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
White House to halt federal funds to jurisdictions using cashless bail
On August 25, the White House announced an EO ordering an end to cashless bail and threatening to suspend or terminate federal funds to jurisdictions that do not comply with the order.
White House issues Executive Order to change federal grantmaking process
On August 7, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) titled “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking,” aiming to strengthen accountability, coordination and oversight in the federal grantmaking process.
EPA announces up to $14 million for brownfields job training program
On July 23, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for $14 million through the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Brownfields Job Training Grants Program. This program helps communities impacted by brownfield sites—blighted, contaminated properties—build local workforces to support site cleanup and redevelopment.
NACo sends letter to congressional appropriations committees urging federal investments in county government activities
On July 9, NACo sent a letter to leaders of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate Appropriations Committees urging them to adequately fund key federal programs of importance to counties in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 discretionary appropriations bills.
U.S. Congress passes reconciliation bill: What it means for counties
On July 3, the U.S. Congress passed sweeping budget reconciliation legislation.
Transforming County Payouts with Real-Time Innovation
Thursday, September 4, 2025 | 2:00 - 3:00 PM Eastern Time
Discover the technological evolution of county disbursements and how digital finance transformation can mitigate risks and enhance operational efficiency. As counties strive to modernize their legacy systems and reduce costs, staying ahead of technology trends is crucial. This session will explore how counties can leverage the latest advancements in real-time disbursements to revolutionize their payout processes. Attendees will gain insights into emerging trends and practical use cases that showcase the journey from outdated payout processes to advanced technology disbursements.
Inside Washington: County Impacts from the White House & Congress, September 4
Join NACo’s Government Affairs team for week seven of a biweekly series on key developments from the White House and Congress. Discussions will focus on policies and actions that directly impact counties — from federal funding and regulatory changes to intergovernmental partnerships. Tune in for an inside look at how these evolving federal dynamics may shape county priorities, responsibilities and operations.
Legal Considerations for Federal Funding Challenges
This webinar will provide an overview of the most pressing federal funding challenges faced by local governments. Discussion will include agency level actions impacting local government grants, including grant terminations and conditions on grants.
Seamless Implementation, Frictionless Experiences: Best Practices for Transitioning to a Countywide Payment Solution
Government payment ecosystems are complex, often spanning multiple departments, legacy technology, and evolving compliance and reporting regulations. While transitioning to a new system can present challenges, clear objectives and success metrics, as well as a well-structured testing and implementation plan ultimately leads to better outcomes for residents and staff.
From Public Lands to Local Budgets: How Federal Revenue Sharing Flows from the Federal Government to States to Counties
This session will explore key revenue-sharing programs that impact public lands counties and their communities.
Road to Reauthorization: Local and Regional Priorities for the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill
Join NACo and the Local Officials in Transportation (LOT) Coalition to hear updates on the ongoing surface transportation reauthorization process, including learning more about the coalition’s policy priorities and how you can get involved.