Court denies new “takings” case
on Oct 16, 2006 at 10:02 am
The Supreme Court refused on Monday to consider a significant new issue on the government’s power to demand civic contributions from developers as a condition for getting permits to build new projects. In a brief order, the Court turned down a case from Washington State testing whether the Constitution puts limits on local officials’ power to impose a fee on a new project to offset the cost of added public services. (The orders list can be found here.)
The appeal contended that, in this case, the “impact fees” were not tailored to the actual impact of the proposed apartment project on traffic flows. The issue in the case of Drebick v. City of Olympia (06-223) was whether the Constitution requires that any such fees must be based only upon an individual project’s actual impact on public services, and must be “proportional” in size to the specific impact of that project.
On a day when the Court granted no new cases, the Justices also declined to review a claim that it is unconstitutional for a city government to deny a Boy Scout unit equal access to public services because of the Scouts’ policies against homosexual or atheist members. The case was Evans v. City of Berkeley (06-40).
Berkeley’s City Council barred a Sea Scout “ship” (troop) from free access to berths in a city-run marina because of Scouting’s membership policies; these violate the city’s anti-discrimination laws, the City Council found. The Boy Scouts of America, joining a Sea Scout leader in asking the Court to hear the case, said the case presented “a recurring First Amendment issue of national importance.” The national Scouting organization contended that government officials at many levels “are excluding religious and other groups from access to programs on account of their religious or moral values and their efforts to maintain their distinctive identities.”
In upholding the action against the Sea Scouts, the California Supreme Court said: “A government that requires aid recipients to conform their actions to its laws does not thereby enforce adherence to the philosophy or values behind those laws.”
The Court declined review of the first appeals court ruling on the validity of a state law limiting wireless service companies from switching contract terms without notice or consent of their customers. The case involved the first such state law, enacted in Minnesota. It was struck down by the Eighth Circuit Court, and the state of Minnesota appealed, with the support of 36 other states. The appeal was Hatch v. Cellco Partnership (05-1159).
Before acting on that case, the Court had sought the views of the U.S. Solicitor General, who then urged the Court not to hear the case. The Solicitor said there was no conflict in the Circuit Courts on whether such states laws are preempted by federal communications; the Eighth Circuit found the Minnesota law to be preempted.
After opening its proceedings with orders on Monday, the Court admitted new members to practice at its bar. Among the group was a family of nine — the Donald Snyder family from upstate New York — the largest family group admitted together since the Perla family joined the bar in 1994, according to Court data. A news story about the Snyder family, in the Utica Observer-Dispatch, can be found here. On admitting the family, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., wryly remarked: “Nobody wanted to be a doctor?” The Courtroom responded in merriment.
(Howard Bashman, of How Appealing blog, has a post linking to a story about the Perla family’s admission.)
