no. The owner claimed the city’s “delay in issuing a permit or zoning change” was a taking. Slip op. at 16. But “built into the ‘incidents of [property] ownership] is the understanding that ‘governmental decisionmaking’ takes time, meaning that delays in obtaining approval before a property can be altered ordinarily does not amount to a taking.” Id. (citing Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 263 n.9 (1980), abrogated on other grounds by Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005)).

The delay must be “extraordinary.” And “ordinary” means a long, long time. This is the government, after all. At the start of this opinion we noted that bureaucrats suck, but come on Rubicon, you shouldn’t have expected more. “Delay was plainly expected[,]” and “the delay here is about what one might expect in dealing with local government bureaucracy and is far from an actionable deprivation under the Takings Clause.” Slip op. at 17.

Yes, “significant and long-term delays of a project caused by government foot dragging could amount to a taking,” slip op. at 19, but you live in “a ‘bureaucratic world'” meaning you should have an “expectation that the project will not occur overnight and will need sufficient review by public officials.” Id.

To us, the owner’s claim here highlights the vast gap between what the average person thinks their government is obligated to do, and the reality of what it actually does. You are a chump to believe otherwise.

Rubicon Real Estate Holdings, LLC v. City of Pontiac, No. 25-1631 (6th Cir. June 18, 2026)