In the 2000 case Anthony Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of landowner Anthony Palazzolo, who had been denied permission by state agencies to fill wetlands on his property for development purposes. The court held that a regulatory taking claim was not barred due to its acquisition after the regulations were enacted. This decision overturned lower courts' rulings which stated that because he acquired the property after regulations preventing such developments were already in place, he did not have any reasonable investment-backed expectations and thus could not claim a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights against government takings without just compensation. However, Justice Kennedy writing for majority argued that future generations should not be barred from challenging unreasonable limitations on their use of property simply because they inherited or purchased it with knowledge of those restrictions.

In the dissenting opinion for Anthony Palazzo v. Rhode Island, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision ignored precedent and undermined states' abilities to regulate land use. She contended that Mr. Palazzolo had no right to expect he could develop his wetlands property because regulations preventing such development were already in place when he acquired it. Furthermore, she disagreed with the Court's conclusion that a regulatory taking had occurred, arguing instead that Mr. Palazzolo still enjoyed economic value from his property through its potential sale or lease as open space or recreational land; thus there was no complete deprivation of all economically beneficial uses of his property which would constitute a compensable taking under Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council (1992). Lastly, she criticized the majority’s refusal to consider whether compensation might be due not for total takings but rather partial ones – an issue left unresolved by previous cases like Penn Central Transportation Co v New York City (1978) - thereby leaving lower courts without guidance on this important question.