Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following (because it is one of ours).

As we noted here, our cert petition asks this Question Presented:

Does the protection the Takings Clause provides to land-use permit applicants encompass monetary demands beyond those imposed in lieu of a dedication of real property?

The latest development is that five amici briefs have been submitted, urging the Court to grant review.

Manhattan Institute, National Association of Realtors, New York State Association of Realtors, National Association of Home Builders, National Apartment Association: detailing the history of government pushback against the Supreme Court’s exactions rules, noting that some courts “continue to use increasingly attenuated distinctions to shield monetary permit conditions from the heightened scrutiny Sheetz requires.” Br. at 8.

Ronnie Wolf and 43 Other SoHo/NoHo artists: detailing the impacts of New York City’s exaction, and the history of artists residing in this part of the city. “The Artists are uniquely positioned to help this Court understand the history of artists in SoHo/NoHo and how they will be affected by the City’s stripping of their right to sell their own property. Given that the City purports to be protecting local artists and sustaining SoHo/NoHo’s cultural legacy, it is all the more important for the Court to hear from those artists themselves.” Br. at 2.

Cato Institute: arguing that the New York Court of Appeals “failed to protect the Petitioners’ property rights—rights which hark back to England’s pre-colonial common-law right to property. That vision of property rights encouraged the Framers to craft the robust property rights found in the Takings Clause.” Br. at 3.

Advancing American Freedom, et al.: “A man’s home is his castle. Unless his home is zoned by New York City as ‘Joint living-work quarters for artists’ (JLWQA). Then, he must pay an exorbitant fee, likely over $250,000, to make his home into his castle or even to rent it to someone who has not been licensed by the city as a ‘certified artist.’ This case concerns not only a fundamental right recognized in the Western legal tradition for millennia, but the importance of incentivizing Americans to be good stewards of their property.” Br. at 2.

Councilmember Christopher Marte: A NYC councilmember who has for years been trying to eliminate the exaction shares the insider’s view of the political context, and why the legislature will never fix the problem. “Without removing the Arts Fund Fee requirement, long-term JLWQA residents in SoHo/NoHo will continue to face substantial and unequal financial penalties under the City’s 2021 Rezoning legislation, without any benefit to the certified artists that the fee is purportedly designed to protect.” Br. at 21.

Will the City file an opposition? Stay tuned.

Brief of Amicus Curiae Councilmember Christopher Marte, in Support of Petitioners, The Coalition for Fairne…