Unanimous Supreme Court Rules for Property Rights in Takings Clause Case
Update from Katie Johnson, NAR Chief Legal Officer and Chief Member Experience Officer
We have good news to share on this Friday evening. A unanimous Supreme Court issued a ruling Friday championed by NAR that says the government can't demand hefty development fees from property owners as a condition for building permits.
The case centered around the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.
In their ruling, the Justices unanimously said there is no legislative exemption to the takings clause. In other words, local governments cannot pass legislation overriding it.
In the case--Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California--a California landowner filed suit after the county government passed a law that effectively forced him to pay more than $23,000 for a "traffic impact fee" study as a condition to obtain a permit to place a manufactured home on his property.
NAR filed an Amicus brief in November of 2023 along with the American Property Owners Alliance, the REALTORS® Land Institute, and the California Association of REALTORS®, stating, "This case offers a chance to curb the government's ability to extort property for permits by subjecting all exactions-both legislative and executive-to constitutional scrutiny."
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote, "Nothing in constitutional text, history, or precedent supports exempting legislatures from ordinary takings rules."
This is an important case, and our involvement is a testament to NAR's multi-front advocacy as America's premier private property rights champion. We will continue to go the distance whenever and wherever private property rights are threatened through legal and legislative advocacy efforts.
Please see the
NAR Advocacy's Washington Report from last year that also links to our amicus brief and please let us know if you have any questions.
