Although Knick knocked out the Supreme Court-created requirement that before an owner may assert a takings claim, he must first effectively exhaust available state procedures for obtaining compensation, it left the other ripeness requirement — that the government has made a “final decision” applying the challenged law to the owner — in place.

Despite the Supreme Court in Pakdel noting that the final decision rule is a “relatively modest” requirement and does not require exhaustion of remedies (administrative or otherwise), some lower courts refuse to accept the message.

Well here’s one where the Fourth Circuit not only gets it wrong, it gets it egregiously wrong. Like super wrong.

In Walls v. Prince George’s County, No. 25-1121 (Feb. 23, 2026), a Fourth Circuit panel held that a takings claim was not ripe because the County had not made the final decision denying the owner’s request to build a well and septic system on his property. The County had said no, in writing, informing him that the lot “did not meet the criteria for a waiver[.]” Slip op. at 4. Wasn’t that enough?

No, held the court, the letter also informed the owner that he might get the County’s ok by requesting a “water and sewer category amendment.” Id. Now in case you are not clear what this “amendment” entailed, the court spelled it out:

This process initially would require Walls to seek a “Legislative Amendment” from the County Council and, next, to obtain an “Administrative Amendment” approved by DPIE.

Id.

In short, a reclassification of the lot.

Now if that sets off your ripeness radar, you are not alone: the owner must pursue legislative approval in order to get a final decision? As in must change the law?

Yes, that’s exactly what the Fourth Circuit held:

Initially, we hold that DPIE’s denial of Walls’ waiver request was not a “conclusive determination” from the County on the proposed use of Walls’ property, because the County could have approved the proposed development through a “water and sewer category amendment.”6

Slip op. at 7. And if you aren’t clear that the court held that a takings claim is not ripe unless the owner tries to change the law, check out footnote 6:

The district court held that the 2022 letter was not a denial of Walls’ waiver request. We conclude that it is unnecessary to address this question because, regardless of the status of Walls’ waiver request to DPIE, the County could not have reached a final decision on Walls’ property until he sought a “water and sewer category amendment.”

Id. And if you are still not clear, there’s this:

Through this legislative process, the County still could grant Walls permission to move forward with his project. Thus, because there is still an opportunity for the County to change its position on Walls’ use of his property, the County has not issued a final decision. See Chosen Consulting, LLC v. Town Council of Highland, 148 F.4th 451, 459 (7th Cir. 2025) (explaining that the finality requirement was not satisfied when the municipality could still issue a decision requested by the plaintiff).

Slip op. at 7.

Not only does that conclusion conflict with Pakdel, it conflicts with other lower courts (such as this one from 2012), and even the Ninth Circuit. See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg. Plan. Agency, 938 F.2d 153 (9th Cir. 1991) (“ripeness did not require the plaintiffs to ask [the government] to amend the 1984 Plan [a regional plan] before bringing their [federal takings] claims.”). And there are more.

Stay tuned.

Walls v. Prince George’s County, No. 25-1121 (4th Cir. Feb. 23, 2026) (unpub.)