Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (Docket No. 22-1074) is a United States Supreme Court case regarding permit exactions under the Takings Clause.
Background and facts
In 2016, George Sheetz, a property owner in Placerville, California, applied for a permit from El Dorado county to construct a manufactured single-family home on a lot. The county conditioned approval of the permit on a "traffic mitigation fee" of $23,420. The fee was authorized by legislation and would be utilized to "fund transportation improvements needed to accommodate growth anticipated by the county's general plan". The fee was dependent on the location of the property and the type of construction.[1][2][3]
After paying the fee and obtaining the permit, Sheetz challenged the fee in state courts, arguing that it violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, barring governments from taking private property for public use without just compensation. He argued that the fee failed to adhere to the higher standards of scrutiny set by the Nollan/Dolan test for exactions. Under Nollan/Dolan, if the government intends to condition land-use permits on owners giving up property, it must show that the conditions are closely related and roughly proportional to the effects of the proposed land use. California state courts rejected application of the Nollan/Dolan test, ruling that the standard would only apply to adjudicative exactions, not legislatively enacted exactions.[4][5]
Sheetz appealed the state court decision to the United States Supreme Court and was granted certiorari on September 29, 2023.[6]
Supreme Court
The case was argued before the Supreme Court on January 9, 2024 and ruled in favor of Sheetz on April 12, 2024. Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion for a unanimous court, holding that permit exactions generally authorized by legislation were not exempt from the higher standards of scrutiny applicable to ad hoc exactions set by administrators. Justice Barrett wrote that "there is no basis for affording property rights less protection in the hands of legislators than administrators. The Takings Clause applies equally to both". The case was remanded back to state courts for consideration. The court did not address whether the fee itself was a taking.[7][8][9]
In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized that the court did not address whether the fee imposed by El Dorado county was indeed a taking if imposed "outside the permitting process", and thus necessarily subject to scrutiny under Nollan/Dolan.[10]
In a concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that application of the Takings Clause and Nollan/Dolan should not vary depending on the "class of property" impacted by a relevant regulation.[7]
In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that the majority opinion did not rule on the question presented by Gorsuch in his concurrence.[7]
See Also
References
- ^ "Supreme Court Holds that Legislative Impact Fee Programs Can Constitute a Taking", JDSupra, April 12, 2024
- ^ "Northern California man wins development impact fees case against U.S. Supreme Court". CBS News. April 12, 2024.
- ^ Egelko, Bob (September 23, 2024). "U.S. Supreme Court agrees to decide legality of fees charged to California homebuilders". San Francisco Chronicle.
- ^ "Court split over California man's takings clause dispute". SCOTUSblog. January 9, 2024.
- ^ "Supreme Court Appears Likely to Side With Landowners in Fee Case". Bloomberg Law. January 9, 2024.
- ^ "Supreme Court Accepts Takings Challenge to Land-Use Exaction". Bloomberg Law. September 29, 2023.
- ^ a b c "Court rules for property owner in building fee dispute". SCOTUSblog. April 12, 2024.
- ^ "SHEETZ v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. April 12, 2024.
- ^ "Builders may fight 'impact fees' that fund municipal projects in California, Supreme Court rules". LA Times. April 12, 2024.
- ^ "Supreme Court Rules There Is No "Legislative Exception" to the Takings Clause". Reason Magazine. April 12, 2024.