570 U.S. 595 (2013) · 2013
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District
property rightstakingsland useenvironmental permittinglocal governmentLandmark
Summary
Koontz held that Nollan and Dolan apply when a permit is denied because the applicant refuses an allegedly unconstitutional condition, and when the condition requires money. The decision expanded takings scrutiny in land-use permitting.
Background & Context
This case should connect property-rights doctrine to real permitting negotiations. The central power question is when government can condition development approval on payments or mitigation demands.
The Question Before the Court
Do Nollan and Dolan apply when a permit is denied for refusal to accept a condition, and when the demanded condition is money rather than real property?
Petitioner
Koontz
Party asking the Court to review or reverse
Argued
- Government cannot pressure owners into giving up property rights.
- Money demands can burden property rights too.
Respondent
St. Johns River Water Management District
Party defending the judgment below
Argued
- No taking occurred because no property changed hands.
- Applying Nollan and Dolan to money demands would disrupt permitting.
The Holding
The Nollan and Dolan unconstitutional-conditions standards apply when a land-use permit is denied because the applicant refuses to accept a condition, and they apply when the demanded condition is a payment or other monetary exaction rather than a transfer of real property.
The Court
How the justices lined up in this decision.
5-4
Vote
Joined decision
8 justicesAK
Anthony Kennedy
Majority
AS
Antonin Scalia
Majority
Justice Thomas
Majority
CT
Clarence Thomas
Majority
Chief Justice Roberts
Chief Justice
JR
John Roberts
Majority
Justice Alito
Majority
SA
Samuel Alito
Majority
Dissented
6 justices
Justice Kagan
Dissent
EK
Elena Kagan
Dissent
RB
Ruth Ginsburg
Dissent
Justice Sotomayor
Dissent
SS
Sonia Sotomayor
Dissent
SB
Stephen Breyer
Dissent
What this means for you
The ruling gives developers and property owners more leverage when governments demand mitigation, fees, or other concessions during permitting. It can protect owners from coercive demands unrelated to a project’s impacts. It can also make environmental and growth-management negotiations more legally risky for local governments, especially when they use permits to address wetlands loss, infrastructure strain, traffic, or other development impacts.
Key Takeaways
- Nollan and Dolan apply even when the permit is denied rather than granted with conditions.
- The doctrine applies to monetary exactions, not just demands for land.
- The case protects property owners from coercive permit conditions.
- The dissent warned the ruling could chill ordinary land-use negotiation.
- The decision affects wetlands mitigation, infrastructure fees, and development permitting.
Decision
5-4 majority opinion
- Citation
- 570 U.S. 595 (2013)
- Vote
- 5-4
- Decision type
- Majority opinion
- Argued
- January 15, 2013
- Decided
- June 25, 2013
- Term
- 2012
- Opinion author
- Samuel Alito
Justice Alito wrote the Court’s opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.