The plaintiffs owned mining and homestead claims on land in the Santa Fe National Forest. They claimed they own easements to access these lands, recognized by federal statutes. The government said no, these are just access rights, not easements.
Then a fire, followed by flooding which severely damaged the Forest Service roads which the plaintiffs used for access. The Forest Service declined to repair the roads, but the plaintiffs said they'd intended to do so. But you have to do so by our rules, the Forest Service responded. Meaning the landowners would need to get a permit first. Apparently, they didn't.
Instead, they brought suit in the Court of Federal Claims, asserting the loss of their easements was a physical taking. The CFC dismissed because the case was not ripe under Williamson County's "final decision" rule -- the plaintiffs had not sought permission to repair the roads.
In Martin v. United States, No. 2017-2224 (July 11, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed. The court assumed, without actually deciding, that the plaintiffs owned actual easements. Thus, the court assumed they owned "property." But, the court concluded, there's a permit system which might allow them to make use of the access roads, and the plaintiffs had not sought a permit. Slip op. at 9 ("There is no indication in the record that the Inholders have applied for a special use permit—or have otherwise sought authorization—to reconstruct Forest Roads 89 and 268."). Which meant their takings claims were not ripe.
Williamson County has two requirements. The first (the "state procedures" rule) is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The second (and much less controversial) requirement is that the government must have reached a "final decision" whether to allow the plaintiff to use its land. Thus, until the plaintiffs seek the government's okay to repair -- and the government denies the request -- there's a chance that they will be allowed to use their access rights, so there's no telling what, if anything, they have been deprived of. Physical takings apparently included.
(Check out this recently-filed cert petition for another challenge to the "final decision" requirement.)
The Federal Circuit also rejected the owners' unconstitutional conditions argument -- asserting their taking claim was ripe "because the government has conditioned the grant of a permit to reconstruct Forest Roads 89 and 268 on the 'surrender' of their alleged Revised Statute 2477 easements" -- because there was no evidence the government actually conditioned a use permit on the relinquishment of any rights.
Martin v. United States, No. 2017-2224 (Fed. Cir. July 11, 2018)