APA Amicus Briefs
APA works to advance planning through the judicial process by filing amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in selected cases of national importance. Click on the case title to read APA's amicus brief.
2023
Smart Growth Minneapolis vs. City of Minneapolis
Minneapolis' groundbreaking comprehensive plan which eliminated single family zoning and allowed for more housing choice citywide has been struck down under the state environmental review law. Now, the City is appealing the ruling to the State Court of Appeals where it will decide the legality of Minneapolis 2040 and whether implementation may continue. Since its implementation in 2019, Minneapolis has developed hundreds of attainable housing options citywide.
APA Minnesota submitted the following amicus brief in support of the City of Minneapolis.
2022
Michael Sackett, ET UX. v. Environmental Protection Agency, Et Al
APA filed a friend of the court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court Case of Michael Sackett, ET UX. v. Environmental Protection Agency, Et Al in partnership with the National Association of Wetland Managers, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the American Water Works Association, and the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. The brief argues that the Supreme Court should preserve the current definition and scope of waters of the United States (WOTUS) such that the Clean Water Act still apply to wetlands, headwaters, streams, and other waters not consistently navigable year-round, yet crucial to maintaining water quality and preventing floods. Petitioners interpretation of WOTUS would limit jurisdiction through usage of a restrictive definition that excludes water necessary for human welfare.
2021
City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising 0f Austin, Incorporated
APA filed a friend of the court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court Case of City of Austin, Texas vs. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, Incorporated, et al. The brief does not take positions, but instead encourages the Court to provide needed sign regulation guidance, irrespective of its decision in this case. Importantly, it can do so while avoiding a one-size-fits-all mandate and preserving the ability of local communities to achieve their community-specific planning goals.
2019
Knick v. Township of Scott (2019)
APA filed a friend of the court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Knick v. Township of Scott. The brief argues that the U.S. Supreme Court should continue to follow well-established precedent for the proper adjudication of regulatory takings claims. APA urged the Supreme Court to follow stare decisis and decide the case based on existing legal principles, while at the same time clarifying those principles so as to curb their abuses.
These precedents include requiring "as-applied" Fifth Amendment takings claims to first be addressed through applicable local and state legal remedies. Only when these remedies have been completed should the claims be considered by federal courts. At the same time, "facial" Fifth Amendment takings claims should be "complete" even if the plaintiff has not first tried and failed to obtain compensation under state law.
2016
Murr v. Wisconsin (2016)
APA and APA's Wisconsin Chapter have filed a friend of the court brief in this U.S. Supreme Court case. At issue is whether two legally distinct parcels under common ownership must be combined for a takings analysis. The brief argues that treating the two parcels as one for takings analysis is in keeping with established principles of land use law.
2015
Lamar Central Outdoor, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2015)
APA and the International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA) filed a joint amicus curiae brief in this significant billboard case before the California Court of Appeal. At issue is the ability of municipalities to regulate off-premise billboards differently than other types of signs. APA and IMLA argue that requiring cities to treat advertising-for-hire signs equally with all other signs will hinder important planning objectives and, ultimately, reduce expression.
Lynch v. California Coastal Commission (2015)
APA and APA's California Chapter joined in a brief to the California Supreme Court in Lynch v. California Coastal Commission. The case deals with the authority of state or local government agencies to modify, rescind, or impose conditions setting time limits on permits in the event of a change in circumstances, such as sea level rise. The case is particularly important in the context of planning for climate change and potential hazard impacts.
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (2015)
APA and other friends of the court argue that the benefits of continued recognition of a disparate impact standard under the Fair Housing Act substantially outweigh the minimal costs that the standard imposes.
Scenic America, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Transportation (2015)
The brief from APA and other friends of the court focuses on the legal status of digital billboards using lighting to display alternating commercial messages adjacent to federal roadways in four-to-ten-second intervals. Are such billboards in keeping with the Highway Beautification Act and observance of the "consistent with customary use" limitation on lighting?
