To the extent the city argues that, as a matter of law, its landuse decisions are immune from judicial scrutiny under all circumstances, its position is contrary to settled regulatory takings principles. We reject this claim of error.

When a property owner challenges a land use decision in court, local governments urge the courts to defer to their local control and land planning expertise. In making such pleas, they generally contend that their decisions are local policy decisions over which they should have exclusive control. While the courts afford broad deference to local government land use decisions, the experienced land use lawyer recognizes that, in many ways, the strong statement of the U.S. Supreme Court quoted above merely affirms a work in progress. Over the past 20 years, the courts have articulated through various decisions how settled federal constitutional limitations on governmental action apply in the land use law context. Even though this work progresses, from most clients' perspectives, the local government still seems to possess the unfettered right to do whatever it wants—no matter what the courts say. This Dialogue focuses on several recent decisions involving governmental bad faith in the administration and application of land use regulations and the emergence of the single-class equal protection claim as a legal theory to address governmental bad faith.