You know the drill: permitting authorities know that if they take a definitive position about how a regulation works on a particular piece of property, a takings challenge is ripe. So in many cases we see either the authority taking affirmative steps to keep on saying “maybe,” or at least providing a definitive “no.” Or
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 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
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
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
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
An interesting decision from the Kansas federal district court, Mount St. Scholastica, Inc. v. City of Atchison, No. 06-2208-CM (Mar. 12, 2007), contains a land use trifecta: historic preservation, religious objections to a denial of a permit, and regulatory takings. (No link yet to opinion, which currently is only available via Westlaw; email me