Whether Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York should be clarified or overruled to provide clarity on regulatory takings and the element of time in determining takings liability

In this Fifth Amendment regulatory takings case, Michigan’s Executive Order took dominion and control of the use of Petitioner’s commercial property . It barred all customers from the premises for six months , which erased t he property’s economic use and destroy ed Petitioner’s reasonable investment -backed expectations to benefit the general public . However, Michigan courts dismiss ed Petitioner’s case at the pleadings stage, generating three di sparate opinions , with two different outcomes , and three conflicting interpretations of Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York , 438 U.S. 104 (1978) . The result demonstrates Penn Central ’s inability to protect fundamental property rights and to provide a clear, consistent, and uniform determination of “how far is too far.” There is also tension in this Court’s decisions, and those below, as to whether the element of time should be a determinant of takings liability. The questions presented are: 1. Whether Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York , 438 U.S. 104 (1978) , should be clarified or overruled? 2. Whether a taking occur s upon the government asserting control over a property right, as the Court held in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid , 594 U.S. 139 (2021), or instead, upon the government asserting control over a property right for some undefined period of time, as the Court held in Tahoe -Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency , 535 U.S. 302 (2002) ?