Whether the extraordinary delay test applies in a retrospectively temporary taking and whether the absence of extraordinary delay categorically defeats a takings claim

In Agins v. City of Tiburon , this Court suggested in a footnote that “extraordinary delay” plays a central part in temporary takings cases. 447 U.S. 255, 263, n.9 (1980), abrogated on other grounds by Lingle v. Chevron , 544 U.S. 529 (2005). The Agins footnote has metastasized into a multifactor test—involving the duration of the delay and the government’s motives—that courts routinely (but inconsistently) apply in temporary takings cases. The decision below deepened a split among state and federal appellate courts on both questions presented: (1) Whether the extraordinary delay test applies in a retrospectively temporary taking, which involves a once permanent taking that is later cut short by judicial invalidation, legislative repeal, or other events. (2) Whether the absence of extraordinary delay categorically defeats a takings claim, regardless of other relevant considerations such as impact on economically beneficial use or interference with investment-backed expectations.