[Aerich]

Well, the president doesn't really have any direct influence over a ruling of the SCOTUS, or any other court, constitutional separation of powers and independent judiciaries being what they are... witness the relative lack of power of the presidential office in the Schiavo case, an instance where GWB clearly wished to intervene.

Generally, there's a few things that can happen to overturn or limit a SC ruling - I'm working from a Canadian perspective, but these should all still apply, I believe, perhaps with the exception of #1.

1) A legislative body (probably should be Congress, for a SCOTUS case), can pass legislation overturning the ruling. Typically, the case is not mentioned by name, but everybody knows why the legislation is passed.

An example of such legislation might be - "No land may be expropriated; Exception: land may be expropriated for a clearly public purpose if fair market value is paid in compensation; Clearly public purpose does not include increased munipal revenue from taxation on new developments."

I'm not entirely certain that your federal legislative body could pass something like that without stepping over the line into state jurisdiction.

2) The SC may directly overturn its own ruling - typically this type of intervention is rare, indicating a dramatic shift in policy, on par with the likes of Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education.

3) The SC may "distinguish" the case, limiting its operation in future cases. Generally, the court will pick a fact or set of facts from the original case, and refuse to apply the case to other cases unless the subsequent cases meet the same criteria.

4) #1 and #3 may be combined, and the courts may use subsequent cases to "clarify" their original meaning by limiting the scope of the case, redefining elements of the ruling, etc.

SCOTUS is really the only body that can alter this ruling. The best hope for people affected by expropriations for private developments is to take their issues to court, even if it looks like they have no shot. It is very possible that the court might reconsider or alter its reasoning to limit the application of this first ruling.