In the case of Bernadine Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Suitum, a landowner who challenged restrictions on her property's development imposed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). The TRPA had enacted regulations to protect Lake Tahoe from environmental harm and issued Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) as compensation for limiting development rights. However, Suitum argued that these limitations constituted a "taking" without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The court held that she could bring suit before selling her TDRs because they did not mitigate her loss sufficiently to prevent it from being considered a taking. This decision clarified when landowners can sue over regulatory takings and affirmed that government agencies must provide adequate compensation when restricting private property use for public benefit.

In the dissenting opinion for Bernadine Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Justice Stevens argued that the case was not ripe for adjudication because Mrs. Suitum had not yet attempted to sell her Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). He contended that until she tried and failed to sell these rights, there would be no way of knowing whether or not she had been deprived of all economically viable use of her property. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of regulatory takings law, asserting that it should only apply when a regulation deprives a landowner of all economic value in their property - an eventuality which could only be determined after Mrs. Suitum made efforts to sell her TDRs.