U.S. Supreme Court issues narrow ruling in case concerning impact fees

Image of construction_image.png

Key Takeaways

On April 12, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a narrow, unanimous ruling in Sheetz v. El Dorado County, a case focused on the constitutionality of legislatively (rather than administratively) enacted impact fees. In Sheetz, a resident of El Dorado County, California challenged the constitutionality of a traffic mitigation fee required in exchange for a development permit. He argued that because the county did not make an individualized determination that the fee in question met constitutional tests requiring an “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality," it violated the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause. 

  • County nexus: Exaction or impact fees are an important way for county governments to balance the benefits of growth with its impacts on the pre-existing community. The petitioner's argument would undermine the ability of county governments to legislatively enact impact fees by requiring a case-by-case determination that the fees meet constitutional conditions outlined in Nollan (which requires “essential nexus” between the condition and the government’s land-use interest) and Dolan (which requires the fee to have "rough proportionality" to the development's interest on the land-use interest.) 
  • NACo advocacy: NACo filed an amicus brief with the Local Government Legal Center in support of El Dorado County, arguing that legislatively enacted, generally applicable impact fees should not be subject to Nollan and Dolan.  The brief further emphasized the importance, best practices and ubiquity of legislatively enacted impact fees and stressed that the Court should not require individualized determinations for these fees as doing so would wreak havoc on development. Learn more here.
  • The Court’s ruling: In a mixed ruling for counties, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner that the Nollan and Dolan tests do indeed apply to legislatively enacted impact fees and remanded the case back to the state courts for another look. Importantly, however, the Court declined to address any other arguments made by petitioner, including the question of whether local governments must make individualized determinations regarding impact fees.

Critically, the Court's narrow decision does not prevent local governments from enacting reasonable permitting conditions (including impact fees) via legislation. Moving forward, local governments should ensure that any such fee complies with Nollan and Dolan’s requirements and be prepared for potential legal challenges given the heightened scrutiny required under these precedents. 

 

2024-2025 Supreme Court Term

Seattle, Washington
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: City of Seattle 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.

Court House
Advocacy

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.  

Image of Telecom-towers.jpg
Advocacy

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. 

Image of Water-infrastructure.jpg
Advocacy

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. 

Image of Gavel_3.jpg
Advocacy

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.

police investigating a crime scene
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: Garland v. VanDerStok

Garland v. VanDerStok has implications for the ability of county law enforcement to uphold public safety and investigate crimes involving ghost guns.

Image of Budgeting_2.jpg
Advocacy

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. 

Image of GettyImages-991802694.jpg
Advocacy

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.

Related News

capitol
Press Release

Local Workforce Stakeholders Urge Congress to Revise Workforce Reauthorization Legislation

On behalf of the nation’s counties, cities, towns and villages, NACo, the National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors issued the following statement regarding the bicameral draft agreement to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, titled A Stronger Workforce for America Act: 

bike
Advocacy

Congressional movement on flawed workforce reauthorization legislation

On November 25, the U.S. House Education and Workforce and U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee leadership released their bipartisan, bicameral agreement to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) – A Stronger Workforce for America Act (ASWA). Congressional leadership is now working to gain support for the negotiated bill text during the lame duck session.  

Seattle, Washington
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: City of Seattle 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.