Palazzolo v. Rhode Island — Ginsburg, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Ginsburg, dissenting, argues that Palazzolo’s takings claim is not ripe because he never sought permission to develop the uplands, and she criticizes the Court for allowing new Penn Central arguments not raised below and using the State’s defense against the Lucas claim as a weapon for those new claims. Justice Breyer, dissenting, agrees the claim is not ripe but adds that property transfer does not bar claims; Justices Stevens, O'Connor, and Scalia discuss the timing of title acquisition and investment-backed expectations in relation to the Takings Clause.