Whether the Ninth Circuit's ruling effectively eliminates property owners' ability to recover for temporary regulatory takings conflicts with other courts and requires clarification

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The State of Hawaii zoned for agricultural use land that it knew was not viable or appropriate for such use. At the property owner’s request, it rezoned it for urban use but, after Plaintiff Bridge Aina Le‘a began developing it, the State illegally (as the Hawaii Supreme Court later held) “reverted” the land to agricultural use. A jury found this to be a 5th Amendment taking under this Court’s standards in both Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) and Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). The Ninth Circuit reversed, in an opinion which effectively eliminates property owners’ ability to recover for temporary regulatory takings of property, raising these questions: 1. As the Ninth Circuit’s extensive, published ruling eliminates property owners’ ability to recover for temporary property takings under any theory, and that ruling conflicts with decisions of other courts, including this Court, does this Court need to clarify the rules for recovery for temporary regulatory takings? 2. In light of the confusion in the lower courts as to the application of the Penn Central factors — to the point where it has become almost impossible for property owners to prevail on this theory — should this Court reexamine and explain how Penn Central analysis is supposed to be done — or dispensed with? 3. In light of the Ninth Circuit’s holding that almost no value loss — no matter how great — can -iever establish a temporary taking under either Lucas or Penn Central, is it necessary for this Court to clarify the standards? 4. In light of Penn Central’s clear direction that cases like this are to be determined ad hoc, on their individual facts, and this Court’s approval in City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 U.S. 687 (1999) that takings lability be decided by a jury, do appellate courts need to stay their hands (as mandated by the 7» Amendment’s Re-examination Clause) when — as here — reviewing jury findings of fact-based takings issues, particularly when the trial judge confirmed those findings?