Gov't Amicus Briefs In Koontz: A Demand For Money Is Not An Exaction (And Even If It Is, Penn Central Is The Test)

There have been five amicus briefs filed supporting the Water Management District's arguments in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012). That's the case in which the Supreme Court is considering whether the "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards of Nollan and Dolan are applicable only to exactions for land, or whether they are generally-applicable tests for all exactions.

The property owner's brief on the merits is available here. The Water Management District's merits brief is posted here.

The amicus briefs just filed focus on the argument that a government demand for money is not an "exaction" that even triggers takings analysis, and if it is, the multifactor Penn Central test governs, not the Nollan-Dolan test.

• Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent

• Brief for the States of California, Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent

• Brief of the American Planning Association, the City of New York, and the National Trust for the Historic Preservation in the United States as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent

• Amici Curiae Brief of the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, Council of State Governments, National League of Cities, National Association Counties, International City/County Management Association, and International Municipal Lawyers Association in Support of Respondent

• Brief of Former Members of the National Research Council Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses as Amicic Curiae in Support of Respondent
  

We filed an amicus brief in the case in support of the property owner/petitioner that made two points. First, that money is "property," and there's no reason why the Nollan and Dolan tests should protect property owners only when land is demanded. Second, that requiring the authorities to articulate the nexus and rough proportionality of the exaction will likely improve planning practices. The other amicus briefs supporting the property owner are available here, here, and here.

Oral arguments are scheduled for January 15, 2013. The U.S. Solicitor General has asked the Court to allow it to present oral argument along with the respondent.