Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 28, 2021 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- June 28, 2021
- Term
- October Term 2020
- Vote
- 9–0
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
- Constitutional ruling
- State/territorial law held unconstitutional
Opinion excerpt
Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PEYMAN PAKDEL, ET UX. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 20–1212. Decided June 28, 2021 PER CURIAM. When a plaintiff alleges a regulatory taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment, a federal court should not consider the claim before the government has reached a “final” deci- sion. Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U. S. 725 , 737 (1997). After all, until the government makes up its mind, a court will be hard pressed to determine whether the plaintiff has suffered a constitutional violation. See id., at 734 ; Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 569 U. S. 513 , 525 (2013). In the decision below, however, the Ninth Cir- cuit required petitioners to show not only that the San Francisco Department of Public Works had firmly rejected their request for a property-law exemption (which they did show), but also that they had complied with the agency’s administrative procedures for seeking relief. Because the latter requirement is at odds with “the settled rule . . . that exhaustion of state remedies is not a prerequisite to an ac- tion under 42 U. S. C. §1983 , ” Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 2) (brackets and inter- nal quotation marks…
Excerpt of a 13,847-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.