Sheetz v. El Dorado County

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Sheetz v El Dorado County. In this case, the court considered this issue: 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 Nollan v California Coastal Comm’n and Dolan v City of Tigard, simply because the exaction is authorized by local legislation? The case was decided on April 12, 2024. The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the opinion for a unanimous Court, holding that the California Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Nollan/Dolan test does not apply to permit conditions imposed by legislatures. The Takings Clause requires the government to provide just compensation when it takes private property for public use, and this applies equally to all branches of government. Neither the text of the Constitution, the historical understanding of eminent domain (the power of the government to take private property for public use), nor the Court's own precedents support exempting legislatures from the requirements of the Nollan/Dolan test. This test, which is based on the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, requires that permit conditions have an “essential nexus” to a legitimate government interest and be “roughly proportional” to the impact of the proposed development. These principles apply consistently across physical takings, regulatory takings, and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, regardless of whether the condition is imposed by a legislature or an administrative agency. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion, in which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, pointing out an antecedent question that was not raised in this case: whether the permit condition would be a compensable taking if imposed outside the permitting context. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion to argue that the Nollan/Dolan test cannot operate differently when an alleged taking affects a “class of properties” rather than “a particular development.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined, clarifying that the Court has not previously decided—and in this case explicitly declined to 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.” The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.