ELR Citation: 54 ELR 20058
No(s). 22-1074 (U.S. Apr 12, 2024)

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land use permit conditions, in a lawsuit concerning a traffic impact fee as a condition of building a prefabricated home on a parcel of land. The landowner challenged the fee as an unlawful exaction of money under the Takings Clause, relying on prior rulings in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U. S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374 (1994). A state appellate court rejected the argument because the fee was imposed by legislation and because Nollan and Dolan applied to permit conditions imposed on an ad hoc basis by administrators. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding nothing that supported exempting legislatures from ordinary takings rules. Because there was no basis for affording property rights less protection in the hands of legislators than administrators, the Court held that the Takings Clause applies equally to both and thus prohibits both from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land use permits. It vacated the appellate court ruling and remanded for further proceedings. Barrett, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Jackson, J., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a concurring opinion. Kavanaugh, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Kagan and Jackson, JJ., joined.