2014
Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2014)
APA and other friends of the court are concerned that local governments will face a nearly impossible task in crafting constitutional sign regulations if they are unable to use a common sense classification of temporary signs based upon their functions.
T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell (2014)
APA and its partner organizations support a "plain language" reading of the Telecommunications Act requirement that reasons for denial of a wireless facility be "in writing" and oppose any requirement that localities formally adopt a statement of such reasons within the already-short timeframes required by the act.
Norse Energy Corp. U.S.A. v. Town of Dryden (2014)
Cooperstown Holstein Corporation v. Town of Middlefield (2014)
New York Court of Appeals Decision
The New York Court of Appeals is set to review local bans on fracking-related uses in Dryden and Middlefield. Landowners and lessees had argued a state law regulating oil and gas recovery operations preempts local zoning, but the court below held for the towns. APA and environmental organizations have submitted friend-of-the court briefs, emphasizing that the state law makes no attempt to plan for nuisances or to preempt local planning.
2013
Township of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. (2013)
The Supreme Court again granted certiorari on the question of whether disparate impact may be a violation of the Fair Housing Act. APA argued that the disparate impact presents no obstacle to local planning, can improve the planning process, and fosters trust in local officials. The parties settled out of court, depriving the Court of the opportunity to decide the issue.
Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States (2013)
U.S. Supreme Court decision in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States
APA and other amici argue that federally granted rights-of way-revert to federal ownership, preserving the valuable public asset of a continuous corridor. In Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, a landowner claims that rights-of-way terminate, and the land is to be dispersed to neighboring owners after rail service ceases.
2012
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (2012)
U.S. Supreme Court decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District
APA, joined by the City of New York and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, opposed a landowner's contention that a potential wetlands mitigation measure — suggested as one possibility for compliance with state wetlands regulations during permitting negotiations — could constitute a taking subject to the "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" requirements associated with required dedications of interests in land.
Magner v. Gallagher (2012)
APA, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and seven other housing advocates submitted a brief supporting the existence of a disparate impact standard under the federal Fair Housing Act.
2011
In the Matter of the Adoption of N.J.A.C. 5:96 and 5:97 (2011)
New Jersey Supreme Court decision in In the Matter of the Adoption of N.J.A.C. 5:96 and 5:97
APA, the APA New Jersey Chapter, New Jersey Future, and the Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey jointly submitted a brief to the New Jersey Supreme Court supporting revision of the state's proposed rules for allocation of affordable housing to ensure that municipalities provide their fair share of housing opportunity.
2010
Continental Property Group, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis (2010)
Minnesota Court of Appeals decision in Continental Property Group, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis
APA and its Minnesota Chapter urge the Minnesota Court of Appeals to reverse the district court's ruling that found the city had violated respondent's procedural due process on allegations of decision-maker bias. A city council member must not be held to the same standard as the judiciary when it hears cases; and there are state law procedures that provide appropriate and effective remedies for decision-maker bias.
Guggenheim v. City of Goleta (2010)
U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta
APA and its California Chapter join the Constitutional Accountability Center and Western Center on Law and Poverty to urge the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc to affirm the decision of the District Court, which found the facial challenge to the city's rent control ordinance failed. Application of the Penn Central takings test to declare a local regulation facially unconstitutional is contrary to U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
2009
Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of St. Paul (2009)
U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of St. Paul
APA and its Minnesota Chapter join the Association of Minnesota Counties, the League of Minnesota Cities, and the Minnesota Association of Townships to urge the Eighth Circuit to reverse the lower court's decision which had invalidated the City of St. Paul's sign code. APA maintains the lower court incorrectly required the city council to articulate reasons in the legislative record for adopting a law of general applicability, a novel approach that puts at risk countless of local laws that were adopted in the same fashion.
Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2009)
APA and its Florida Chapter filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in this important takings case to urge the court to reject the notion of a judicial taking. The brief was drafted by Professor John Echeverria of Vermont Law School.
