Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco
141 S. Ct. 2226 · Decided June 28, 2021 · Supreme Court of the United States
At a glance
Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco was decided on June 28, 2021 unanimously (9–0). The Court vacated the lower court's decision and remanded the case. The decision was issued per curiam (an unsigned opinion of the Court). SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, takings clause” in the Due Process area. SCDB records that the Court declared a state or territorial law, regulation or constitutional provision unconstitutional.
Read the opinion
- CourtListener (Free Law Project) — opinion text
- Supreme Court of the United States — slip opinions, October Term 2020
- Supreme Court of the United States — docket 20-1212
Case details
- Citations
- 141 S. Ct. 2226 · 210 L. Ed. 2d 617 · 2021 U.S. LEXIS 3557
- Docket number
- 20-1212
- Decided
- June 28, 2021
- Court era
- Roberts Court
- Decision type
- Per curiam (no oral argument)
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 9–0 (unanimous)
- Opinion assigned by
- John G. Roberts Jr.
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, takings clause
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Held unconstitutional
- A state or territorial law, regulation or constitutional provision
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Majority | |
| Justice Stephen G. Breyer | Majority | |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Sonia Sotomayor | Majority | |
| Justice Elena Kagan | Majority | |
| Justice Neil M. Gorsuch | Majority | |
| Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh | Majority | |
| Justice Amy Coney Barrett | Majority |
Full case caption
Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco
SCDB identifiers: case 2020-073, docket 2020-073-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- Penneast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey
- Cedar Point Nursery v. HassidLaw held unconstitutional
- Tyler v. Hennepin CountyLaw held unconstitutional
- Knick v. Township of ScottAltered precedent
- Timbs v. Indiana
- Sheetz v. County of El Dorado
Cases on the same legal provision: Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Agins et Ux. v. City of Tiburon
- Gurley v. Rhoden
- City of Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp.
- United States v. Fuller et Ux.
- United States v. Grand River Dam Authority
- General Box Co. v. United States
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court
- Cedar Point Nursery v. HassidLaw held unconstitutional
- Lombardo v. St. Louis
- Penneast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error