Here's another of the amicus briefs supporting the petitioner in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, No. 10-1125. The Cato Institute's brief (available here) argues:
Instead of applying the rule of Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), which held it improper to bar a takings claim simply because the property at issue was transferred after a regulation’s enactment, the court limited Palazzolo’s precedential authority to specific factual and procedural settings. See Guggenheim, No. 06-56306, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS, at *18. Such a ruling amounts to an abrogation of Palazzolo.....This Court should provide much-needed doctrinal certainty by reaffirming Palazzolo. It is apparent that the courts of appeal need clarity on whether Palazzolo has binding force: this is one of two recent cases where courts of appeal have read Palazzolo so narrowly as nearly to read it out of takings jurisprudence. The other case, CRV Enterprises v. United States, 626 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2010), also has a pending Petition of Certiorari. Guggenheim’s petition raises a question that is central to property rights jurisprudence: Does the Takings Clause have an expiration date?
More briefs have been filed, and we will post them as they become available.
