U.S. Supreme Court Divided Over California Man's Challenge to 'Traffic Impact Mitigation' Fee

Case Could Have Significant Implications for Local Government Budgets and Housing Markets Across the U.S.

The U.S. Supreme Court is divided over a case involving a California man, George Sheetz, who is challenging the constitutionality of a 'traffic impact mitigation' fee he was required to pay when building his home in Placerville, California.
Sheetz argues that the nearly $24,000 fee violates the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation.
The case could have significant implications for local government budgets and housing markets across the U.S., particularly in California where impact fees can add hundreds of thousands of dollars to new housing projects.
During oral arguments, justices seemed divided on whether the fee should be treated like the government seizing a homeowner's property, a simple tax, or something in between.
A decision in the case is expected by summer 2024.