Here is a collection of commentary on the oral arguments in Sheetz v. El Dorado County, heard by the Supreme Court earlier this week. (Our own thoughts here.)
- Lawprof Tim Mulvaney, "Mulvaney of Sheetz v. County of El Dorado" (PropertyProfBlog) ("In light of that concern, perhaps such scrutiny, Justice Jackson ruminated, should be applicable only to those legislative permitting schemes that require the dedication of land for the state’s possession. Justice Alito countered, though, that any such framework is manipulable, for a fee could be construed as offsetting the government’s acquisition of a 'no-build easement.'").
- Lawprof Ilya Somin, "Supreme Court Oral Argument Indicates 'Radical Agreement' that there is no 'Legislative Exception' to the Takings Clause" (Volokh) ("All or nearly all of the justices seem to agree there is no legislative exception. Indeed, even counsel for the County of El Dorado agreed.").
- "An interview with the attorneys behind the SCOTUS case Sheetz v. County of El Dorado" (Pacific Legal Foundation) ("Brian Hodges: What surprised us was how focused the Court was just on the question presented, which was whether legislative exactions are subject to Nollan and Dolan. The government briefs really didn’t address that issue. That’s the issue that the Court granted cert on, but they didn’t really address it. They tried to change the topic. And the fact that the Justices didn’t really take the bait was a bit surprising.").
- Bradford Kuhn, "A Taking of Just a Fee?" (California Eminent Domain Report) ("The Supreme Court’s decision will be one we’ll continue to monitor closely, as it could have widespread implications to government agencies in California if they need to change the way impact and permit fees are calculated across the board.").
- Ben Christopher, "Supreme Court case about impact fees could have huge consequences for housing in California" (Cal Matters) ("Many court watchers expect the court’s conservative majority to side with the burdened property owner and require the cities and counties to work a bit harder to justify the fees they impose on new home construction. It remains unclear for now just how far such a ruling could go and whether it might place fresh limits on other widely used housing and revenue-raising policies.").
- Chuck Slothower, "A Taking Or Just A Fee? Justices Seek To Make Distinction" (Law360) ("Court ustices adopted a skeptical line of questioning Tuesday in response to arguments that government permit fees constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment in a case that could have broad implications for American land use planning.").
- Noel Sterett, "Supreme Court Considers Whether County Can Exact a $23,000 Fee to Build a Single Home" (Dalton Tomich) ("If the Supreme Court decides in the County’s favor, many other local governments could follow suit and enact similar legislation. As local governments look to increase revenue without raising taxes, they may look to use their permitting powers to exact money from property owners like Mr. Sheetz.").
