U.S. Supreme Court: California's Impact Fees May Violate Takings Clause

A California property owner took El Dorado County to state court after paying a traffic impact fee he felt was exorbitant. He lost in trial court, appellate court, and the California Supreme Court denied review. Then the U.S. Supreme Court acted.

3 minute read

April 18, 2024, 11:00 AM PDT

By Irvin Dawid


Workers putting down asphalt on road.

spiritofamerica / Adobe Stock

In a 9-0 court decision on April 12, the U.S. Supreme Court "ruled that developers and home builders in California may challenge the fees commonly imposed by cities and counties to pay for new roads, schools, sewers and other public improvements," reported David G. Savage for the Los Angeles Times on April 12.

[Related: "California Impact Fees Reach Supreme Court," October 4, 2023]

Background

"The case arose when property owner George Sheetz sought a permit to put a manufactured home on a lot he owned in Placerville, outside Sacramento. El Dorado County required him to pay a “traffic impact mitigation” fee to obtain the permit," adds Savage. The fee was $23,420.

Some of the money was to go toward upgrades to Highway 50, which runs through the area, but most was to go toward new or expanded roads in the county.

At issue is how to view impact fees, "payments required by local governments of new development for the purpose of providing new or expanded public capital facilities required to serve that development," according to an American Planning Association policy guide ratified in  April 1997, and their relationship with the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Can impact fees be considered a "taking" if inappropriately applied?

Savage continues:

Writing for the court in Friday’s ruling [pdf], conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that “there is no basis for affording property rights less protection in the hands of legislators than administrators. The Takings Clause applies equally to both — which means that it prohibits legislatures and agencies alike from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land-use permits.”

JD Supra, a leading resource for law firms, explained the ruling in similar terms in the first paragraph of their summary of the decision:

On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided Sheetz v. El Dorado County, No. 22-1074, holding that the Takings Clause “does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions,” but instead “prohibits legislatures and agencies alike from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land-use permits.” 

The article adds that Sheetz paid the fee but claimed that it "constituted an unlawful 'exaction' of money in violation of the Takings Clause."

Yes, California's impact fees have been shown to be excessive, according to a related post:

What's needed?

Savage of the the Times spoke with state Sen. Scott Wiener ( D-San Francisco), author some of the state's most far-reaching housing legislation, regarding the decision.

“Ultimately, the solution is the same today as it was yesterday,” Wiener said. “The California Legislature needs to put in place an actual structure for impact fees. Right now, it’s all over the map.”

As for Mr. Sheetz, it's back to state court, as Justice Barrett directed at the end of the majority opinion:

The judgment of the California Court of Appeal is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Additional reading, related posts:

Friday, April 12, 2024 in Los Angeles Times

portrait of professional woman

I love the variety of courses, many practical, and all richly illustrated. They have inspired many ideas that I've applied in practice, and in my own teaching. Mary G., Urban Planner

I love the variety of courses, many practical, and all richly illustrated. They have inspired many ideas that I've applied in practice, and in my own teaching.

Mary G., Urban Planner

Cover CM Credits, Earn Certificates, Push Your Career Forward

Logo for Planetizen Federal Action Tracker with black and white image of U.S. Capitol with water ripple overlay.

Planetizen Federal Action Tracker

A weekly monitor of how Trump’s orders and actions are impacting planners and planning in America.

June 11, 2025 - Diana Ionescu

Metrorail train pulling into newly opened subterranean station in Washington, D.C. with crowd on platform taking photos.

Congressman Proposes Bill to Rename DC Metro “Trump Train”

The Make Autorail Great Again Act would withhold federal funding to the system until the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), rebrands as the Washington Metropolitan Authority for Greater Access (WMAGA).

June 2, 2025 - The Hill

Large crowd on street in San Francisco, California during Oktoberfest festival.

The Simple Legislative Tool Transforming Vacant Downtowns

In California, Michigan and Georgia, an easy win is bringing dollars — and delight — back to city centers.

June 2, 2025 - Robbie Silver

Man in teal shirt opening door to white microtransit shuttle with cactus graphics and making inviting gesture toward the camera.

Albuquerque’s Microtransit: A Planner’s Answer to Food Access Gaps

New microtransit vans in Albuquerque aim to close food access gaps by linking low-income areas to grocery stores, cutting travel times by 30 percent and offering planners a scalable model for equity-focused transit.

June 13 - U.S. Department Of Transportation

Group of people at table set ouf with picnic food on street during a neighborhood block party.

This City Will Pay You to Meet Your Neighbors

A North Kansas City grant program offers up to $400 for residents to throw neighborhood block parties.

June 13 - The Kansas City Star

Crowd gathered with protest signs on April 5, 2025 on steps of Minnesota state capitol protesting Trump cuts to social security and other federal programs.

Commentary: Our Silence Will Not Protect Us

Keeping our heads down and our language inoffensive is not the right response to the times we’re in. Solidarity and courage is.

June 13 - Shelterforce Magazine