Rocky Mountain Christian Church v. Board of County Commissioners (2009)
U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Rocky Mountain Christian Church v. Board of County Commissioners
In an important RLUIPA case from Boulder County, APA and its Colorado Chapter ask the Tenth Circuit to vacate the decision below because denial of an application to approve a larger church facility in an agricultural zone is not a"substantial burden" under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Protecting agricultural and open space lands through a comprehensive plan is a compelling governmental interest.
Kyser v. Kasson Township (2009)
2010 Michigan Supreme Court decision in Kyser v. Kasson Township
2009 amicus brief; Michigan Supreme Court; Kyser v. Kasson Township
2008 amicus brief; Michigan Supreme Court; Kyser v. Kasson Township
2008 Michigan Court of Appeals slip opinion in Kyser v. Kasson Township
2007 amicus brief; Michigan Court of Appeals; Kyser v. Kasson Township
APA argues that the Michigan Supreme Court should overrule the "no very serious consequences" rule, currently applied to zoning ordinances that regulate mineral extraction, and it should reaffirm the same "rational basis" standard of review it applied prior to 1982 and that it prudently applies to all other types of local zoning claims.
In 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned the antiquated Silva rule and decided that the "no very serious consequences" rule, which had been applied in zoning decisions for mining and extractive industries, is unconstitutional.
West Linn Corporate Park LLC v. City of West Linn (2009)
2011 U.S. Court of Appeals decision in West Linn Corporate Park LLC v. City of West Linn
2010 Oregon Supreme Court decision in West Linn Corporate Park LLC v. City of West Linn
Before a property owner brings a claim for damages in federal court, he must seek administrative relief. APA and its Oregon Chapter assert in their amicus brief that a landowner must appeal to LUBA to review development conditions before a claim is ripe for adjudication in state court.
Midwest Media Property, LLC v. City of Erlanger and City of Ft. Wright (2009)
APA joins the International Municipal Lawyers Association and Scenic America to urge the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm the lower court's decision in favor of the cities' denial of sign permits for billboards that violated the size limitations in their sign codes.
RTM Media, L.L.C. v. City of Houston (2009)
U.S. Court of Appeals decision in RTM Media, L.L.C v. City of Houston
APA joins other organizations in urging the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the City of Houston's prohibition on offsite commercial billboards because this type of regulation is constitutional under Metromedia and its progeny. The 1993 newsrack case Discovery Network is clearly inapplicable.
2008
State of California v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008)
After the EPA Administrator denied California's request for a waiver from the Clean Air Act so that it could establish its own more stringent mobile source greenhouse gas emissions standards, APA filed an amicus brief with other groups in support of California. APA argues that in order to preserve the vibrant federal system required by the Constitution, the Supreme Court applies a presumption against preemption.
Gardener v. Marion County Board of County Commissioners (2008)
APA's final brief. Oregon's Measure 37 is ambiguous regarding when a regulation has the effect of "reducing the fair market value." APA explains the state's methodology for determining whether there has been a reduction in fair market value, the so-called"exemption method," is neither an accurate nor reasonable measure of evaluating the economic effects of the challenged regulation.
B.J. Alan Company v. Congress Township Board of Zoning Appeals (2008)
The township denies a property owner's request to operate a business in an agricultural district. APA explains the importance of connecting land use and zoning decisions to an adopted comprehensive plan, arguing that the link must be stronger than a mere conclusory statement that such a connection exists.
2007
Naser Jewelers, Inc. v. City of Concord (2007)
U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Naser Jewelers, Inc., v. City of Concord
City of Concord's facially neutral ban on electronic message centers is challenged as a content-based restriction on speech. APA argues there is no basis under existing First Amendment jurisprudence to contend that the city's ban is a content-based regulation. Appellant seeks an end-run around the city's core legislative and planning powers.
