Question not identified

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioners’ predecessors sold an easement to the United States in order to preserve the land’s environmental character and to permit members of the public to use the easement as a trail. The property was unimproved and the grantors expected it to remain that way. When the property owners learned that the government intended to build a paved road instead, they sued. The trial court held that they waited too long and granted summary judgment to the government. That allowed it to construct a raised and paved roadway across the otherwise pristine landscape. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, in an opinion raising these questions: 1. Whether equitable tolling is available for statutes of limitation, highlighting a conflict between Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 142 S. Ct. 1493, 1500 (2022), holding that such relief is “presumptively” available, and the earlier decisions in United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 49 (1998) and Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 287 (1983), holding that the statute of limitations must be “strictly” applied. 2. Whether the only remedy for a regulatory taking is cash payment, a conclusion of the Ninth Circuit that conflicts with recent decisions of this Court, like Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 1418. Ct. 2063 (2021); Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994); and Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., -ii544 U.S. 528 (2005), holding that takings relief is not limited to compensation but can be declaratory or injunctive, depending on the circumstances. 3. Whether a constitutional right can be eliminated by a statute — in this case, whether the “self-executing” just compensation provision of the Fifth Amendment can be eliminated by a statute purporting to impose an artificial time limit in which to sue to enforce that constitutional guarantee.