Rule of Law

RELEASE: Supreme Court Oral Argument this Morning Highlights Extreme Arguments Being Made in Takings Clause Case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court this morning in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, a case in which the Court is considering whether traffic impact mitigation fees violate the Takings Clause of the Constitution, Constitutional Accountability Center Counsel Nina Henry issued the following reaction:

Today’s oral argument showed that the conservative legal movement is trying to stretch the boundaries of the Takings Clause far beyond the Framers’ plan.

As CAC’s amicus brief in the case explained, the history of the Takings Clause demonstrates that the Clause, properly understood, should be narrowly limited to the actual seizure of land. The Framers of the Takings Clause saw no constitutional problem with requiring landowners to pay into local government for the common good. And even as the Supreme Court has expanded somewhat the scope of the Clause, it has consistently limited its reach to government actions that are the functional equivalent of the direct appropriation of real property and government efforts to evade the Clause’s restrictions.

Moreover, as many of the justices’ questions made clear, there is no clear limiting principle to Petitioner George Sheetz’s argument. Indeed, Petitioner’s argument, if taken to its logical conclusion, could have major implications for all kinds of land-use and zoning laws that raise no issues under the Takings Clause, properly understood.

George Sheetz might not like the traffic impact mitigation fee at issue in this case, but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional. Under the text and history of the Takings Clause, as well Supreme Court precedent, the fee is constitutional.

##

Resources:

Case page in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/sheetz-v-county-of-el-dorado-california/

Letter to the Editor in the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/20/supreme-court-constitution-takings-clause/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org and follow us on X at https://twitter.com/MyConstitution.

##

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Perlmutter v. Blanche

In Perlmutter v. Blanche, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considering whether the President can unilaterally remove the Register of Copyrights.
Rule of Law
August 18, 2026

Not Above the Law Creator Call

CAC's Praveen Fernandes and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse spoke about what accountability looks like now that...
By: Praveen Fernandes, Sheldon Whitehouse
Rule of Law
August 29, 2026

Interview with Praveen Fernandes, Vice President at the Constitutional Accountability Center

AbbyTheAttorney
CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes spoke to Abby Winters about the weaponization of the Department...
By: Praveen Fernandes, Abby Winters
Rule of Law
September 1, 2026

Open Letter: A Network of 175+ Organizations Uniting to Defend the Rule of Law and Protect Vulnerable Communities

Nonprofits Together
CAC signed onto an open letter with a coalition of civil society, advocacy, and nonpartisan...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

In re Trump

In In re Trump, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considering whether a district court can investigate whether the Trump administration defied its orders when it sent Venezuelan...
Rule of Law
August 21, 2026

Another Summer Building the Next Generation of Constitutional Progressives

This summer, CAC welcomed five incredible interns who all contributed to our work promoting the...