October Term 2023 · Docket 22-1074
Does the Takings Clause apply to a permit fee for road improvements?
A developer claims a county violated the Constitution by demanding a large fee for road work before issuing a building permit.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
The developer's counsel stated the county forced a choice between paying a fee or losing land use.
The county's counsel stated the fee follows a predetermined schedule based on development type and location.
The county's counsel argued the Due Process Clause provides a check on unreasonable fees.
The developer's counsel noted the lower court treated the fee as a mitigation requirement, not a tax.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 27-1 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 27-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 29-29 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 29-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 53-7 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 53-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 53-31 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 53-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 83, lines 49-25 — Transcript, file page 83, lines 49-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 97, lines 15-53 — Transcript, file page 97, lines 15-53
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether the Takings Clause covers a fee charged to offset development impacts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 83, lines 49-25 — Transcript, file page 83, lines 49-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 97, lines 15-53 — Transcript, file page 97, lines 15-53
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 9, 2024.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 15-27
What each side wants
The developer wants the fee struck down as an unconstitutional taking of property.
The county wants the fee upheld as a valid regulation of development impacts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 83, lines 49-25 — Transcript, file page 83, lines 49-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 97, lines 15-53 — Transcript, file page 97, lines 15-53
What each side says
The developer argues the fee is a taking because it forces a choice between paying money or losing land use.
The county argues the fee is a reasonable regulation, not a taking, because it addresses development impacts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 83, lines 49-25 — Transcript, file page 83, lines 49-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 97, lines 15-53 — Transcript, file page 97, lines 15-53
What the justices asked
Justice Jackson asked if the Takings Clause applies only when a specific property interest is taken.
Justice Sotomayor asked why the fee is not a user fee or tax, which Koontz allows.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 27-1 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 27-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 29-29 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 29-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 53-7 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 53-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 53-31 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 53-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 9-9
Why it matters
The outcome defines the limits of local government fees for infrastructure projects. It determines whether developers can challenge such fees under the Takings Clause. This affects how communities fund public improvements tied to new construction.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 83, lines 49-25 — Transcript, file page 83, lines 49-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 97, lines 15-53 — Transcript, file page 97, lines 15-53
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 27-1 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 27-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 29-29 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 29-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 53-7 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 53-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 53-31 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 53-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 9-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 83, lines 49-25 — Transcript, file page 83, lines 49-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 97, lines 15-53 — Transcript, file page 97, lines 15-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 83, lines 49-25 — Transcript, file page 83, lines 49-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 97, lines 15-53 — Transcript, file page 97, lines 15-53
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.