Substantive Due Process by Another Name: Koontz, Exactions, and the Regulatory Takings Doctrine

17 Pages Posted: 14 Mar 2016

See all articles by Mark Fenster

Mark Fenster

University of Florida - Levin College of Law

Date Written: January 1, 2014

Abstract

Koontz v. St. Johns Water Management District (2013) completes the move that the Court’s 2005 decision in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.13 began, rendering the exactions decisions in Nollan, Dolan, and now Koontz, as conceptually and practically outside of the federal constitutional takings realm entirely, and existing in the astral realm, known as unconstitutional conditions. There, the exactions tests for nexus and proportionality can float free from the textual and remedial constraints that the Fifth Amendment, at least nominally, imposes on the regulatory takings doctrine. From that distant point, Nollan and Dolan should have little effect on the core regulatory takings tests—but they will, now, after Koontz, cause some considerable challenges for state and lower federal courts, especially when they must fashion a remedy besides the just compensation that the Fifth Amendment requires for a taking. We cannot know the effects that Koontz will have on land use regulation, although we can expect that they will vary across jurisdictions and, like Nollan and Dolan, will, in some instances lead to more regulation and in others, lead to less.

Keywords: regulatory takings, exactions, Koontz

Suggested Citation

Fenster, Mark, Substantive Due Process by Another Name: Koontz, Exactions, and the Regulatory Takings Doctrine (January 1, 2014). Touro Law Review, Vol. 30, 2014. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2746926

Mark Fenster (Contact Author)

University of Florida - Levin College of Law ( email )

P.O. Box 117625
Gainesville, FL 32611-7625
United States
352-273-0962 (Phone)
352-392-3005 (Fax)

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
37
Abstract Views
335
PlumX Metrics