Eminent Domain Report

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and… dodge. An interesting case from the United States Supreme Court yesterday. Interesting because of what it says, and interesting because of what it very explicitly declined to say.

The question presented in DeVillier v. Texas, 601 U.S. ___ (2024) was whether the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment was “self-executing”. That is, whether a landowner could sue a State for money directly under the Takings Clause, even if there is no statute specifically creating a cause of action (and where the closest statute very expressly does not provide a remedy ...

We’ve been closely watching the Sheetz v. County of El Dorado case, which has worked its way up through the California trial and appellate courts all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. For a quick refresher, the case concerns whether legislatively enacted development impact fees (such as fees for building permits, etc.) are subject to the rough proportionality and nexus requirements (i.e., can a generally enacted permit fee be the subject of an unconstitutional taking). … 

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 scrutiny than fees that are imposed by a permitting authority on an ad hoc basis. While this question has been presented to the Court multiple times over the last several decades, historically the Court has declined to take up the issue. Now, with the changing makeup of the Court, at least four justices appear willing to address the issue. … 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) exceeded its authority when it imposed a national eviction moratorium. More precisely, in Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services, the Court agreed with a district court determination that the CDC acted unlawfully in banning evictions of residential tenants who declare financial need in counties with high COVID-19 rates. In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded, “If a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must ...

On June 23rd, the United States Supreme Court held that a California regulation allowing labor organizations to intermittently access agricultural employers’ property was an unconstitutional taking. The Court reversed the decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, an outcome we predicted in our post last year about this issue. The decision is a major victory for property owners, and raises questions going forward about a public agency’s ability to regulate private property rights—particularly as it pertains to allowing temporary access … 

The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to decide whether a California regulation allowing union organizers to access employers’ property is an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.

In the lower court’s decision, Cedar Point Nursery v. Sheroma, a two-judge majority of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a claim by a group of employers that the regulation created uncompensated easements on their property. The California Agricultural Labor Relations Board regulation permits union organizers to use an employer’s property for up to three hours per day ...

In the last month, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear appeals on two eminent domain-related cases.  The first case, California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose, is one we discussed last year.  If you recall,  the California Supreme Court held that San Jose's inclusionary housing ordinance that required all new residential development projects of 20 or more units to sell at least 15 percent of the for-sale units at a price that is affordable to low or moderate income households did not impose an exaction on developers that constituted a taking.

The U.S ...

Over the past several months, we've been following some of the recent takings cases that have made their way up to the United States Supreme Court.  So where do things currently stand?  As you've likely heard, the Court issued its decision in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States (see our summary here); we're waiting for a decision after oral argument in Koontz v. St. John's River Management District (see our summary here); and just this week, the Court heard oral argument in Horne v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.  

If you're looking for an excellent summary of the Horne oral argument ...