United States Supreme Court: legislative bodies cannot "take" property by way of unlimited "fees"
A recent Supreme Court opinion illustrates how lower courts often get it completely wrong, despite apparently clear precedent, and as this case shows, this is particularly likely to occur when courts get swept along with a judicial trend. Such an unfortunate trend is interpreting the Fifth Amendment's bar against taking property without just compensation so narrowly as to permit the government to do virtually whatever it wants to a landowner's property, no matter logic or the law.
In Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, No. 22–1074 (April 12, 2024), a unanimous Supreme Court found California courts had it entirely wrong when they found (the term "rubber stamp" comes to mind) an outrageous "fee" a landowner must pay to build a home -- having no relationship to the services provided or the cost of the project to local government -- did not implicate the bar against the "taking" of private property. The practical effect of ignoring the full effect of the Firth Amendment is that "fees" enacted by a legislative body have no upward limit and may take five, ten, or more percent of the value of the property, and a property owner may not even bring a Fifth Amendment claim.
The opinion authored by Justice Barett found these courts had misapplied prior precedent. As the syllabus to the opinion sets forth, the issue was whether a California county could impose a $23,420 "traffic impact fee" upon an ordinary residential landowner unlucky enough to own a lot in El Dorado County and who wished to build a home:
As a condition of receiving a residential building permit, petitioner George Sheetz was required by the County of El Dorado to pay a $23,420 traffic impact fee. The fee was part of a “General Plan” enacted by the County’s Board of Supervisors to address increasing demand for public services spurred by new development. The fee amount was not based on the costs of traffic impacts specifically attributable to Sheetz’s particular project, but rather was assessed according to a rate schedule that took into account the type of development and its location within the County. Sheetz paid the fee under protest and obtained the permit. He later sought relief in state court, claiming that conditioning the building permit on the payment of a traffic impact fee constituted an unlawful “exaction” of money in violation of the Takings Clause. In Sheetz’s view, the Court’s decisions in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U. S. 825, and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374, required the County to make an individualized determination that the fee imposed on him was necessary to offset traffic congestion attributable to his project. The courts below ruled against Sheetz based on their view that Nollan and Dolan apply only to permit conditions imposed on an ad hoc basis by administrators, not to a fee like this one imposed on a class of property owners by Board-enacted legislation. 84 Cal. App. 5th 394, 402, 300 Cal. Rptr. 3d 308, 312.
In other words, the trial court, the Third Appellate District of California, and the California Supreme Court (which denied review) did not give full effect to precedent such as Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U. S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374 (1994) indicating a fee with no nexus to the effect of the actual development is a "taking." As Justice Barret wrote:
The California Court of Appeal rejected that argument because the traffic impact fee was imposed by legislation, and, according to the court, Nollan and Dolan apply only to permit conditions imposed on an ad hoc basis by administrators. That is incorrect. The Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions. (Sheetz., p. 14.)
Justice Barret and the remaining eight justices all agreed the fact a fee was imposed by a legislative body, rather than being imposed by a regulatory power, did not insulate said fee from scrutiny. Simply put, the Bill of Rights applies equally to the executive and legislative branches of government.
Therefore, the majority opinion explained the proper test for considering whether a "fee" is a taking:
Our decisions in Nollan and Dolan address this potential abuse of the permitting process. There, we set out a two-part test modeled on the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. See Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 597 (1972) (government “may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests”). First, permit conditions must have an “essential nexus” to the government’s land-use interest. Nollan, 483 U. S., at 837. The nexus requirement ensures that the government is acting to further its stated purpose, not leveraging its permitting monopoly to exact private property without paying for it. See id., at 841. Second, permit conditions must have “‘rough proportionality’” to the development’s impact on the land-use interest. Dolan, 512 U. S., at 391. A permit condition that requires a landowner to give up more than is necessary to mitigate harms resulting from new development has the same potential for abuse as a condition that is unrelated to that purpose. See id., at 393. This test ap- plies regardless of whether the condition requires the land- owner to relinquish property or requires her to pay a “monetary exactio[n]” instead of relinquishing the property. Koontz, 570 U. S., at 612–615. (Id., p. 6.)
Analysis
The degree to which the lower courts "got it wrong" is stunning, and, in particular, the narrow reading of Nollan/Dolan is quite troubling. As to the failure of the California Supreme Court to show any interest in preventing local government from unlawfully taking private property, the fact it declined to review an appellate opinion finding one of the protections of the Bill of Rights does not apply simply because it was the legislature that violated a citizen’s rights speaks for itself.
Though the opinion was unanimous, it leaves open the question of whether a particular fee is permissible, to wit, whether a particular fee meets constitutional muster, i.e, whether it has an "“‘essential nexus’” to the government’s land-use interest and has “‘rough proportionality’” to a property’s impact on that interest." (Concurrence by J. Gorsuch, p. 1.)
Of course, if a legislature or similar body may impose an unlimited "fee" upon someone wishing to build a single home, under the rubric that limitations on such fees do not apply to legislative enactments, then the Fifth Amendment "takings clause" has no effect as long as the law classifies the taking as a legislatively-mandated "fee."
As noted in his concurrence, Justice Gorsuch is of the opinion whether a fee is a "taking" does not depend upon whether it is imposed upon a single property or a class of properties as the same constitutional rules apply to the rights of the "many" as they do to the "few." Justice Gorsuch notes the majority opinion leaves this question for another day:
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.” (Id.)
Indeed, the concurrence of Justice Kavanaugh, to which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined, recognizes this issue has not been resolved. However, Justice Kavanaugh takes the view the Sheetz opinion does not prohibit local government from tailoring land-use fees based upon the effect of an entire development in toto rather than requiring that the fee have a nexus to the effect of a single property owner.
Finally, the role of the Pacifica Legal Foundation must be noted. As did the Cato Institute, Pacifica filed an amicus curiae brief. If it were not for the efforts of his own counsel and these "friends of the court, Mr. Sheetz might still be stuck paying a nearly $24,000 "traffic fee" to build what the Supreme Court termed "a modest prefabricated house" for his wife and grandson.