Trail v. Terrapin Run, LLC (2007)
Maryland Court of Appeals decision in Trail v. Terrapin Run, LLC
APA explains the important role the comprehensive plan assumes in local land use decision-making, and why there must be a strong connection between the comprehensive plan and the day-to-day land use decisions, such as special exceptions and other administrative decisions, where judicial review must always be more vigorous.
Wisconsin Realtors Association, Inc. v. Town of West Point (2007)
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin decision in Wisconsin Realtors Association, Inc. v. Town of West Point
Town of West Point's temporary moratorium is challenged; APA explains that moratoria are an essential planning tool for protecting public health, safety, and welfare. Local governments have broad authority under Wis. Stat. § 236.45 to enact temporary moratoria ordinances to help achieve the purposes of that statute.
Gardener v. Marion County Board of County Commissioners (2007)
Oregon's Measure 37 is ambiguous regarding when a regulation has the effect of "reducing the fair market value." APA explains the state's methodology for determining whether there has been a reduction in fair market value, the so-called "exemption method," is neither an accurate nor reasonable measure of evaluating the economic effects of the challenged regulation.
Albuquerque Commons Partnership v. City Council (2007)
New Mexico Supreme Court decision in Albuquerque Commons Partnership v. City Council
New Mexico Court of Appeals decision in Albuquerque Commons Partnership v. City Council
After the city amends the zoning text to align the regulations with the goals of the comprehensive plan, a developer challenges the amendment, alleging a violation of both his due process rights and a taking. APA explains the consistency doctrine and the importance of connecting the regulations to the plan.
Noghrey v. Town of Brookhaven (2007)
Supreme Court of the State of New York decision in Noghrey v. Town of Brookhaven
A jury is instructed that a taking occurs if a rezoning has a "significant" or "substantial" negative effect on property value. APA explains the regulatory takings doctrine applies only when regulations are the "functional equivalent" of direct appropriations or when an owner retains only a "bare residue" of value.
2006
Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan (2006)
Minnesota Supreme Court decision in Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan
A request to amend the comprehensive plan to permit residential development on a golf course is denied and property owner alleges a takings. APA explains the three Penn Central factors and urges the court to reject the claim.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2006)
The U.S. Supreme Court is asked to decide whether the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate CO2 emissions from vehicles. APA joins the International Municipal Lawyers Association and others in this landmark climate change case to urge the court to find such authority.
Get Outdoors, II, L.L.C. v. City of Lemon Grove (2006)
U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Get Outdoors, II, L.L.C. v. City of Lemon Grove
Sign company claims a vested right to erect eight permanent multi-story, multi-ton billboards after city amends its sign code to correct alleged infirmities. APA joins Scenic America and others to argue the case is moot and the sign industry is not entitled to any damages.
Get Outdoors, II, L.L.C. v. City of Chula Vista (2006)
U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Get Outdoors, II, L.L.C. v. City of Chula Vista
Sign company claims a vested right to erect eight permanent multi-story, multi-ton billboards after city amends its sign code to correct alleged infirmities. APA joins Scenic America and others to argue the case is moot and the sign industry is not entitled to any damages.
Advantage Media, L.L.C. v. City of Eden Prairie (2006)
U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Advantage Media, L.L.C. v. City of Eden Prairie
Sign company challenges provisions of sign code that don't apply to its application in order to skirt the traditional standing requirements. APA argues this litigation strategy must fail. The sign company must establish an injury-in-fact, a causal connection to that injury, and that the injury can be redressed.
Get Outdoors, II, L.L.C. v. City of San Diego (2006)
U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Get Outdoors, II, L.L.C. v. City of San Diego
Sign company challenges provisions of sign code that don't apply to its application in order to skirt the traditional standing requirements. APA argues this litigation strategy must fail. The sign company must establish an injury-in-fact, a causal connection to that injury, and that the injury can be redressed.
Prime Media, Inc. v. City of Brentwood (2006)
U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Prime Media, Inc. v. City of Brentwood
Sign company challenges provisions of sign code that don't apply to its application in order to skirt the traditional standing requirements. APA argues this litigation strategy must fail. The sign company must establish an injury-in-fact, a causal connection to that injury, and that the injury can be redressed.
