Sheetz v. County of El Dorado
Overview
Overview
The Supreme Court held unanimously that the Takings Clause applies to legislatively imposed permit exactions -- fees or conditions imposed on building permits -- just as it applies to administratively imposed ones, rejecting the argument that Nollan/Dolan's heightened scrutiny applies only to adjudicative determinations.
The Facts
Facts
George Sheetz sought a building permit from El Dorado County, California and was required to pay a traffic impact fee set by county ordinance. He challenged the fee as an unconstitutional taking, arguing it lacked the required nexus and proportionality. The California courts rejected his claim, holding Nollan/Dolan does not apply to legislative exactions.
The Issue
Issue
Whether the Takings Clause standard requiring an essential nexus and rough proportionality between permit conditions and project impacts applies when the condition is imposed by legislative action rather than administrative discretion.
The Rules
Rule
The Nollan/Dolan nexus and proportionality requirements for permit exactions are not limited to adjudicative determinations; the Takings Clause applies equally when a legislature enacts a generally applicable fee schedule, subjecting legislatively imposed exactions to the same constitutional scrutiny.
The Application
Analysis
Sheetz's traffic impact fee, though imposed by county ordinance rather than administrative discretion, must satisfy the Nollan/Dolan nexus and proportionality test because the Takings Clause applies uniformly regardless of whether the exaction's source is legislative or administrative. The Court rejected El Dorado County's position that general applicability insulates ordinance-imposed permit conditions from heightened constitutional review, holding that enactment by legislative process does not convert an exaction into a permissible tax or regulation exempt from takings scrutiny. On remand, courts must examine whether the specific fee bore an essential nexus to the impact of Sheetz's development and was roughly proportional to that impact. A two-prong test the Supreme Court declined to resolve, leaving the constitutional fate of the fee itself for lower courts to determine.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
Unanimous ruling for Sheetz on the threshold question. Barrett wrote the majority. The case was remanded to determine whether the specific fee satisfied Nollan/Dolan; the Court did not decide that question.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support