Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District
570 U.S. ____ (2013) (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The government's demand for property from a land-use permit applicant is subject to the nexus and rough proportionality requirements of Nollan and Dolan, even when the government denies the permit after the applicant refuses the demand, and even when the demand is for money rather than an interest in real property.
Facts:
- In 1972, Coy Koontz, Sr. purchased a 14.9-acre tract of undeveloped land in Florida, a large portion of which was classified as wetlands.
- In 1994, Koontz applied for permits from the St. Johns River Water Management District (the District) to develop 3.7 acres of his property.
- To mitigate the environmental impact, Koontz offered to grant the District a conservation easement on the remaining approximately 11 acres of his land.
- The District rejected Koontz's offer as inadequate.
- The District informed Koontz it would only approve his permit if he either reduced the development to 1 acre and granted a conservation easement on the remaining 13.9 acres, or proceeded with his 3.7-acre plan but also paid for off-site mitigation by hiring contractors to improve District-owned wetlands miles away.
- Koontz believed the District's demands were excessive and unrelated to the environmental impact of his proposed development, so he refused to comply.
Procedural Posture:
- Coy Koontz sued the St. Johns River Water Management District in Florida Circuit Court, a state trial court.
- The trial court's initial dismissal was reversed by the Florida District Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- On remand, the Circuit Court held a bench trial and found for Koontz, ruling the District’s demands violated the Nollan/Dolan test.
- The District appealed, and the District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The District sought review from the Florida Supreme Court, the state's highest court, which reversed the appellate court's decision.
- The Florida Supreme Court held that Nollan/Dolan did not apply because the District denied the permit and the demand was for money, not real property.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, under the Nollan/Dolan framework, apply to a government's demand for money as a condition for a land-use permit, even if the government ultimately denies the permit when the landowner refuses the demand?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
Yes. The government's demand for property from a land-use permit applicant must satisfy the requirements of Nollan and Dolan even when the government denies the permit and even when its demand is for money. The unconstitutional conditions doctrine prevents the government from coercing people into giving up constitutional rights by withholding a benefit. This applies whether the government approves a permit with a condition or denies it because an applicant refuses the condition; the coercive burden on the applicant's Fifth Amendment rights is the same. Similarly, the doctrine's protections extend to monetary exactions linked to a specific parcel of land, as they are functionally equivalent to demands for real property. Allowing the government to demand money instead of land would create a simple loophole to evade the nexus and rough proportionality requirements, frustrating the Fifth Amendment right to just compensation.
Dissenting - Justice Kagan
No. The Nollan/Dolan framework should not be extended to cover monetary exactions. The dissent agrees that the framework applies to permit denials based on refused conditions, but argues it is limited to conditions that demand real property interests, which would constitute a per se taking if seized directly. Citing Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, the dissent maintains that a general obligation to pay money is not a taking of a specific property interest. Extending Nollan/Dolan to monetary demands threatens to subject a vast array of routine, legitimate local land-use fees to heightened constitutional scrutiny, creating uncertainty and embroiling federal courts in local affairs. Furthermore, the dissent argues the District did not make a specific, concrete demand, but was rather engaged in permissible negotiations, and because no property was actually taken, Koontz is not entitled to just compensation under the Takings Clause.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the scope of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine as applied to the Takings Clause. By extending the Nollan/Dolan test to permit denials and monetary exactions, the Court provides property owners with greater protection against government leverage in the land-use permitting process. The decision requires local governments to ensure that any conditions, including fees or required off-site work, have a clear nexus and rough proportionality to the proposed project's impacts. This holding increases the potential for litigation over permitting fees and forces municipalities to more carefully justify their demands on developers.
