Columbus, OH – On Monday, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the rights of property owners from the government’s attempt to extort payments from its citizens to build roads in the county in return for granting permits for work wholly unrelated to road improvements.
“Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have ruled that the government cannot use its power to extort payments from citizens in exchange for permits for work wholly unrelated to the permitted activity,” said Jay R. Carson, senior litigator for The Buckeye Institute. “By demanding that Mr. Sheetz trade his Fifth Amendment right for a permit to use his own property, that is just what the County of El Dorado, California is doing. And the fact that the county passed legislation to carry out this extortion doesn’t make it any more constitutional.”
George Sheetz wanted to place a modest-sized mobile home on his property, for which the County of El Dorado, California, charged him $23,420 to finance unrelated road improvements in the county. In its brief, The Buckeye Institute argues that the county’s actions violate the U.S. Constitution’s Takings Clause and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine.
# # #
UPDATE: On September 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado.
UPDATE: On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “The Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions.”