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?
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Does A Property Owner Need To Seek A Legislative Change To Ripen A Takings Claim?
Here’s the cert petition (filed yesterday) which asks whether a takings challenge to rent control which is justiciable under Article III (plaintiff has suffered a concrete injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged restrictions, and a ruling will redress that injury) may nonetheless be dismissed because the court believes that if the owner would only continue to chase the government via its own administrative procedures, she might get relief (thus relieving the courts of the burden of making a ruling). That’s right, the “prudential ripeness” question that has divided the lower courts.
Continue Reading New Cert Petition (Ours): Can Courts Choose To Avoid Constitutional Challenges To Rent Control By Making Owners Chase Pointless Denials?
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following, which asks whether Williamson County‘s final decision ripeness requirement is limited to takings claims.
Continue Reading SCOTUS Will Answer Whether Williamson County Final Decision Ripeness Governs Free Exercise Claims
Here’s a recently-filed cert petition which asks this 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?”
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Remember First English?
Yesterday, in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, No. 24-781 (Apr. 29, 2026), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an organization which provides counseling and resources to pregnant women had standing to bring a First Amendment challenge to the New Jersey Attorney General’s subpoena which sought information about the organization’s donors. Interesting issue, for sure. But what’s the case doing here? Well, among other things, the Court held the case was ripe. Ah, now you get it.
Continue Reading SCOTUS Gives Takings Ripeness Hints In First Amendment Opinion
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. After a loss at the Eighth Circuit, the property owners have filed a cert petition.
This is the case where court concluded that the city’s issuance of a closure order to reVamped after the business ended up on the city’s “blighted list” was not a regulatory taking. The city had issued citations for various code violations, sent compliance orders, and was apparently reacting to a fire on the premises.
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Invoking “Police Power” Alone Doesn’t Avoid Takings
Two or three steps? You decide. A takings case arising from the same locality in Rhode Island that gave us Palazzolo (Westerly, R.I.). In DiBiccari v. Rhode Island, No. 2023-353 (Mar. 10, 2026), the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the owner’s federal takings claim was not ripe because even though the State agency had denied a variance to allow installation of a wastewater system, the owner had not pursued the agency’s administrative appeals process.
Continue Reading RI: Federal Takings Claim Must Be Ripened By Exhausting State Admin Remedies By Appealing Variance Denial
The latest from the lawyers who brought you Knick v. Township of Scott. A new cert petition challenging the Eleventh Circuit’s conclusion that a property owner asserting a due process violation must effectively exhaust state judicial remedies.
Continue Reading New Cert Petition (Ours): Must A Due Process Claimant Exhaust State Remedies?
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 that not only gets its wrong, it gets it seriously wrong.
Continue Reading Say What? CA4: Takings Claim Not Ripe Because Owner Could Always Change The Law
This one is worth your time to review.
In HRT Enterprises v. City of Detroit, No. 23-1847 (Dec. 22, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff/owner and a jury verdict on just compensation.
The case is notable not