Tedford's Tenancy, LLC v. City of New York, New York, et al.

There is a substantial split of authority about whether final decision ripeness is jurisdictional or prudential for Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claims. On the jurisdictional side are this Court’s decisions in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank and Horne v. Department of Agriculture, plus the Third and Eighth Circuits. On the prudential side are this Court’s decisions in Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council and Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, and the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. The Federal and Second Circuits have intra-circuit splits and in the remaining Circuits, it is an open question. As a result, there is substantial uncertainty about what a property owner must plead for its constitutional claim to be heard on the merits. Here, Petitioner’s regulatory takings claim was dismissed at the pleadings stage on prudential ripeness grounds, despite plausibly alleging a concrete injury and an established government position. The questions presented are:

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

2. Whether a regulatory takings claim under the Fifth Amendment can be dismissed as prudentially unripe when a plaintiff is ineligible for administrative relief or such relief is facially incapable of altering the economic impact of the regulation?