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.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
