Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Fane Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 23-11119 · judgment October 16, 2024
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Questions presented
Fane Lozman has a contentious relationship with the City of Riviera Beach, Florida. The City’s mistreatment of Mr. Lozman has twice required this Court’s intervention. See Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 568 U.S. 115 (2013); Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. 87 (2018). In this third chapter, Mr. Lozman was forced to sue the City because its land-use restrictions have deprived his waterfront property of all economically beneficial use, causing a taking under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). The controlling City ordinance is clear: He can use this property for “[p]rivate residential fishing or viewing platforms” and small “docks for non-motorized boats,” and nothing else. Yet the Eleventh Circuit held Mr. Lozman’s Lucas claim unripe. In the court’s view, because these scant private uses are permissible, Mr. Lozman must apply to the City for a “final decision” on how he can use his property. The questions presented are:
-
Whether a claim that a local ordinance effected a regulatory taking upon enactment remains unripe until the landowner asks the local government for permission to develop his property in ways the ordinance plainly prohibits.
-
Whether a regulation that forbids any economically beneficial use causes a taking under Lucas, regardless of the property’s residual value. (i)
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Tobias Samuel Loss-Eaton
Sidley Austin LLP
For respondent
Amy Taylor Petrick
Lewis Longman & Walker, P.A.
Proceedings
- Jun 02 2025Petition DENIED.
- May 13 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/29/2025.
- May 12 2025Reply of petitioner Fane Lozman filed. (Distributed)
- Apr 25 2025Brief of respondent City of Riviera Beach, Florida, in opposition filed.
- Mar 26 2025Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed.
- Mar 26 2025Brief amicus curiae of The National Association of Home Builders of the United States filed.
- Mar 26 2025Brief amicus curiae of The Buckeye Institute filed.
- Mar 25 2025Brief amici curiae of Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute, et al. filed.
- Mar 21 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 25, 2025.
- Mar 20 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 26, 2025 to April 25, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Feb 20 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 26, 2025)
- Jan 27 2025Application (24A546) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until February 20, 2025.
- Jan 22 2025Application (24A546) to extend further the time from February 13, 2025 to February 20, 2025, submitted to Justice Thomas.
- Dec 04 2024Application (24A546) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until February 13, 2025.
- Dec 02 2024Application (24A546) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 14, 2025 to February 13, 2025, submitted to Justice Thomas.