Supreme Court Update: Sheetz v. El Dorado County
Author
![Rachel-Mackey_v2.png Image of Rachel-Mackey_v2.png](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/610x610/public/Rachel-Mackey_v2.png?h=b62b62f2&itok=9tzgpCOg)
Rachel Mackey
Upcoming Events
Related News
![1456277065_smaller](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/807x448/public/2024-02/GettyImages-1456277065_smaller.jpg?h=a88ce904&itok=PtO5nkHF)
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.
2023-2024 Supreme Court Term
![Fishing boat](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/385x285/public/2024-07/GettyImages-1478187164.jpg?h=80e376df&itok=iidfURh6)
U.S. Supreme Court overturns the Chevron doctrine to reshape the federal administrative state
In major ruling, U.S. Supreme Court overturns longstanding precedent deferring to federal agency interpretation of ambiguous statute.
![Opioid-pills_4.jpg Image of Opioid-pills_4.jpg](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/385x285/public/Opioid-pills_4_0.jpg?h=d73c3389&itok=_kAR4tLC)
U.S. Supreme Court decision halts Purdue Pharma opioid settlement
Supreme Court ruling upends $6 billion settlement agreement between Purdue Pharma and impacted state, county and tribal governments and residents.
![LACounty-Homelessness_vidthumb.jpg Image of LACounty-Homelessness_vidthumb.jpg](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/385x285/public/LACounty-Homelessness_vidthumb.jpg?h=2067eb94&itok=0ROwwCGO)
U.S. Supreme Court protects key flexibility for county governments responding to homelessness
On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case of major significance for counties working to develop comprehensive responses to the homelessness crisis.
![Courtroom.jpg Image of Courtroom.jpg](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/385x285/public/Courtroom.jpg?h=d6742c3a&itok=wVqOD78M)
U.S. Supreme Court issues narrow decision in malicious prosecution case
On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Chiaverini v. Ohio, a case focused on the relationship between probable cause and malicious prosecution claims against local government.
![police.jpg Image of police.jpg](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/385x285/public/police.jpg?h=876b03bf&itok=o-AowmqW)
U.S. Supreme Court ruling may increase counties' exposure to retaliatory arrest claims
On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam (unauthored) ruling in Gonzalez v. Trevino, a case with implications for retaliatory arrest claims against local law enforcement.
![police-car_stock_2400.jpg Image of police-car_stock_2400.jpg](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/385x285/public/police-car_stock_2400.jpg?h=e7747f86&itok=Skh-eDke)
U.S. Supreme Court ruling may increase counties' legal liability when transferring employees
New test established by the Supreme Court will allow employees demonstrating "some harm" from an unwanted transfer to file a civil rights lawsuit.
![Courtroom.jpg Image of Courtroom.jpg](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/385x285/public/Courtroom.jpg?h=d6742c3a&itok=wVqOD78M)
Supreme Court Update: Chiaverini vs. City of Napoleon
The county perspective on a case involving malicious prosecution
![GettyImages-586718274.jpg Image of GettyImages-586718274.jpg](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/385x285/public/GettyImages-586718274.jpg?h=cee8c140&itok=aomsMEMd)
Supreme Court Update: Gonzalez v. Trevino
The county perspective on a case involving retaliatory arrests
![LACounty-Homelessness_vidthumb.jpg Image of LACounty-Homelessness_vidthumb.jpg](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/385x285/public/LACounty-Homelessness_vidthumb.jpg?h=2067eb94&itok=0ROwwCGO)
Supreme Court Update: City of Grants Pass v. Gloria Johnson
The county perspective on a case related to the constitutionality of certain local anti-encampment ordinances
![1456277065_smaller](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/385x285/public/2024-02/GettyImages-1456277065_smaller.jpg?h=e7747f86&itok=bQTadPGW)
Supreme Court Update: Sheetz v. El Dorado County
The county perspective on a case involving the constitutionality of legislative enacted, generally applicable impact fees for new development
![police-car_stock_2400.jpg Image of police-car_stock_2400.jpg](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/385x285/public/police-car_stock_2400.jpg?h=e7747f86&itok=Skh-eDke)
Supreme Court Update: Muldrow v. St. Louis
The county perspective in a case concerning discrimination claims in lateral employment transfers
![smart-phones-stock.png Image of smart-phones-stock.png](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/385x285/public/smart-phones-stock.png?h=fea9fe71&itok=5bhtgojP)
Supreme Court Update: Lindke v. Freed/O'Connor Ratcliff v. Garnier
The county perspective on a case related to public officials' use of personal social media accounts
Featured Initiative
Supreme Court Advocacy Hub
![GettyImages-1395752818.jpg Image of GettyImages-1395752818.jpg](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/667x579/public/GettyImages-1395752818_0.jpg?h=c5780bb0&itok=8oF3VWbi)