www.scotusblog.com Open in urlscan Pro
107.6.139.226  Public Scan

Form analysis
2 forms found in the DOM

GET https://www.scotusblog.com/

<form role="search" action="https://www.scotusblog.com/" class="qode_search_form_2" method="get">
  <div class="form_holder_outer">
    <div class="form_holder">
      <input type="text" placeholder="Search" name="s" class="qode_search_field" autocomplete="off">
      <a class="qode_search_submit" href="javascript:void(0)">
							<i class="qode_icon_font_awesome fa fa-search "></i>                        </a>
    </div>
  </div>
</form>

POST https://api.follow.it/subscription-form/SkRITmxWRVUxbXNLVjhJVk5uZnlCWTZqQUZPN3JqTnk4RnVuRFZzTzVXdkxySWkvOWhxcUsyNFlLdlNmbEo1RG5jdXJhUlVTNVBwYmhkS253SlVPTW5HS0xPbmNuOTJVV0NkVzRYUVEyMFVEVHVnTSthOS9uUy9JUDk2RTVPTDJ8a3I3ZkFzaklZNUkvSURxL0VNdWdZaHFJaUFmVmdjNDAxenhaOTBsS0JObz0=/8

<form style="padding: 0px; text-align: left;"
  action="https://api.follow.it/subscription-form/SkRITmxWRVUxbXNLVjhJVk5uZnlCWTZqQUZPN3JqTnk4RnVuRFZzTzVXdkxySWkvOWhxcUsyNFlLdlNmbEo1RG5jdXJhUlVTNVBwYmhkS253SlVPTW5HS0xPbmNuOTJVV0NkVzRYUVEyMFVEVHVnTSthOS9uUy9JUDk2RTVPTDJ8a3I3ZkFzaklZNUkvSURxL0VNdWdZaHFJaUFmVmdjNDAxenhaOTBsS0JObz0=/8"
  method="post" target="popupwindow">
  <input name="email" id="digest_email" size="15" type="email" required="required" placeholder="Enter your email address"><input type="submit" value="GO">
</form>

Text Content

BREAKING NEWS

 * 
 * Cases
    * October Term 2024
    * October Term 2023
    * October Term 2022
    * October Term 2021
    * October Term 2020
    * Term Archive

 * Emergency Docket
    * Emergency Docket 2023
    * Emergency Docket 2022

 * Petitions
 * Statistics
 * Newsfeed
    * Academic Round-up
    * Book reviews/Ask the author
    * Capital cases
    * Cases in the Pipeline
    * Emergency appeals and applications
    * Live
    * Merits Cases
    * SCOTUStalk
    * Special Features

 * About
    * Who We Are
    * Case Authors
    * Resources
    * Contact Us

 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Home
 * Cases
   * October Term 2024
   * October Term 2023
   * October Term 2022
   * October Term 2021
   * October Term 2020
   * Term Archive
 * Emergency Docket
   * Emergency Docket 2023
   * Emergency Docket 2022
 * Petitions
 * Statistics
 * Newsfeed
 * Categories
   * Academic Round-up
   * Book reviews/Ask the author
   * Capital cases
   * Cases in the Pipeline
   * Emergency appeals and applications
   * Live
   * Merits Cases
   * SCOTUStalk
   * Special Features
 * About
   * Who We Are
   * Case Authors
   * Resources
   * Contact Us
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

ARGUMENT ANALYSIS


COURT SPLIT OVER CALIFORNIA MAN’S TAKINGS CLAUSE DISPUTE

By Amy Howe
on Jan 9, 2024 at 9:52 pm
FacebookLinkedInTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare
The justices heard oral argument in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado on Tuesday,
Jan. 9. (Rena Schild via Shutterstock)

Despite a suggestion by Justice Neil Gorsuch that there was “radical agreement”
in a California man’s challenge to the constitutionality of the “traffic impact
mitigation” fee that he was required to pay when building his home, the justices
appeared divided at oral argument on Tuesday. There may have been something
approaching a consensus that (contrary to the lower court’s ruling) conditions
on the exercise of property rights imposed by legislation can at least in theory
be subject to heightened scrutiny. But other justices either disagreed with the
premise of the state court’s ruling or questioned how such scrutiny should be
applied, leaving a variety of open questions after nearly 90 minutes of debate.

