29:
345:
delivered the opinion for a unanimous court, holding that permit exactions generally authorized by legislation were not exempt from the higher standards of scrutiny applicable to ad hoc exactions set by administrators. Justice
Barrett wrote that "there is no basis for affording property rights less
289:
to construct a manufactured single-family home on a lot. The county conditioned approval of the permit on a "traffic mitigation fee" of $ 23,420. The fee was authorized by legislation and would be utilized to "fund transportation improvements needed to accommodate growth anticipated by the county's
383:
Permit exactions have often been used by municipalities to offset costs related to new developments. For developers and homeowners, the reduction in impact fees will lead to a decrease in the overall cost of housing. In
California in particular, municipalities have often relied on them in lieu of
293:
After paying the fee and obtaining the permit, Sheetz challenged the fee in a trial court, arguing that it violated the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, barring governments from taking private property for public use without just compensation. He argued that the fee failed to adhere to the
346:
protection in the hands of legislators than administrators. The
Takings Clause applies equally to both". The case was remanded back to state courts for consideration. The court did not address whether the fee itself was a taking.
325:
test, ruling that the standard would only apply to adjudicative exactions, not legislatively enacted exactions imposed upon "a broad class of property owners." The
California Supreme Court then denied review.
314:, if the government intends to condition land-use permits on owners giving up property, it must show that the conditions are closely related and roughly proportional to the effects of the proposed land use.
353:
emphasized that the court did not address whether the fee imposed by El Dorado County was indeed a taking if imposed "outside the permitting process", and thus necessarily subject to scrutiny under
96:
Is a monetary exaction imposed by a local government as a condition for a building permit exempt from the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” requirements established in
743:
388:
advised municipalities that imposition of such fees would now require demonstrating the relationship and relative impact of affected property developments on the community.
254:
368:
argued that application of the
Takings Clause and Nollan/Dolan should not vary depending on the "class of property" impacted by a relevant regulation.
232:
675:
542:
261:, that fees for land-use permits must be closely related and roughly proportional to the effects of the land use – the test established by
605:
586:
738:
748:
758:
295:
263:
97:
523:
635:
694:
461:
341:
The case was argued before the
Supreme Court on January 9, 2024, and ruled in favor of Sheetz on April 12, 2024. Justice
33:
753:
418:
480:
442:
375:
emphasized that the majority opinion did not rule on the question presented by
Gorsuch in his concurrence.
286:
61:
114:
The
Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions.
246:
385:
273:– even if the fees were established by legislation rather than through an individualized assessment.
317:
The
California Court of Appeal reaffirmed the trial court's holding and rejected application of the
397:
290:
general plan". The fee was dependent on the location of the property and the type of construction.
443:"Builders may fight 'impact fees' that fund municipal projects in California, Supreme Court rules"
499:"The government had George Sheetz 'over a barrel.' He took his case to the Supreme Court—and won"
301:
282:
269:
101:
653:
715:
564:
181:
8:
419:"U.S. Supreme Court agrees to decide legality of fees charged to California homebuilders"
462:"Northern California man wins development impact fees case against U.S. Supreme Court"
615:
610:
342:
258:
173:
481:"Supreme Court Holds that Legislative Impact Fee Programs Can Constitute a Taking"
565:"Sheetz v. County of El Dorado: Legislatures Must Comply with the Takings Clause"
498:
372:
350:
169:
149:
137:
329:
Sheetz appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court and was granted
676:"Supreme Court Rules There Is No "Legislative Exception" to the Takings Clause"
732:
365:
161:
145:
129:
606:"The Supreme Court Rules Impact Fees Can Violate Your Property Rights Too"
71:
157:
330:
250:
543:"Supreme Court Appears Likely to Side With Landowners in Fee Case"
104:, simply because the exaction is authorized by local legislation?
