Maryland property owner asks Supreme Court to weigh takings ripeness rule

A Maryland landowner has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether property owners must first pursue legislative changes before bringing a federal regulatory takings claim. The petition follows Fourth Circuit rulings that left Garnell Walls unable to proceed over a long-running dispute tied to water and sewer access for his Brandywine parcel.

Why it matters: - The case could clarify when property owners can challenge government land-use limits in federal court. - A ruling could affect takings claims in Maryland and beyond, especially where local approval depends on legislative action. - The petition asks whether courts can force owners to seek a council or other legislative fix before suing over an alleged taking.

What happened: - Pacific Legal Foundation, with Justly Prudent as co-counsel, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on July 23, 2026, on behalf of Garnell Walls. - Walls owns an undeveloped parcel on South Hill Road in Brandywine, Maryland, in Prince George’s County. - The petition asks the Supreme Court to review a February 23, 2026 Fourth Circuit decision that held Walls’s Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claim was not ripe. - The Fourth Circuit denied rehearing on March 23, 2026.

The details: - Walls bought the land in 1978 with plans to build a single-family home. - Between 2019 and 2021, Walls spent about $40,000 on permits and inspections, including a hydrological study and soil percolation testing. - Walls also recorded a woodland conservation easement over part of the property. - The County approved both the site development permit and the single-family dwelling permit. - Public water and sewer service is not readily accessible to the parcel. - The nearest public sewer line is more than one-half mile away. - The nearest public water line is about 900 feet away. - Connecting the property to public service is estimated to cost about $2.1 million to $2.5 million. - Under the County’s 2018 Water & Sewer Plan, an interim private well and septic system needs a waiver from the Department of Permitting, Inspections and Enforcement. - County personnel told Walls the agency would not approve a waiver for the property. - In a February 2022 letter, the County said the property “does not meet the criteria for a waiver” and pointed Walls to the County Council’s legislative amendment process to change the parcel’s water and sewer category. - Walls sued in May 2023 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the County’s refusal amounted to a taking without just compensation. - The district court dismissed the case as unripe. - The Fourth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion, saying the County had not reached a final decision because the County Council could still authorize the interim system through a water and sewer category amendment. - Jonathan M. Houghton and Deborah J. La Fetra of Pacific Legal Foundation are counsel of record. - Jordan D. Howlette, managing attorney of Justly Prudent, is co-counsel and has represented Walls since 2023. - Related proceedings remain pending in Maryland state court. - The Supreme Court case is Garnell Walls v. Prince George's County, et al. (Case No. 25A1280).

Between the lines: - The petition frames the Fourth Circuit’s approach as a broader legal barrier for property owners facing local permit denials tied to legislative processes. - The filing says courts are split on whether legislative remedies must be exhausted before an as-applied regulatory takings claim ripens. - The petition says the Ninth Circuit and courts in Virginia, California, New York, Ohio, Michigan and Hawaii do not require legislative exhaustion. - The petition says the Fourth Circuit and courts in Illinois, Florida, Georgia and Wisconsin do require it. - On ripeness, the petition says the Third and Eighth Circuits treat the issue as jurisdictional, while the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits treat it as prudential. - The petition also says the Federal and Second Circuits have issued conflicting decisions within their own circuits. - In a quoted statement, Jordan D. Howlette said Walls has waited nearly 50 years to build on land he bought and paid for and is seeking a decision from a court willing to hear him.

What's next: - The Supreme Court will decide whether to take the case. - If the justices grant review, the Court could address the split over legislative exhaustion and ripeness in takings cases. - The outcome could shape how property owners challenge local land-use restrictions when access to utilities depends on government action.

The bottom line: - Walls is asking the Supreme Court to decide whether a property owner must first try to change the law before challenging an alleged taking in federal court.