Wealthy venture capitalist Vinod Khosla scored a key victory Thursday in a legal battle over his decision to block the public from walking or driving to Martins Beach, a secluded cove on property he purchased in 2008....

The judge's ruling skirts the fundamental conflict between the rights of private property owners and the rights of Californians to access the shoreline. Instead, Buchwald rooted his decision in the land's history during the mid-19th century. Since there was no public easement attached to the property at the time the United States acquired California from Mexico, the judge reasoned, the question of whether the California Constitution now guarantees access to the beach is immaterial....

But the plaintiff's central argument stemmed from Article X, Section IV of the California Constitution, which holds that no one possessing the frontage of navigable water "shall be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required for any public purpose." The section requires the Legislature to "enact such laws as will give the most liberal construction to this provision" to ensure public access. ...

It remains unclear how Buchwald's ruling will affect the other lawsuit involving Martins Beach. That suit, brought by the Surfrider Foundation, contends that locking the gate to the road off Highway 1 constituted development under California coastal law, requiring a California Coastal Commission permit, which Khosla neither sought nor received. That case is slated for trial in the spring.