28:
587:"Supreme Court Accepts Takings Challenge to Land-Use Exaction"
257:. The Supreme Court held, in a unanimous opinion by Justice
524:"Court split over California man's takings clause dispute"
636:"Court rules for property owner in building fee dispute"
744:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
563:
Hodges, Brian T.; La Fetra, Deborah (July 17, 2024).
629:
627:
625:
695:"Supreme Court Rules on Important Impact Fee Case"
541:Robinson, Kimberly Strawbridge (January 9, 2024).
479:Kuhn, Bradford; Rubin, Benjamin (April 12, 2024),
622:
730:
436:
434:
432:
52:George Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California
562:
429:
580:
578:
281:In 2016, George Sheetz, a property owner in
584:
569:Journal of Law, Economics and Policy, 2024
603:
585:Pazanowski, Bernie (September 29, 2023).
575:
478:
540:
294:higher standards of scrutiny set by the
604:Britschgi, Christian (April 16, 2024).
496:
276:
264:Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
86:84 Cal.App.5th 394 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)
731:
692:
459:
440:
416:
673:
16:2024 United States Supreme Court case
633:
558:
556:
521:
497:Yeatman, Nicole W. C. (2024-04-14).
441:Savage, David G. (April 12, 2024).
222:Kavanaugh, joined by Kagan, Jackson
13:
417:Egelko, Bob (September 29, 2023).
34:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
770:
739:United States Supreme Court cases
716:Frequently asked questions about
709:
693:Dykema, McKaia (April 25, 2024).
553:
460:Reilly, Shelby (April 12, 2024).
371:In a concurring opinion, Justice
364:In a concurring opinion, Justice
349:In a concurring opinion, Justice
27:
749:United States land use case law
686:
667:
654:"Sheetz v. County of El Dorado"
646:
597:
759:2024 in United States case law
674:Somin, Ilya (April 12, 2024).
534:
515:
490:
472:
453:
410:
1:
723:Sheetz v. County of El Dorado
522:Howe, Amy (January 9, 2024).
403:
242:Sheetz v. County of El Dorado
98:Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n
22:Sheetz v. County of El Dorado
634:Howe, Amy (April 12, 2024).
384:raising property taxes. The
285:, applied for a permit from
206:Sotomayor, joined by Jackson
198:Barrett, joined by unanimous
7:
391:
247:United States Supreme Court
10:
775:
336:
306:test for exactions. Under
245:(Docket No. 22-1074) is a
699:National League of Cities
386:National League of Cities
378:
231:
226:
218:
210:
202:
194:
189:
123:
118:
113:
108:
95:
90:
82:
77:
67:
57:
47:
40:
26:
21:
503:Pacific Legal Foundation
398:Pacific Legal Foundation
754:Takings Clause case law
423:San Francisco Chronicle
333:on September 29, 2023.
283:Placerville, California
270:Dolan v. City of Tigard
102:Dolan v. City of Tigard
721:– FAQs related to the
249:case regarding permit
43:Decided April 12, 2024
41:Argued January 9, 2024
182:Ketanji Brown Jackson
277:Background and facts
233:U.S. Const. amend. V
718:Sheetz v. El Dorado
91:Questions presented
134:Associate Justices
663:. April 12, 2024.
