Dive Summary:

• On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fla. developer Koontz in the case of Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District.
• Koontz wanted to develop part of wetlands property but the Water Management District would not approve the development unless he met certain requirements, including "spending money to improve public lands elsewhere," according to SCOTUSblog; Koontz found the requirements too burdensome and sued.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the government's conditions to regulate land use went too far; according to SCOTUSblog, "the decision has the potential to significantly expand property-owners’ ability to challenge local land use regulations and fees, though it is not clear that this expansion will result in a significant number of successful challenges."

From the article:

Two Supreme Court cases, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, and Dolan v. City of Tigard, set limits on governments’ ability to impair property interests with land use regulations. Under those decisions, there must be a “nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the government’s demand and the effects of the proposed land use. That test has historically applied when, for example, the government approves a land use permit, but the permit includes a condition that the property owner relinquish some property, like an easement.