This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioner, the case concerns whether an invasion of property without just compensation violates the Just Compensation Clause, allowing a property owner to claim an unconstitutional taking.
The case was submitted for oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United States.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner, the central legal question is when an invasion of property without just compensation constitutes a taking that requires damages under the Just Compensation Clause.
What each side argues
Petitioner
Petitioner argues that the invasion itself gives rise to a constitutionally rooted claim for compensation, unless the government provides compensation at the time of the invasion.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Sotomayor asked why administrative exhaustion and ripeness are acceptable, but not the same if someone goes to state court for a final decision.
Justice Kagan asked whether the property owner is deprived of a constitutional right before the violation occurs.
According to Justice Gorsuch, justice Gorsuch said the petitioner's argument that the property is taken at the moment of invasion seems to contradict their position.
Justice Kavanaugh asked why state courts are considered inferior to federal courts for this claim.
Justice Breyer asked if there is a middle position on the issue.
Chief Justice Roberts asked what counts as speedy in the Pennsylvania court system.
Justice Alito asked whether the property owner would be entitled to attorneys' fees if they prevailed.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether a Section 1983 plaintiff could enjoin the municipality if the case is lost.
Justice Kavanaugh asked if the substance of the claim differs from the takings claim.
- [1] 1c4c8bda710f40070334-r1-67889625f290e792.pdf, p. 24
- [2] 1c4c8bda710f40070334-r1-67889625f290e792.pdf, p. 27
- [3] 1c4c8bda710f40070334-r1-67889625f290e792.pdf, p. 29
- [4] 1c4c8bda710f40070334-r1-67889625f290e792.pdf, p. 30
- [5] 1c4c8bda710f40070334-r1-67889625f290e792.pdf, p. 45
- [6] 1c4c8bda710f40070334-r1-67889625f290e792.pdf, p. 46
- [7] 1c4c8bda710f40070334-r1-67889625f290e792.pdf, p. 48
- [8] 1c4c8bda710f40070334-r1-67889625f290e792.pdf, p. 62
- [9] 1c4c8bda710f40070334-r1-67889625f290e792.pdf, p. 73
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 1c4c8bda710f40070334-r1-67889625f290e792.pdforal argument transcript
- 208945abf3469a5cf96a-r1-16c394c622c44f20.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.