Here’s the latest in an issue we’ve been following for a long time: must a property owner first try to change the law which is claimed to work a taking before bringing a takings claim in court? In other words, in order for the government to have made a “final decision” for Williamson County purposes does the legislature have to decline to amend the very law being challenged?

[Disclosure: this one is from our shop.]

In this cert petition, a property owner whose takings claim was rejected by the Fourth Circuit as unripe because he had not asked the county council to legislatively amend its law to exempt the property from the challenged regulation, is seeking review of these Questions Presented:

In this Fifth Amendment takings case, the court below dismissed the property owner’s as applied claim on prudential ripeness grounds. It held that an owner cannot sue without first petitioning the legislature to change the law responsible for the taking. The decision presents two splits of authority.

First, courts conflict about whether a property owner must exhaust legislative remedies to ripen a regulatory takings claim. The Ninth Circuit, Virginia, California, New York, Ohio, Michigan and Hawaii, say no. However, the Fourth Circuit below, plus Illinois, Florida, Georgia, and Wisconsin demand legislative exhaustion.

Second, courts conflict about whether ripeness is an element of jurisdictional standing or, instead, a prudential doctrine that allows the court to dismiss justiciable cases. On the jurisdictional side are this Court’s decisions in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission, Horne, and Pakdel, plus the Third and Eighth Circuits. On the prudential side are this Court’s decisions in Lucas and Suitum, and the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits.

The questions presented are:

1. Must a property owner exhaust legislative remedies in order to ripen an as-applied regulatory takings claim under the Fifth Amendment?

2. When a property owner sufficiently pleads jurisdictional standing for a Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claim, may the court nonetheless dismiss the case on prudential ripeness grounds?

(Note that the second QP is the same one we’re presenting to the Supreme Court in another recently-filed cert petition.)

Follow along on the Court’s docket here.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Walls v. Prince George’s County, No. 26-107 (U.S. July 23, 2026)