Here’s one that’s been a long time coming (or coming back, more accurately).
In this recently-filed cert petition, the issue is whether an “exaction” imposed by the legislature should be subject to the nexus and rough proportionality requirements of Nollan, Dolan, and Koontz, or is merely subject to rational basis review (i.e., no review at all).
The last time this issue was presented to the U.S. Supreme Court after the California Supreme Court concluded that an exaction imposed by the City of San Jose wasn’t really and “Exaction,” and was only a land use regulation (as if the label matters), the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider the issue. Now its back, by way of what looks like a very tight “vehicle” for the Court (the Maryland Court of Appeals decided the issue squarely under federal law).
Here’s the single Question Presented by Dabbs v. Anne Arundel, a case about impact fees:
Whether legislatively proscribed monetary exactions on land use development are subject to scrutiny under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine as set out in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595 (2013); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994); and Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987).
Check it out, then stay tuned, as always.
Our thoughts about this issue are summed up in the amicus brief we joined in the San Jose case.
Dabbs v. Anne Arundel County, No. 18-54 (July 6, 2018)