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
February 20, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Rejects President Trump’s Claim of Unilateral Tariff Authority

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump...
By: Simon Chin
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Climate United Fund v. Citibank

In Climate United Fund v. Citibank, the en banc United States of Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can unilaterally abolish a mandatory grant program created by Congress.
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Oregon v. Landis

In Oregon v. Landis, the Ninth Circuit is considering when states may prosecute federal officers for state crimes.
Rule of Law
February 4, 2026

‘This Occupation Has to End!’ Omar Argues After Homan Says Most Agents Will Stay in Minnesota

Common Dreams
“Every single ICE and CBP agent should be out of Minnesota,” the congresswoman said. “The...
Rule of Law
January 29, 2026

We, the People: Defending the U.S. Constitution As Immigration Raids Threaten Basic Rights

TriplePundit
With administration officials saying agents are immune to accountability, many are understandably wondering: What rights...
Rule of Law
January 30, 2026

CAC Release: Lemon Arrest the Trump Administration’s Latest Assault on the First Amendment

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to the arrest of journalist Don Lemon, Constitutional Accountability Center...
By: Praveen Fernandes