We obviously wish we had better news, but today, the U.S. Supreme Court in this order declined to review the Mississippi Supreme Court's decision in a just compensation case in which we represented the petitioner.
Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas filed this brief statement:
When a State negotiates an easement limited to one purpose but later uses the land for an entirely different purpose, can the State limit, by operation of statute, the compensation it must pay for that new taking? The Mississippi Supreme Court held that it may do just that. But this decision seems difficult to square with the teachings of this Court’s cases holding that legislatures generally cannot limit the compensation due under the Takings Clause of the Constitution. See Monongahela Navi. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 327 (1893). Tension appears to exist, too, between the decision here and decisions of the Federal Circuit. See, e.g., Toews v. United States, 376 F. 3d 1371, 1376 (2004). And the matter is one of general importance as well, for many states have adopted statutes like Mississippi’s and the question presented implicates a fundamental feature of the compact between citizen and State. Given all this, these are questions the Court ought take up at its next opportunity.
In other words, a good issue here (we even wrote the Question Presented in the next case for you), there's a lower court split, and this is a matter of "general importance."
Just not in this case. Why, they don't say.
Statement of Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, Bay Point Properties, Inc. v. Mississippi Transportation Comm'n, No. 16-1077 (U.S. June 26, 2017)
