1. Whether equitable tolling is available for
statutes of limitation, highlighting a conflict
between Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner , 142 S. Ct.
1493, 1500 (2022), holding that such relief is
"presumptively" available, and the earlier decisions
in United States v. Beggerly , 524 U.S. 38, 49 (1998)
and Block v. North Dakota , 461 U.S. 273, 287 (1983),
holding that the statute of limitations must be
"strictly" applied.

2. Whether the only remedy for a regulatory
taking is cash payment, a conclusion of the Ninth
Circuit that conflicts with recent decisions of this
Court, like Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid , 141 S. Ct.
2063 (2021); Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n ,
483 U.S. 825 (1987); Dolan v. City of Tigard , 512
U.S. 374 (1994); and Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc .,
544 U.S. 528 (2005), holding that takings relief is not
limited to compensation but can be declaratory or
injunctive, depending on the circumstances.

3. Whether a constitutional right can be
eliminated by a statute — in this case, whether the
"self-executing" just compensation provision of the
Fifth Amendment can be eliminated by a statute
purporting to impose an artificial time limit in which
to sue to enforce that constitutional guarantee.

Question not identified