Columbus, OH – On Monday, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the rights of property owners from government extortion, where, in this case, the government charged George Sheetz more than $20,000 in permitting fees to help finance wholly unrelated county road improvement projects. The National Federation of Independent Business joined The Buckeye Institute in filing the brief.

“By demanding that Mr. Sheetz trade his Fifth Amendment property rights for a permit, the County of El Dorado, California employed extortion tactics to finance road improvement projects that were completely unrelated to Mr. Sheetz’s project,” said Jay R. Carson, senior litigator for The Buckeye Institute. “In doing so, El Dorado County has ignored numerous court rulings, including a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which states that governments cannot use their power to extort payments from citizens in exchange for permits for work wholly unrelated to the permitted activity.” 

George Sheetz wanted to place a modest-sized mobile home on his property, for which the County of El Dorado, California, charged him $23,420 to finance unrelated road improvements in the county. In its brief, The Buckeye Institute argues that the county’s actions violate the U.S. Constitution’s takings clause and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine.

The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in June 2023, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Sheetz v. County of El Dorado.

# # #

UPDATE: On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “The Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions.”