611:Volokh Conspiracy
343:Amy Coney Barrett
259:Amy Coney Barrett
238:
237:
174:Amy Coney Barrett
766:
703:
702:
690:
684:
683:
671:
665:
664:
661:supremecourt.gov
658:
650:
644:
643:
631:
620:
619:
601:
595:
594:
582:
573:
572:
560:
551:
550:
538:
532:
531:
519:
513:
512:
510:
509:
494:
488:
487:
476:
470:
469:
457:
451:
450:
438:
427:
426:
414:
287:El Dorado county
119:Court membership
31:
30:
19:
18:
774:
773:
769:
768:
767:
765:
764:
763:
729:
728:
712:
707:
706:
691:
687:
680:Reason Magazine
672:
668:
656:
652:
651:
647:
632:
623:
616:Reason Magazine
602:
598:
583:
576:
561:
554:
539:
535:
520:
516:
507:
505:
495:
491:
477:
473:
458:
454:
439:
430:
415:
411:
406:
394:
381:
373:Brett Kavanaugh
351:Sonia Sotomayor
339:
279:
172:
170:Brett Kavanaugh
160:
150:Sonia Sotomayor
148:
138:Clarence Thomas
42:
36:
17:
12:
11:
5:
772:
762:
761:
756:
751:
746:
741:
727:
726:
711:
710:External links
708:
705:
704:
685:
666:
645:
621:
596:
574:
552:
533:
514:
489:
471:
452:
428:
408:
407:
405:
402:
401:
400:
393:
390:
380:
377:
338:
335:
278:
275:
255:Takings Clause
236:
235:
229:
228:
224:
223:
220:
216:
215:
212:
208:
207:
204:
200:
199:
196:
192:
191:
187:
186:
185:
184:
135:
132:
127:
121:
120:
116:
115:
111:
110:
106:
105:
93:
92:
88:
87:
84:
80:
79:
75:
74:
69:
65:
64:
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
38:
37:
32:
24:
23:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
771:
760:
757:
755:
752:
750:
747:
745:
742:
740:
737:
736:
734:
724:
720:
719:
714:
713:
700:
696:
689:
681:
677:
670:
662:
655:
649:
641:
637:
630:
628:
626:
617:
613:
612:
607:
600:
592:
591:Bloomberg Law
588:
581:
579:
570:
566:
559:
557:
548:
547:Bloomberg Law
544:
537:
529:
525:
518:
504:
500:
493:
486:
482:
475:
467:
463:
456:
448:
444:
437:
435:
433:
424:
420:
413:
409:
399:
396:
395:
389:
387:
376:
374:
369:
367:
362:
360:
356:
352:
347:
344:
334:
332:
327:
324:
320:
315:
313:
309:
305:
304:
299:
298:
291:
288:
284:
274:
272:
271:
266:
265:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
243:
234:
230:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
190:Case opinions
188:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
136:
133:
131:
128:
126:Chief Justice
125:
124:
122:
117:
112:
107:
103:
99:
94:
89:
85:
81:
76:
73:
72:Oral argument
70:
66:
63:
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
39:
35:
25:
20:
722:
717:
698:
688:
679:
669:
660:
648:
639:
609:
599:
590:
568:
546:
536:
527:
517:
506:. Retrieved
502:
492:
484:
474:
465:
455:
446:
422:
412:
382:
370:
366:Neil Gorsuch
363:
358:
354:
348:
340:
328:
322:
318:
316:
311:
307:
302:
296:
292:
280:
268:
262:
241:
240:
239:
227:Laws applied
177:
165:
162:Neil Gorsuch
153:
146:Samuel Alito
141:
130:John Roberts
78:Case history
51:
219:Concurrence
211:Concurrence
203:Concurrence
158:Elena Kagan
733:Categories
640:SCOTUSblog
528:SCOTUSblog
508:2024-08-26
404:References
331:certiorari
253:under the
58:Docket no.
251:exactions
466:CBS News
447:LA Times
392:See also
195:Majority
68:Argument
485:JDSupra
337:Holding
214:Gorsuch
109:Holding
62:22-1074
379:Impact
355:Nollan
319:Nollan
308:Nollan
297:Nollan
180:
178:·
176:
168:
166:·
164:
156:
154:·
152:
144:
142:·
140:
657:(PDF)
359:Dolan
323:Dolan
312:Dolan
303:Dolan
83:Prior
725:case
267:and
100:and
735::
697:.
678:.
659:.
638:.
624:^
614:.
608:.
589:.
577:^
567:.
555:^
545:.
526:.
501:.
483:,
464:.
445:.
431:^
421:.
361:.
701:.
682:.
642:.
618:.
593:.
571:.
549:.
530:.
511:.
468:.
449:.
425:.
357:/
321:/
310:/
300:/
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.