Does the Ninth Circuit's decision that California's Unclaimed Property Law does not require the payment of just compensation for the temporary taking of unclaimed private property it puts to public use conflict with the Takings Clause?

QUESTION PRESENTED Every State has enacted laws requiring unclaimed property to be held by the states and used for public purposes until it is reclaimed by the property owners. Under the California Unclaimed Property Law, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1540(c), like virtually every other state’s unclaimed property law, when unclaimed property is returned, no just compensation is paid to the property owners. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that just compensation be paid whenever private property is used for public purposes. See Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct. 2063, 2074 (2021); Murr v. Wisconsin, 582 U.S. 383, 392 (2017); Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 164 (1980). Just compensation must be paid whether the public use of private property is permanent or merely temporary. See Cedar Point Nursery, 141 S. Ct. at 2074 (citing United States v. Dow, 357 U.S. 17, 26 (1958)); Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 322, 122 S.Ct. 1465 (2002); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 436-37 (1982). Here, the court of appeals reached a contrary conclusion. The question presented is: Does the Ninth Circuit’s decision that California’s Unclaimed Property Law does not require the payment of just compensation for the temporary taking of unclaimed private property it puts to public use conflict with the Takings Clause?