In his most recent column for Daily Journal, Manatt Appellate Senior Counsel Michael Berger revisited Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, discussing the latest development in the case and providing his analysis on the arguments presented.
His fourth column on this case, Berger discussed the United States Supreme Court’s recent ruling that the Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative applications and administrative applications. The Court’s opinion provided useful examination of takings and exactions from the perspectives of constitutional text, history and precedent and further demonstrated that the 5th Amendment’s intention was to protect property owners against a broad scope of action from government agencies. Berger discussed the importance of legislation and how it should be applied to this case. “Setting legislation apart in this context would be contrary to settled takings law, whether it be physical, regulatory, or imposed by conditions. In the context of physical takings, the Court showed how such takings can be accomplished legislatively and the Court did not flinch from attaching liability to such action,” Berger said.
Daily Journal subscribers can read the full article here.