This case involves a question that has deeply divided and confused state and federal courts.

The question surrounds what test to employ for legislatively imposed permit conditions like Mr. Sheetz’s. For decades now, courts have been in disarray about whether permit demands authorized by legislation should receive different, less demanding constitutional protection from those imposed ad hoc by administrators. Recently, SLF successfully convinced the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that legislative demands for property should not get special solicitude.

SLF and Beacon are now calling on the Supreme Court to rule the same way in the Sheetz case, ending the debate among lower courts about whether the Constitution applies equally to all branches of government.

SLF Vice President of Litigation Braden Boucek explains:

Property rights are essential. The Founders considered them to be essential to liberty and prosperity. As the Sixth Circuit was careful to note in Knight, the Founders never distinguished between branches of government in the Bill of Rights. The provisions of the Bill of Rights, including the Takings Clause, apply equally to all branches.

SLF Executive Director Kimberly Hermann states:

This case offers the Supreme Court the opportunity to hold legislative bodies accountable when they take property away from citizens. For too long, state and local governments have exploited loopholes and gotten away with extortionate demands on property because they do so through legislation. The Supreme Court needs to close these loopholes and clarify that the Takings Clause protects against all forms of government extortion.