Fees, Expenditures, and the Takings Clause

39 Pages Posted: 26 Jul 2013 Last revised: 1 Sep 2014

See all articles by Justin R. Pidot

Justin R. Pidot

University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law

Date Written: 2014

Abstract

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District extended heightened constitutional scrutiny to monetary exactions. But the Court did not define that term, and, arguably, it could encompass two distinct forms of conditions placed on government issued-permits: First, those that require a permit applicant to pay money to the government (which this essay refers to as a fee), and second those that require a permit applicant to engage in activities that cost money, but do not transfer money to the government (which this essay refers to as an expenditure). Based on the theoretical underpinnings of takings doctrine, and the language of the Koontz decision itself, this essay argues that heightened scrutiny should extend only to fees, and not to expenditures.

Keywords: Regulatory takings, exactions, unconstitutional conditions, Fifth Amendment, Takings Clause, Koontz

Suggested Citation

Pidot, Justin R., Fees, Expenditures, and the Takings Clause (2014). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2298307 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2298307

Justin R. Pidot (Contact Author)

University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law ( email )

P.O. Box 210176
Tucson, AZ 85721-0176
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
143
Abstract Views
1,960
Rank
377,575
PlumX Metrics