On June 28, 2021, the Supreme Court rendered a unanimous per curiam decision, Pakdel v City and County of San Francisco, 594 U.S. ____ (2021).
The lawsuit involved a regulatory taking claim. The City had required that as a condition of converting a tenancy-in-common to a condominium, that the owner must first offer any tenant a lifetime lease. The Ninth Circuit held that the Plaintiffs, even though they requested two exemptions, did not present a final decision and, hence, their claim was not ripe under Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). The Supreme Court disagreed. It stated, “[t]he finality requirement is relatively modest. All a Plaintiff must show is that “there (is) no question…about how the ‘regulations at issue apply to the particular land in question.’” Suitum v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725, 739 (1997).
The Court reversed writing that the Fifth Amendment enjoys “full-fledged constitutional status,” the Ninth Circuit had no basis to relegate petitioners’ claim “to the status of a poor relation among the provisions of the Bill of Rights.” Knick v Township of Scott, 588 U.S. at ___ (2019), Slip Op. at 6).