Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco.
The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Ninth Circuit's decision regarding a regulatory takings claim by Pakdel and his wife against San Francisco. The Court found that the Ninth Circuit incorrectly required exhaustion of administrative procedures for finality in a takings claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The decision emphasized that once the government has reached a conclusive position, further administrative steps are unnecessary for ripeness.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco.
The Court held that the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of the finality requirement for regulatory takings claims was incorrect.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Takings Clause is relevant to Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco
The case involves a claim of an unconstitutional regulatory taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Petitioners sued under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging, among other things, that the lifetime-lease requirement was an unconstitutional regulatory taking.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco
The case discusses the procedural requirement of finality in the context of regulatory takings claims.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Ninth Circuit's view of fnality is incorrect. 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 'fnal' decision.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco
The Court's decision involves reviewing and invalidating the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of the finality requirement.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)We, too, think that the Ninth Circuit's view of fnality is incorrect.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco that support the summary and concepts above.
The Ninth Circuit's view of fnality is incorrect.
Administrative 'exhaustion of state remedies' is not a prerequisite for a takings claim when the government has reached a conclusive position.
The fnality requirement is relatively modest.
