Note: this is the second of our posts on the recent Supreme Court opinions in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the case in which the unanimous Court held that exactions imposed by legislation are not exempt from the essential nexus (Nollan) and rough proportionality (Dolan) standards. Here's our first post, which covers the case and the main opinion ("Sheetz pt. I - 'Radical Agreement' At SCOTUS: 'Your Money Or Your Rights' Isn't OK Just Because A Legislature Does It").
[Disclosure: this case is one of ours.]
In this post, we cover the three very short concurring opinions.
* * * *
The Court took no position on whether the County's traffic impact fee has an essential nexus to the Sheetz development, or whether $23 grand is roughly proportional to any traffic his proposal might be responsible for. For this and more, the Court remanded the case. Notably, the Court also did not decide whether "a permit condition imposed on a class of properties must be tailored with the same degree of specificity as a permit condition that targets a particular development." Slip op. at 9-10.
Now that the Court has expressed unanimity on the Question Presented in Sheetz (does the government have the unfettered ability to demand "the goodies" simply because a property owner needs the government's approval to make use if his or her land? No.), let's take a look at the three concurring opinions.
Sotomayor & Jackson: Hands Off Taxes!
Justice Sotomayor joined by Justice Jackson, wrote separately to restate their agreement with the narrow holding (answering the Question Presented and only the Question Presented) that legislatively-imposed exactions are subject to Nollan and Dolan.
But they noted that this case assumed the "predicate" inquiry that "government could not have constitutionally ordered the person asserting the claim to do what it attempted to pressure that person into doing." Concurring op. at 1 (citing Koontz). thus, "[t]he question presented in this case did not include that antecedent question: whether the traffic impact fee would be a compensable taking if imposed outside the permitting context[.]" Concurring op. at 2.
What we think they are getting at is that straight-up government requirements that some, or all, persons pay money for something (also known as taxes or sometimes fees), are not subject to nexus or proportionality (or at least not in the same way as property exactions are). Fees and taxes may be subject to other limitations, but they are not, generally speaking, evaluated as "takings."
It probably shouldn't be surprising that Justice Sotomayor concurred on this basis, since during oral arguments, she seemed particularly concerned with the line between exactions, fees, and taxes.
Gorsuch: Broadly-applicable exactions are no different than parcel-specific exactions
Justice Gorsuch preemptively addressed a question that was bandied about at oral arguments, but that the entire Court determined was not presented by the case (so the majority opinion avoided doing more than mentioning it):
The Court notes but does not address a separate question: whether the Nollan/Dolan test operates differently when an alleged taking affects a "class of properties" rather than "a particular development."Concurring op. at 1. He answered his own question: "But how could it?"
He goes on to note that "[n]othing about" the Nollan/Dolan test "depends on whether the government imposes the challenged condition on a large class of properties or a single tract or something in between." Concurring op. at 1-2.
Short story: there's no reason to not apply the Nollan/Dolan tests to "class" exactions.
Kavanaugh, Kagan, & Jackson: class exactions subject to different nexus and proportionality tests
Three Justices expressed a slightly different view, noting that "today's decision does not address or prohibit the common government practice of imposing permit conditions, such as impact fees, on new development through reasonable formulas or scheduled that assess the impact of classes of development rather than the impact of specific parcels of property." Concurring op. at 1. The three wrote to note that these type of exactions may be subject to different standards, and that the Court did not address or decide that issue. Big hint for those of us who are asking "what might be next?"
Tropebusters!
What to make of Sheetz? It does resolve, fully and finally, the longstanding question of whether legislatively-imposed exactions are just plain old land use regulations subject to only the rational basis test. Answer: no, they aren't. Does Sheetz leave open some follow-on questions? It seems so to some Justices, at least.
We do know that several longstanding tropes of land use law generally -- and exactions doctrine specifically -- seem to be gone, while a couple of others may have continuing life:
- Land vs. money? Demanding money or demanding land...all the same thing.
- Labels not controlling. Relatedly, labeling a condition as an "exaction" or "in lieu" fee doesn't matter. Or "legislative" vs "administrative." The opinion refers to the County's traffic impact fee as a "permit condition," an "impact fee." What counts is what the condition does, not what someone calls it.
- Ministerial vs discretionary. This longstanding distinction in land use and administrative law did not seem to carry a lot of analytical weight with the Court. The opinion referred to "permit conditions," here a condition on a presumably ministerial building permit. We always thought that conditions can only be placed on discretionary approvals, not on things like building permits that are "must issue" when the application conforms to the technical requirements of the governing code.
- Judicial Takings. Fans of the doctrine take note: all nine Justices just signed on to the notion that "there is 'no textual justification for saying that the existence or the scope of a State's power to expropriate private property without just compensation varies according to the branch of government effecting the expropriation." Slip op. at 7 (quoting Stop the Beach Renourishment). Yes, the STB plurality opinion just garnered all nine Justices. Justice Scalia lives; how much wood could a woodchuck chuck!
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, No. 22-2074 (U.S. Apr. 12, 2024)
