"I'll take 'Words I Like to See' for $800, Alex."
In this Order, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear two important property rights cases (are there any other kind?). Both are cases we've been following -- and indeed are now playing a part in.
The first is detailed in this post.
In the second, Sheetz v. El Dorado County, the Court is finally getting to the long-unresolved question of whether an exaction or permit condition is exempt from the usual requirements of "logical nexus" and "rough proportionality" simply because the condition is imposed uniformly by legislation, and not ad hoc via an administrative or other permit decision.
We commented on the Sheetz case in this post ("Whether $23K Traffic Fee Is Proportional To One Single-Family Home Is Beyond The Ken Of Judges") and won't repeat the facts or comments here.
But here's the cert petition -- which did a pretty good job of summarizing the case and issues -- including the Question Presented:George Sheetz applied to the County of El Dorado, California, for a permit to build a modest manufactured house on his property. Pursuant to legislation enacted by the County, and as the condition of obtaining the permit, Mr. Sheetz was required to pay a monetary exaction of $23,420 to help finance unrelated road improvements. The County demanded payment in spite of the fact that it made no individualized determination that the exaction—a substantial sum for Mr. Sheetz—bore an “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” to the purported impacts associated with his modest project as required in Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 391 (1994).Mr. Sheetz challenged the exaction as an unconstitutional condition under Nollan and Dolan. A California trial court upheld the exaction, holding that, because it was authorized by legislation, the exaction was immune from Nollan/Dolan review. In a published decision, the California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review. California’s judicially-created exemption from Nollan/Dolan scrutiny for legislative exactions conflicts with the decisions of other federal and state courts across the country, and is in strong tension with this Court’s more recent precedents.The question presented is whether a permit exaction is exempt from the unconstitutional conditions doctrine as applied in Nollan and Dolan simply because it is authorized by legislation.
There it is. Finally.
Congratulations to Paul Beard (the lawyer who argued and won Koontz, by the way) on the hard-won grant. Our law firm colleague Brian Hodges (in our estimation, the nation's leading and most seasoned expert on the exactions issue) filed this amicus brief which urged the Court to take up the case.
Lawprof Ilya Somin offered his thoughts on the cert grant and the case here ("Supreme Court Will Hear Case on Whether there is a 'Legislative' Exception to the Takings Clause") ("But the Court need not even consider such political economy issues. They can just rely on the basic principle that the whole point of constitutional rights is to impose constraints on the political process—including legislatures."), via Volokh.
Follow along with the case here, or on the Court's docket.