George Sheetz, a resident of Placerville, Calif., applied in 2016 for a permit
to build a manufactured home on a lot that he owns in the city. The County of El
Dorado told him that to receive the permit, he would have to pay nearly $24,000
in traffic impact mitigation fees. After paying the fee and obtaining the
permit, Sheetz went to state court to challenge the fee’s constitutionality. He
argued that the fee violates the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause.

He urged the state court to apply a test outlined by the Supreme Court in two
property rights cases, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City
of Tigard, Oregon. These cases hold that if a government wants to require
someone to give up property in exchange for a land-use permit, it must show that
such a condition is closely related and roughly proportional to the effects of
the proposed land use.

But the state courts declined to do so. They reasoned that the Nollan/Dolan test
only applies to fees imposed on an individual basis, rather than fees – such as
the traffic impact mitigation fee – authorized by legislation.

Representing Sheetz in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, lawyer Paul Beard told the
justices that the fee that the county imposed on Sheetz “went beyond mitigation”
and represented the “same improper leveraging” that prompted the Supreme Court
to establish the Nollan/Dolan test. “Such review is needed,” Beard stressed, “to
ensure that the government is not committing a taking in the guise of the police
power to mitigate for land use impacts.”

Aileen McGrath, who represented El Dorado County, painted a very different
picture. She characterized the fees charged to Sheetz as one levied by
“countless local governments across the country” “to address the impacts of new
development using a preidentified schedule.” Moreover, she emphasized, the fee
is only intended to finance “improvements necessary to alleviate increased
traffic from new development.” And subjecting fees like the one at issue in this
case to the Nollan/Dolan test would, she cautioned, “have dire consequences for
land use planning” by limiting the ability of local governments to pay for the
infrastructure “necessary to serve new development.”

One major point of contention at oral argument was the precise holding of the
state court and, as a result, the exact question before the justices.

Justice Clarence Thomas asked Beard whether the court needed to do anything more
than decide “whether Nollan/Dolan scrutiny applies to” legislative enactments.

Beard told Thomas that it did not and emphasized that the county had
“essentially conceded that primary point that there is no legislative generally
applicable exception” to the Nollan/Dolan rule.

McGrath agreed that legislative enactments are not automatically exempt from the
Nollan/Dolan rule. But, she added, the Nollan/Dolan rule does not apply to
Sheetz’s case because the Supreme Court “has said before that certain kinds of
legislation – property taxes, special assessments, user fees – are categorically
outside of Nollan/Dolan.”

Gorsuch pushed back against McGrath’s characterization of the case, observing
that whether the fees imposed on Sheetz were a tax or a user fee is “a really
interesting question.” But the California Court of Appeals never considered
those questions, Gorsuch continued, because it held only that “Nollan and Dolan
simply doesn’t apply to legislative enactments of any kind.” “And I thought we
had taken the case to address that question,” Gorsuch said. “And as the Chief
Justice has pointed out, I think there’s radical agreement on that question
today.”

In light of that agreement, Gorsuch posited, the next step would be to send the
case back to the lower court for it to consider the open questions, such as
whether the fee is a tax or a user fee.

