Ainalea

Here’s the State of Hawaii’s Brief in Opposition in a case we’ve been following for what seems like forever.

Check it out. The State waived response, but after a whole bunch of amici filed briefs in support of a cert grant (ours included), at least one of the Justices wanted to hear its arguments in opposition. 

Instead of the State’s “Solicitor General” filing the brief, it hired a SCOTUS player to argue that this case isn’t worth the Court’s time. The need to hire the D.C. big guns with name-recognition instead of relying on the in-house lawyers who are the State’s appellate experts somewhat belies any assertion that the State isn’t concerned about this case. 

Here are the Questions Presented as (re)framed by the BIO:

1. Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly held that Petitioner did not suffer a taking where the State rezoned Petitioner’s property because Petitioner repeatedly agreed to and failed to satisfy conditions precedent to its existing classification, and where the property retained additional economically productive uses and most of its economic value after the rezoning.

2. Whether this Court should overrule Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978)—a 42-year-old precedent it has repeatedly reaffirmed—in a record-intensive case where Petitioner is eligible only for nominal damages and despite Petitioner’s failure to propose any alternative test.

3. Whether the panel correctly held that, on the facts of this case, the State was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Of course we shall keep following along.

Brief in Opposition, Bridge Aina Lea, LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Comm’n, No. 20-54 (Nov. 25, 2020)