Supreme Court Update: Sheetz v. El Dorado County
Author
Upcoming Events
Related News
Supreme Court Update: Sheetz v. El Dorado County
COUNTY NEXUS
Exaction or impact fees are an important way for local governments to balance the benefits of growth with its impacts on the pre-existing community. Limiting the ability of counties to legislatively enact generally applicable development impact fees would impede our efforts to protect the health and welfare of their communities while ensuring that those who create the need for new community infrastructure fairly bear the costs.
BACKGROUND
A resident of El Dorado County, California challenged the constitutionality of a traffic mitigation fee required in exchange for a development permit, arguing that the fee violates the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause under the Nollan/Dolan unconstitutional conditions test, which prevents governments from applying exaction fees unless they can demonstrate an essential “nexus” between their interest and the fee charged as well as “rough proportionality” between the fee charged and the proposed impact of the development. This case asks whether Nollan/Dolan is limited to fees issued on an an individual basis or whether it also applies to legislatively enacted, generally applicable impact fees and thereby compels local governments to make case-by-case determinations if such fees are warranted.
NACo ADVOCACY
In a Local Government Legal Center Amicus Brief filed in support of the respondent, NACo argued that counties across the country rely on legislatively adopted impact fees to address the burdensome impacts of new development on the availability and quality of local infrastructure, facilities, programs, and services. Without the ability to impose impact fees, local governments would need to resort to imposing new or increased taxes, displace the anticipated infrastructure costs necessary to meet the needs of new residential and commercial development onto existing residents and businesses or even impose development moratoria in the absence of funds to pay for required infrastructure. Expanding Nollan/Dolan to encompass legislative enacted impact fees could diminish this important policy tool.
CURRENT STATUS
On April 12, the Court issued a narrow 9-0 decision vacating the state court's ruling that Nollan/Dolan does not apply to legislatively-enacted impact fees and remanding the case for another look. While the Court's ruling does create heightened constitutional scrutiny for legislatively-enacted impact fees, it does not prevent local governments from enacting reasonable permitting conditions, including impact fees, via legislation. Learn more about the Court's decision and what it means for counties here.
2024-2025 Supreme Court Term
NACo Legal Advocacy: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
As one of the largest employers in the country, counties have a significant interest in cases like Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Ames v. Ohio) that could expand county liabilities as employers.
NACo Legal Advocacy: City of Buffalo et al. v. Kia/Hyundai
The question at hand in City of Seattle et al. v. Kia/Hyundai is whether or not the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard preempts state tort claims brought forth by local governments alleging that Kia and Hyundai’s failure to install “reasonable” anti-theft technology constitutes negligence and public nuisance.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Perttu v. Richards
Perttu v. Richards has implications on the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and could increase the amount of Section 1983 inmate-initiated cases against county jails that reach federal court, ultimately resulting in counties having to expend resources on frivolous lawsuits.
NACo Legal Advocacy: McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. V. McKesson Corporation
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. V. McKesson Corporation could make it more difficult for counties to challenge FCC orders, many of which have taken steps to preempt and curtail local authority by limiting counties’ abilities to manage their own right of way and assess fair market value permitting and impact fees on providers seeking to construct, modify or extend telecommunications infrastructure in their communities.
NACo Legal Advocacy: San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implications for the ability of county governments that own and operate wastewater treatment facilities to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Lackey v. Stinnie
Lackey v. Stinnie will impact the ability of state and local governments to avoid paying litigation fees in a civil rights case if they change their conduct (i.e. repeal a law) after a court has granted a preliminary injunction.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Bondi v. VanDerStok
Garland v. VanDerStok has implications for the ability of county law enforcement to uphold public safety and investigate crimes involving ghost guns.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Stanley v. City of Sanford
Stanley v. City of Sanford will impact the ability of county governments to balance budgets by reducing or eliminating post-employment benefits for disability retirees.
NACo Legal Advocacy: EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera
EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera could make it more difficult for county governments to prove exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which would increase the potential for costly litigation.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Federal Communications Commission, et al v. Consumers' Research, et al
Federal Communications Commission, et al v. Consumers’ Research, et al. (FCC v. Consumers’ Research) could jeopardize what is known as the Universal Service Fund (USF). Through the USF, the FCC has provided billions of dollars to local governments and our residents, helping provide essential telecommunications and broadband services to unserved and underserved communities. FCC v. Consumers’ Research challenges the FCC’s legal authority behind the USF, putting multiple programs essential to equitable broadband deployment at risk.
Featured Initiative
Supreme Court Advocacy Hub
U.S. Congress pass minibus funding package
U.S. House and Senate appropriators passed a “minibus” appropriations package containing Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Interior-Environment, Commerce-Justice-Science and Energy-Water spending bills.
Federal district court issues ruling preventing the federal government from imposing immigration compliance mandates on grant recipients
On November 4, a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that the U.S. Department of Transportation cannot condition federal grant funding on a recipient’s cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts.
State of America’s Counties Address Highlights Intergovernmental Partnership, Cost and Administrative Shifts
NACo President J.D. Clark, national experts share insights at policy summit in Washington, D.C.
NACo President Clark: State of America’s counties is strong
Discussions led by county officials about transportation, energy, artificial intelligence development and disaster response and reform illustrated Clark’s position that counties are strong, but face challenges amid shifting state and federal policy.
U.S. House Appropriators release minibus funding package
The funding package includes key county priorities, including funding for community and economic development, election administration and security, taxpayer services and intergovernmental partnerships.
Advocacy 101 for Counties: Maximizing Your Impact During the NACo Legislative Conference
Learn how to prepare for Hill meetings, effectively advocate for NACo priorities, and translate county experiences into clear federal policy asks.
The Current State of Student Debt and Forgiveness
This webinar is designed for county HR and leadership teams seeking practical ways to support employees struggling with student debt.
Over 9 million public service workers, including full-time county employees, are eligible for Public Service Loan Forgiveness. Yet fewer than 3 percent have successfully received relief.
The issue is not eligibility. It is awareness, complexity, and follow-through.
Please join us as we speak with student debt forgiveness expert Tony Raffa, who will clarify today’s student debt landscape, including:
- What recent policy and executive actions mean for public sector employees
- How Department of Education changes affect forgiveness eligibility, timelines, and compliance
- Which student debt relief programs do employees actually qualify for today
- The current status of the SAVE program
- Common application errors that delay or derail forgiveness
- Rising delinquency and repayment restart risks
- What HR teams need to know about collections, wage garnishment notices, and employer responsibilities
Attendees will also see how a new student debt navigation tool helps employees estimate their potential forgiveness, avoid costly mistakes, and reduce annual payments by an average of $2,244.
For HR teams, this means a scalable way to offer meaningful financial support without adding administrative burden.
What to Know Before You Go to NACo’s Legislative Conference
Join NACo’s Membership Chair and staff to learn ways to maximize your experience at the NACo Legislative Conference.
NACo Policy Insider Webinar Series: Understanding the Federal Landscape for Counties, February 5
Join NACo for a bi-weekly webinar offering an overview of the full federal policy landscape impacting counties.
NACo Policy Insider Webinar Series: Understanding the Federal Landscape for Counties, February 12
Join NACo for a bi-weekly webinar offering an overview of the full federal policy landscape impacting counties.
NACo Policy Insider Webinar Series: Understanding the Federal Landscape for Counties, March 12
Join NACo for a bi-weekly webinar offering an overview of the full federal policy landscape impacting counties.