Does a regulatory taking under Lucas require complete economic deprivation, and how do recent Supreme Court precedents impact the Penn Central takings analysis?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Does a taking analyzed under Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council! require that the affected property be left with no value even if the regulation in question deprives the property of all economically beneficial uses? Does Palazzolo v. Rhode Island? leave any room for consideration of the landowners’ expectations in a Penn Central* takings analysis? Do the decisions in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo’, Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid,® Sheetz v. Cnty. of El Dorado’ and Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.’, change the way courts should evaluate the “character of governmental action” factor in a Penn Central analysis? 1. 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) 2. 53 U.S. 606 (2001) 3. Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) 4, 144 S.Ct. 2244 (2024) 5. 594 U.S. 139 (2021) 6. 601 U.S. 267 (2024) 7. 544 U.S. 528 (2005) i A LIST OF ALL PARTIES The parties to this proceeding are James Gary Collins, Petitioner, and Monterey County, California, Respondent, both of whom are listed in the caption.