Tanner Advertising Group, LLC v. Fayette County (2006)
U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Tanner Advertising Group, LLC v. Fayette County
Sign company challenges provisions of sign code that don't apply to its application in order to skirt the traditional standing requirements. APA argues this litigation strategy must fail. The sign company must establish an injury-in-fact, a causal connection to that injury, and that the injury can be redressed.
Rapanos v. United States (2006)
U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States
The U.S. Supreme Court is asked to determine whether the Clean Water Act's prohibition on unpermitted discharges to "navigable waters" extends to non-navigable wetlands that do not even abut navigable water. The APA urges the Court to acknowledge that isolated wetlands are important wetland resources requiring protection under Section 404.
2005
MacPherson v. Department of Administrative Services (2005)
Oregon Supreme Court decision in MacPherson v. Department of Administrative Services
In a challenge to Oregon's Measure 37, APA argues the measure establishes an irrational system based solely on time of ownership, and the Circuit Court's decision holding Measure 37 unconstitutional should be affirmed.
City of Norwood v. Horney (2005)
Ohio Supreme Court decision in City of Norwood v. Horney
In an eminent domain case in front of the Ohio Supreme Court, APA argues the city's urban renewal designation should not be second guessed when the designation is derived from a planning process that incorporates meaningful public participation evidencing a sound reasoning process.
Coast Range Conifers, LLC v. State of Oregon (2005)
Oregon Supreme Court decision in Coast Range Conifers, LLC v. State of Oregon
After the Court of Appeals rejects the "whole parcel" rule, allowing compensation for a limitation of a use to one portion of a property without considering the whole parcel, the APA argues for reversal because it will require compensation for a host of important regulatory tools used by municipalities.
Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Cobb County (2005)
U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Cobb County
A sign company wishing to erect billboards brings a facial challenge to community's sign code. APA argues that the distinction between on-premises signs and off-premises signs is a content-neutral distinction. The classification of sign-types by their function is not impermissibly content-based in absence of the regulation of viewpoint.
Advantage Advertising, L.L.C. v. City of Hoover (2005)
U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Advantage Advertising, L.L.C. v. City of Hoover
A sign company wishing to erect billboards brings a facial challenge to community's sign code. APA argues that the distinction between on-premises signs and off-premises signs is a content-neutral distinction. The classification of sign types by their function is not impermissibly content-based in absence of the regulation of viewpoint.
City of Ocean Springs v. Homebuilders Association of Mississippi, Inc. (2005)
The Homebuilders Association challenges the city's authority to enact impact fees without specific state enabling authority. APA argues that if the City of Ocean Springs's impact fees are consistent with the community's adopted plan and meet clearly-defined standards, they are a lawful exercise of the city's police powers and planning authority.
San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco (2005)
U.S. Supreme Court decision in San Remo Hotel, L.P. v City and County of San Francisco
In this takings case, APA argues that when a landowner seeks compensation in state court as required by Williamson County, it may do so only under state law because no federal takings claim exists when the landowner files in state court. Claimants should not be given two bites at the apple, in contravention of the Full Faith and Credit Act.
Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005)
U.S. Supreme Court decision in Cutter v. Wilkinson
The U.S. Supreme Court is asked to rule on the constitutionality of RLUIPA in the prisoner context. APA and others explain that Section (a)(2)(B) is unconstitutional because Congress acted beyond its Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power and overstepped its bounds under concepts of federalism and under the Tenth Amendment.
Elsinore Christian Center v. City of Lake Elsinore (2005)
APA and others argue that RLUIPA's "Individualized Assessments" jurisdictional trigger must codify the "individualized exemptions" doctrine established in Free Exercise jurisprudence; and RLUIPA's "substantial burden on religious exercise" provision must codify free exercise clause jurisprudence. Furthermore, there is no widespread and persisting pattern of constitutional violations towards religious landowners.
Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London
APA acknowledges that eminent domain is concededly an unsettling power, and is subject to misuse or overuse if not properly constrained. The dangers of eminent domain should be addressed by assuring that it remains a second-best alternative to market exchange as a means of acquiring resources, by encouraging careful planning and public participation in decisions to invoke eminent domain.
2004
Smith v. Town of Mendon (2004)
New York Court of Appeals decision in Smith v. Town of Mendon
APA argues that a conservation easement restriction is a common and reasonable planning tool; the heightened scrutiny of Nollan and Dolan should not apply to a development restriction that does not infringe on a landowner's right to exclude others from his property.
Coliseum Square Association, Inc. v. Jackson (2004)
U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Coliseum Square Association, Inc. v. Jackson
APA and the National Trust for Historic Preservation maintain that the District Court erred because it failed to scrutinize HUD's so-called "hard look" at the significant impacts that would result from construction of a big-box retail center. Neither HUD nor the district court adequately considered the "context" or "intensity" of the proposed project. Overuse of environmental assessments undermines NEPA goals.
Bechen v. Moody County Board of Commissioners (2004)
South Dakota Supreme Court decision in Bechen v. Moody County Board of Commissioners
The Moody County conditional use permit procedure for Confined Animal Feeding Operations is an administrative decision. APA explains that the reserved power of the people to review and overturn government decisions through referenda is limited to legislative decisions that establish a plan or policy, and does not extend to administrative decisions that implement or execute the legislative action.
Just v. City of Lebanon (2004)
This case involves the question of whether a third party may seek judicial review of local government decisions in the land use context. APA asks the Oregon Supreme Court to review its Utsey decision because it is inconsistent with the Oregon legislature's power to broaden citizen involvement in planning and the land use process.
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2004)
U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc
The APA maintains that whether legislation, such as the rent control statute passed by the Hawaii legislature, substantially advances a legitimate state interest is not a question within the purview of the Takings Clause. The historical confusion between due process and regulatory takings led to the mistaken application of the substantially advances test. (property – Pacific)
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams (2004)
U.S. Supreme Court decision in City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams
When Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act, it expressly created a private right of action to challenge zoning decisions that violate the federal standards in the act. APA argues that challengers must seek judicial review under the act's provisions and not under §1983.
Trinity Outdoor, L.L.C. v. City of Rockville (2004)
U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Trinity Outdoor, L.L.C. v. City of Rockville
Sign company challenges provisions of sign code that don't apply to its application in order to skirt the traditional standing requirements. APA argues this litigation strategy must fail. The sign company must establish an injury-in-fact, a causal connection to that injury, and that the injury can be redressed.
National Advertising Company v. City of Miami (2004) (docket 03-15593-DD)
U.S. Court of Appeals decision in National Advertising Company v. City of Miami
Sign company challenges provisions of sign code that don't apply to its application in order to skirt the traditional standing requirements. APA argues this litigation strategy must fail. The sign company must establish an injury-in-fact, a causal connection to that injury, and that the injury can be redressed.
National Advertising Company v. City of Miami (2004) (docket 03-15516-GG)
U.S. Court of Appeals decision in National Advertising Company v. City of Miami
Sign company claims a vested right to challenge provisions of sign code that don't apply to its application in order to skirt the traditional standing requirements. APA argues the sign company does not have a vested right based upon the rights of third parties. The sign company must establish an injury-in-fact, a causal connection to that injury, and that the injury can be redressed.
2003
Albuquerque Commons Partnership v. City Council (2003)
New Mexico Court of Appeals decision in Albuquerque Commons Partnership v. City Council
Developer challenges city's action to amend zoning ordinance in order to conform the land use regulation to the community's adopted plan. APA urges the New Mexico Court of Appeals to join the growing number of states around the country that recognize comprehensive plans as the foundation for growth and development decisions.
