Let's not forget that Khosla himself does not exactly care about public interest or existing laws https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/tech...
I just read the article, and am not sure I see the issue. Quote from his lawyer: “No owner of private business should be forced to obtain a permit from the government before deciding who it wants to invite onto its property"
Where's the issue here? They guy basically bought the property all around the beach, and decided to close down access. I wouldn't say it's a nice thing to do, but it's legal. If I buy a piece of property, my rights as the owner should trump the rights of a bunch of surfers who want to get to a beach. The state probably should have been smart enough not to sell all the land.
Failing that, just seize a small portion via eminent domain: a 15-foot-wide strip on the edge of the property would likely come at a reasonable cost, and ought to provide an amicable resolution for all.
He was also completely aware of this when he bought the property, so it's not like this is a surprise or someone forcing him to change things. He's the one who broke the law and broke the status quo that had existed at that beach.
This undoubtedly then applies the 5th amendment takings clause: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This is clearly violated in this sense, and the state cannot violate this right (see above).
The fact that the Supreme Court didn't grant cert probably means they believe there is already precedent here, or just as probably that they didn't have the time. They always have a full docket; they were probably just out of slots.
I urge others to rebut this from a legal sense, not just say they disagree. People keep killing my comments, but it seems like they all just dislike the "selfish" appearance of the actions.
I honestly don't understand how you can take that action and try to turn it around the way you are.