In this case, the Supreme Court held that a landowner's regulatory taking claim was ripe for adjudication after a regional planning agency refused to permit any development on the landowner's parcel, even though the landowner made no attempt to sell the Transfer Development Rights ("TDRs," allegedly valuable rights that can be sold to other landowners) that the agency determined that she was entitled to. The lower courts had agreed with the agency that the landowner's taking claim was not ripe because she did not seek the agency's approval to transfer her development rights before bringing suit for an unconstitutional taking under Section 1983. The Supreme Court, however, reversed, unanimously holding that the resolution of the landowner's TDRs is not the type of "final decision" that must be made before a case becomes ripe for review. The finality requirement applies to decisions about how a landowner's property may be used, and the agency had already determined that the landowner's property could not be used at all. Since the agency had no further discretion to exercise over the landowner's right to use her land, the landowner's regulatory taking claim was ripe for adjudication.A majority of the Justices went on to suggest that the "final decision" doctrine might still come into play if there were any question over whether the agency would grant the landowner a discretionary award of saleable TDRs, but that no such question was presented here since the agency agreed that the landowner was entitled to the TDRs. Justices Scalia, O'Connor, and Thomas dissented from this portion of the opinion, arguing that the TDRs, while potentially relevant to the issue of whether the landowner had been justly compensated, were not relevant to the issue of whether the landowner's claim was ripe, or even whether there had been a taking in the first place.
The NAM joined with the Defenders of Property Rights in an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff's "ripeness" argument and calling for prompt payment of just compensation.