Garnell Walls v. Prince George's County, Maryland, et al.

In this Fifth Amendment takings case, the court below dismissed the property owner’s as applied claim on prudential ripeness grounds. It held that an owner cannot sue without first petitioning the legislature to change the law responsible for the taking. The decision presents two splits of authority. First, courts conflict about whether a property owner must exhaust legislative remedies to ripen a regulatory takings claim. The Ninth Circuit, Virginia, California, New York, Ohio, Michigan and Hawaii, say no. However, the Fourth Circuit below, plus Illinois, Florida, Georgia, and Wisconsin demand legislative exhaustion. Second, courts conflict about whether ripeness is an element of jurisdictional standing or, instead, a prudential doctrine that allows the court to dismiss justiciable cases. On the jurisdictional side are this Court’s decisions in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission, Horne, and Pakdel, plus the Third and Eighth Circuits. On the prudential side are this Court’s decisions in Lucas and Suitum, and the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. The questions presented are:

1. Must a property owner exhaust legislative remedies in order to ripen an as-applied regulatory takings claim under the Fifth Amendment?

2. When a property owner sufficiently pleads jurisdictional standing for a Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claim, may the court nonetheless dismiss the case on prudential ripeness grounds?