False Claims Act Insights - The Mathematics of Nuclear FCA Verdicts
Podcast - Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA: The Intersection of Constitutional and Environmental Law
Solicitors General Insights: The Tale of Two Washingtons — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 65 -The Power of Interpretation: Constitutional Meaning in the Modern World
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 64 - Cages We Built: The Making of Mass Incarceration in America
Solicitors General Insights: The Legal Frontlines in Iowa and Indiana — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
Ampliación del fuero de paternidad
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Impact of the Election on the FTC
Solicitors General Insights: A Deep Dive With Mississippi and Tennessee Solicitors General — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Everything You Want to Know About the CFPB as Things Stand Today, and Lots More - Part 2
Podcast - FTC Commissioner Dismissals: Background and Implications
FCPA Compliance Report: Death of CTA
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Prominent Journalist, David Dayen, Describes his Reporting on the Efforts of Trump 2.0 to Curb CFPB
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Prof. Hal Scott Doubles Down on His Argument That CFPB is Unlawfully Funded Because of Combined Losses at Federal Reserve Banks
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 55 - The Power of the Presidential Pardon: Traditions and Turning Points
False Claims Act Insights - Are the FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional? One Federal Judge Says “Yes"
In That Case: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
#WorkforceWednesday® - SpaceX Victory: Court Questions NLRB's Constitutional Authority - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: Can FTC’s Non-Compete Ban Survive Without Chevron Deference? - Spilling Secrets Podcast
Down Goes Chevron: A 40-Year Precedent Overturned by the Supreme Court – Diagnosing Health Care
In 2024, in what was heralded as a big win for developers in California, the U.S. Supreme Court upended decades of California precedent and held that legislatively enacted development impact fees must satisfy the “essential...more
The United States Supreme Court’s most recent Takings case, Sheetz v. El Dorado County, California enunciated a seemingly simple holding, that legislatively-imposed development fees are not, as such, exempt from analysis...more
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that may significantly affect how development impact fees are assessed in California. In Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the Court unanimously held that...more
In a typical permitting process, the local government may place certain conditions on issuing a building permit to further a legitimate public purpose. While the local government has “substantial authority to regulate land...more
In a highly-anticipated case revolving around development impact fees, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 144 S.Ct. 893 (2024) that legislatively-imposed conditions on building permits...more
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has again rejected a state's narrow interpretation of the constitutional limits on government's ability to impose development conditions. A unanimous SCOTUS ruled on April 12 in favor of the...more
The US Supreme Court’s decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado earlier this month will affect how local governments impose impact fees in the future and who pays certain development costs....more
Undoubtedly, development impact fees (DIFs) can make or break the pro forma of any development project. Until this month, developers hoping to challenge the assessment of project-related DIFs were often limited in the causes...more
When the government wants to take private property for a public project, it must compensate the owner at fair market value. The just compensation concept comes from the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which provides: “nor...more
Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, in which the Court held that for the purpose of a takings claim there is no distinction in whether permit conditions...more
In a dispute over a traffic impact fee imposed on a residential building permit by El Dorado County, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the long-standing position of California and other state courts that the Takings...more
The Sheetz v. County of El Dorado decision will create uncertainty in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and many other states as cities, counties, developers and property owners reexamine whether existing impact fee...more
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land‑use permit conditions. Building permit...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on April 12, 2024, that the "Takings Clause" enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies equally to legislative and administratively imposed land use permitting fees. Since...more
The U.S. Supreme Court last week unanimously held that the Takings Clause of the Constitution prevents legislatures, as well as administrative agencies, from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land-use permits....more
On April 12, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sheetz v. Cnty. Of El Dorado, California, 22-1074 (U.S. Apr. 12, 2024) and unanimously held that legislative actions can still be unconstitutional exactions...more
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-anticipated ruling in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, U.S. No. 22-1074 (petition for certiorari granted 9/29/23) (Sheetz). The case concerned the...more
Some commentators claim there are bitter divisions among the Justices, roiling the Court and its processes. Many of the same commentators were critical of the Court’s decision holding that former President Trump was not...more
Today, April 12, 2024, in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overruled more than two decades of California precedent, holding that legislatively established development impact fee programs must...more
The US Supreme Court has announced it will evaluate whether “impact fees” associated with permits can violate the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. At stake is the determination of when, how, and under what...more
In Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, when George Sheetz sought a building permit to construct a single-family residence, the County of El Dorado agreed to issue the permit with one important condition: he had to pay...more