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
September 5, 2024

Reflections on my Kendall Fellowship

On my first day at the Constitutional Accountability Center, I worked on a brief about...
By: Jess Zalph
Rule of Law
September 2, 2024

Transgender rights, ghost guns, porn ID cases on Supreme Court docket; stakes high in next term

The Washington Times
The Supreme Court is still on its three-month summer recess but already has loaded its docket with...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, Alex Swoyer
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Iowa v. SEC

In Iowa v. SEC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is considering the legality of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s new climate-related disclosure requirements.
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Chamber of Commerce v. CFPB

In Chamber of Commerce v. CFPB, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering the legality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s update to its Examination Manual clarifying that discrimination may...
Rule of Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Lackey v. Stinnie

In Lackey v. Stinnie, the Supreme Court is considering when a civil rights plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees as the “prevailing party” in a case.
Rule of Law
August 6, 2024

Another Summer Building the Next Generation of Constitutional Progressives

This summer, CAC welcomed four incredible interns who all contributed to our work promoting the...
By: Zach Brown, Harith Khawaja, Indu Pandey, Alex Siegal