Here's petitioner's reply brief in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist.,
No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012), which responds to the Water Management District's merits brief.
In that case, the U.S.
Supreme Court will address 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.
Among other things, the reply addresses the argument made by the District and its amici that Nollan and Dolan aren't really "takings" cases, but involve due process or equal protection:
Due process and equal protection claims are also inapt. A due process claim questions whether the exaction serves some legitimate purpose, and an equal protection claim asks whether the exaction is applied equally to similarly situated individuals. But neither claim addresses whether a particular individual has been targeted to bear a public burden that should be borne by the general public, or whether he should be required to give up a constitutional right in exchange for the ability to use his land. Again, only Nollan and Dolan can answer these constitutional concerns.
Br. at 23.
This is the final brief in the case. Oral arguments are scheduled for next week, January 15, 2013. We'll bring you more as the date approaches.
We filed an amicus brief in the case in support of the property owner/petitioner. The property owner's brief on the merits is available here. The other amicus briefs supporting the property owner are available here, here, and here. The Water Management District's merits brief is posted here. The amicus briefs suporting the Water District are posted here.
Petitioner's Reply Brief, Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management Dist., No. 11-1447 (Dec. 8, 2013)
