Today, April 12, 2024, in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overruled more than two decades of California precedent, holding that legislatively established development impact fee programs must...more
In its recent opinions in Linke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, the U.S. Supreme Court considered if and when public officials violate the First Amendment rights of members of the public by blocking them from the...more
3/25/2024
/ California ,
Censorship ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
First Amendment ,
Free Speech ,
Government Officials ,
Lindke v Freed ,
O’Connor-Ratcliff v Garnier ,
Online Commentary ,
SCOTUS ,
Social Media
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in George Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, agreeing to answer the question of whether legislatively enacted development impact fees are subject to a lower level of constitutional...more
10/9/2023
/ Ad-Hoc Mandates ,
Building Permits ,
Certiorari ,
Construction Project ,
Eminent Domain ,
George Sheetz v County of El Dorado ,
Impact Fees ,
Infrastructure ,
Real Estate Development ,
SCOTUS ,
Traffic Impact Assessments
For over three decades, most property owners have been relegated to state courts when pursuing a takings claim against a state or local agency. In a 5-4 decision issued this week, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself and...more
6/24/2019
/ 42 U.S.C. §1983 ,
Federal v State Law Application ,
Fifth Amendment ,
Inverse Condemnation ,
Just Compensation ,
Knick v Township of Scott Pennsylvania ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Property Owners ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
State Law Remedies ,
Takings Clause
Yes, no, maybe so. With the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, many have already started to prognosticate about the sea change that will inevitably follow. While it is certainly possible that such a sea change will come to...more
Last week, Jeremy Jacobs posted an interesting article about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275 (U.S. Jun. 22, 2015), and its potential application to Endangered Species Act...more
The burning question, is why? While this is not the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has ever granted a petition for review in the same case, it is certainly not common. And, it is downright uncommon for the Supreme Court...more
On Jan. 14, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in T-Mobile South LLC v. City of Roswell, holding that the city violated the "in writing" requirement of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47...more
On January 14, the U.S. Supreme Court in T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, held that the City of Roswell ("City") violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) (the "Telecommunications...more
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that EPA acted unlawfully when it sought to impose a permit requirement on stationary sources solely on the basis of greenhouse gas emissions from those sources under programs...more
In June of last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Horne v. Department of Agriculture holding that California raisin handlers could assert a takings claim as an affirmative defense to an enforcement...more
The "Rails-to-Trails" program sounds like such a great idea in theory: take old, abandoned railroad right of way and turn it into public trails. Who would complain about that? Well, it turns out lots of people might...more
On February 3, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to rehear en banc a decision handed down last October by a three-judge panel, thereby leaving in place a decision that could significantly...more
As you may recall, last December we reported on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that government-induced flooding of limited duration may...more
As reported by our colleague Robert Thomas on inversecondemnation.com, the California Supreme Court granted the California Building Industry Association's (CBIA) petition for review in California Building Industry Association...more
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court held that California raisin handlers could assert a takings claim as an affirmative defense to an enforcement action filed by the United States. Horne v....more
After passing on a number of Fifth Amendment issues in recent history, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear three cases this term in which the takings clause plays a prominent role. And today, the Court addressed the...more