James Doyle, dba Rocky Mountain Ventures, dba Environmental Land Technologies, Ltd. v. United States

Under Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. 180 (2019), a regulatory takings claim is ripe for adjudication in federal court when the government reaches a final decision concerning any restrictions on private property; exhausting state-litigation procedures is unnecessary. Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco, 594 U.S. 474 (2021) (per curiam), likewise rejected administrative exhaustion as a condition of ripeness. Instead, Pakdel clarified that “nothing more than de facto finality is necessary”—meaning that “the government has reached a conclusive position” about how it will regulate the claimant’s property. Yet the Federal Circuit held in the decision below that “Knick and Pakdel are inapplicable” to takings claims against the United States. The court of appeals added that such claims are unripe until the owner satisfies “federal administrative agency exhaustion” by submitting “a complete permit application.” The questions presented are:

1. Whether a regulatory takings claim against the United States is ripe when a property owner demonstrates “de facto finality.”

2. Whether a property owner can show that his regulatory takings claim against the United States is ripe without obtaining the government’s denial of a complete application for administrative relief. (i)