No. 25-1377October Term 2025Before Arguments
LeRoy George Siddell v. City of San Diego, California
from the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One.
Case status
- Current stage
- Before Arguments
- Latest event
- Accepted by the Court
- Decision timing
- No window until argument is scheduled.
- What it's about
from the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One.
Question presented
1. Whether a state-court judgment rests on an adequate and independent state-law standing ground barring review under 28 U.S.C. § 1257 when the court denies relief on that ground yet proceeds to adjudicate and reject a federal Takings Clause claim on the merits. 2. Whether a government order that bars a landlord from recovering possession after the landlord’s legal right to exclude has accrued effects a per se physical taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. 3. Whether, consistent with the Just Compensation Clause, a government may, by invoking a public-health emergency, impose uncompensated public burdens on a discrete class of property owners that, in fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.
- Case path
Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One / Accepted by the Court
- Area
Supreme Court case awaiting argument
Timing
Expected by late June 2026, if argued this term
The Court granted review but has not yet scheduled oral argument. Once argued, the median case reaches a decision in 94 days. Nearly all cases are decided by the end of the term in which they are argued.
Briefing
What it's about
This petition asks whether the Supreme Court can review a California ruling that said the landlord lacked standing (the right to sue) under state law but still rejected his federal Takings Clause claim on the merits. It also asks whether a public-health emergency order that blocked him from recovering possession after his right to exclude had accrued amounted to a physical taking that requires compensation.
Argument
A petition for certiorari (a request for Supreme Court review) has been filed, and no oral argument is scheduled yet. The petition asks the Court to resolve both the state-law standing issue and the Takings Clause questions.
Impact
The case could affect landlords and governments when emergency rules stop an owner from retaking property but do not provide payment. For example, if a landlord has the legal right to regain rental property and a government order blocks that step, the Court could clarify whether compensation is required.
What is at stake in Siddell v. San Diego?
The petition asks whether the Supreme Court can review the California judgment and whether the possession bar was a taking requiring compensation.
Who could be affected if the Court takes this case?
Landlords and governments could be affected if emergency property rules limit possession rights without compensation.
What happens next in LeRoy George Siddell v. City of San Diego?
The justices first must decide whether to grant certiorari, meaning whether to hear the case. No oral argument is scheduled yet.
Related cases
Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Jul 30, 2026
- Method
- Methodology