But other justices questioned whether the Nollan/Dolan test applied at all to a
case like Sheetz’s, which involved fees rather than the government’s efforts to
take a property interest. Chief Justice John Roberts was the first to raise this
point, noting that although Sheetz’s case “involves land,” the county had not
sought to take “any particular property interest. They’re not taking any part of
the land. They’re not taking an easement.” “I don’t think,” Roberts said,
“there’s another case … where what’s involved is simply value as opposed to a
concrete identifiable property interest.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also made a similar point. “What if,” she asked
Beard, “I believe that Nollan and Dolanonly applies when the takings clause is
implicated?” But, she suggested, there is nothing unconstitutional, standing
alone, “about a county saying, if you want to build in this way, because of the
impacts on the traffic or environment or whatever, you have to pay a fee.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, on the other hand, expressed concern that if the
Nollan/Dolan test does not apply to impact fees like the one that Sheetz paid,
it would create a loophole that would allow local governments “to impose
exorbitant fees that are obviously being used to fund improvements in the other
part of the county” that can’t be funded, for whatever reason, through tax
increases. “Isn’t that,” he asked McGrath, “a core concern of our entire
jurisprudence in this area” of the law?

Another key concern for some justices was how, even if the court were to rule
for Sheetz, the Nollan/Dolan test would be applied to cases involving
legislative enactments: Would it apply to the categories created by the
legislative scheme, or would it apply instead on a case-by-case basis? Justice
Elena Kagan suggested that the answer would instruct courts to “ask more
generally about the proportionality or reasonableness … of the general
legislative scheme.”

Beard countered that when the government appropriates property, it shouldn’t
matter whether it does so through legislation or on an individual basis. In
either scenario, he contended, the appropriation should “be subject to the same
standard, which is to protect an individual property owner’s right against an
uncompensated taking.”

Kagan was skeptical, and she pressed him to explain how courts should carry out
such an evaluation. Because courts would have to undertake a complicated inquiry
– considering, for example, the size of the property, “the distance from the
highway, the number of residents, the exact amount of use that they’re going to
do” – it would essentially rule out any generally applicable laws or fees going
forward, she suggested.

In response to questions from Kavanaugh, McGrath later indicated that this was,
from her point of view, the “core of what our dispute is here.” Although she
continued to maintain that no property interest had been taken and that the
Nollan/Dolan test would not apply to the fee levied on Sheetz, she conceded that
“there has to be a connection between new development and the fees that the
county charges” – a consideration similar to the nexus and rough proportionality
requirements of the Nollan/Dolan test. But, she argued, the legislature should
not have to “justify how it imposed those fees” on a case-by-case basis.
Instead, she told Kavanaugh, “if any sort of heightened review is necessary
here, it needs to be performed at a programmatic basis that looks at the
categories that the legislature itself has drawn.”

A decision in the case is expected by summer.

This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.

Posted in Merits Cases

Cases: Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Court split over California man’s takings clause
dispute, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 9, 2024, 9:52 PM),
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/court-split-over-california-mans-takings-clause-dispute/



FEATURED POSTS

Slide 1


JUSTICES TURN AWAY WEST POINT ADMISSIONS CHALLENGE


READ MORE
Slide 2


SUPREME COURT LIKELY TO DISCARD CHEVRON


READ MORE
Slide 3


SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER INSURRECTION PROVISION KEEPS TRUMP OFF BALLOT


READ MORE
Slide 4


THE TAKINGS CLAUSE WITH ROBERT MCNAMARA


READ MORE




ARCHIVES

Archives Select Month February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023
October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023
March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022
September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022
February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September
2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February
2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August
2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January
2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July
2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019
December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018
June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December
2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017
May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November
2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April
2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October
2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March
2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014
September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014
February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September
2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February
2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August
2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January
2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July
2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011
December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010
June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December
2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009
May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November
2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April
2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October
2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March
2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006
September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September
2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February
2005

ABOUT
RESOURCES
JOB POSTINGS
PRIVACY POLICY
CONTACT US

Sign up to receive a daily email digest from follow.it by entering your email.


This website may use cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok
with this, but you can leave if you wish.Accept Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Close

PRIVACY OVERVIEW

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through
the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are
stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic
functionalities of the ...
Necessary
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly.
This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and
security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal
information.
Non-necessary
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function
and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other
embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to
procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT



✓
Thanks for sharing!
AddToAny
More…


Notifications



ShareThis Copy and Paste