NFIB applauds today’s decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California at the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that the Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions. Beth Milito, Executive Director of NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center, expressed relief on behalf of the small business community, stating, “This decision upholds their Fifth Amendment rights and ensures that future business owners will not be coerced to trade their constitutional rights over confusing government semantics.” She added, “Small business owners deserve to have their constitutional rights protected, regardless of what governing body is regulating them.”
The case in question dealt with building permit exactions in California, where a property owner sought a permit to build a house on his land but was required to pay over $23,000 for road improvements. Lower courts initially held that this monetary exaction was not unconstitutional since it was authorized by legislation. However, NFIB's amicus brief argued that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause does not differentiate between conditions imposed by administrative personnel and those imposed by legislative bodies.
NFIB’s involvement in this case is part of its broader mission to protect the rights of small business owners in the legal arena. The organization is engaged in numerous cases across federal and state courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, to advocate for the interests of small businesses nationwide.
