The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case brought by a Florida landowner who, in exchange for issuance of a dredge and fill permit on land he owned in a habitat protection zone, was required to perform mitigation on government land. The government’s land was miles away from the landowner’s and the mitigation requirement bore no connection to the landowner’s project’s impacts on the habitat protection zone in which landowner’s property was located. The Florida Supreme Court, in reversing the holdings of the lower courts in the inverse condemnation case filed by the landowner, held that the mitigation requirement was not a taking because the U. S. Supreme Court’s holdings in prior cases that addressed eminent domain issues in the context of government exactions, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. Tigard, apply only to forced dedications by a landowner of property or interests in property, and the cases do not apply where the government denies a permit, but only when a government issues a permit with conditions attached to it.

The Supreme Court’s holding in St. Johns River Water Management District v. Koontz should clarify the extent to which limitations imposed by the Constitution’s taking clause, as set forth in prior Supreme Court cases, apply to landowners upon whom governments are imposing coercive property exactions.