City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, LLC (2003)
Supreme Court decision in City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts
In an adult business regulation case, the APA joined the National League of Cities, the International Municipal Lawyers Association, the International City/County Management Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors to urge the U.S. Supreme Court that challenges to such licensing schemes should be properly analyzed as time, place, and manner regulations rather than as a prior restraint.
McCarran International Airport v. Sisolak (2003)
Nevada Supreme Court decision in McCarran International Airport v. Sisolak
In a takings challenge to a zoning ordinance limiting the height of buildings near the Las Vegas airport, APA argues that the regulation should be analyzed as a regulatory Penn Central taking rather than a per se taking under Lucas. (See also County of Clark v. Tien Fu Hsu, 2002)
Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates Limited Partnership (2003)
APA argues that the rough proportionality standard established in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 372 (1994), for adjudicatively imposed dedication requirements does not apply to a generally applicable, legislatively imposed non-dedication requirement, such as the requirement to construct a road.
2002
County of Clark v. Tien Fu Hsu (2002)
In a takings challenge to a zoning ordinance limiting the height of buildings near the Las Vegas airport, APA argues that the regulation should be analyzed as a regulatory Penn Central taking rather than a per se taking under Lucas. (See also McCarran International Airport v. Sisolak, 2003)
Gardner v. County of Sonoma (2002)
Antiquated subdivisions are ubiquitous, presenting some of the biggest challenges to local governments and planners. APA argues that the California Legislature did not intend that antiquated subdivision maps created prior to any state laws regulating subdivisions would result in legal parcels in the 21st century.
Emmett McLoughlin Realty, Inc. v. Pima County (2002)
APA argues that a state regulatory takings law (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-829(G)) threatens to undermine the 80-year foundation of comprehensive zoning and planning, making it difficult, if not impossible, to uniformly apply land-use regulations to properties similarly situated within its jurisdiction.
San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill (2002)
Property owner claims a constitutional and statutory right to convert a dormant hospital property to a "religious college" campus. APA argues that the district court correctly applied rational basis scrutiny under the free exercise clause to the city's neutral and generally applicable zoning regulation.
League of Oregon Cities v. State of Oregon (2002)
APA urges the Oregon Supreme Court to set aside Measure 7, a regulatory takings provision, because it failed to meet the constitutional standards for the presentation of proposed amendments. Measure 7 upsets fundamental understandings of those involved in land use management, giving priority to the right of the individual to develop land, at the expense of the wider community that may be harmed by that development.
2001
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2001)
APA requests the U.S. Supreme Court affirm the decision of the Ninth Circuit which determined that a temporary moratorium on land development does not constitute a taking of property requiring compensation under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency v. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. (2001)
APA urges the Ninth Circuit reverse the District Court's ruling that a moratorium on land development in the Tahoe Basin affected a facial taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment. A reasonable moratorium on development serves important public policy purposes and does not result in a taking under the Fifth Amendment.
City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. (2001)
In an adult business regulation case, APA argues that municipalities are not required to prove empirically that combinations of adult uses have more secondary effects than single adult uses. Substantial evidence justifies Los Angeles's findings that combinations of adult uses cause secondary effects.
Palazzolo v. State of Rhode Island (2001)
APA requests the U.S. Supreme Court determine that the property owner's takings claim is unripe because he failed to apply for permission to build on other portions of his property. The state's wetland protection laws, which were enacted prior to the property owner's 1978 acquisition, are background principles of law that shape his property interest and preclude takings liability.
Toll Brothers v. Township of West Windsor (2001)
In the first significant review of Mt. Laurel remedies in 18 years, APA explains the vital importance of the Court's consideration of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan. The importance of the state plan as a general policy and planning tool is as great in the context of affordable housing as in any other.
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001)
APA argues that Massachusetts's regulations that restrict the permissible locations for tobacco advertising but do not affect the federally mandated health warning for cigarettes, are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. Such regulations are properly analyzed under the Central Hudson's intermediate scrutiny test.
1997
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. (1997)
APA requests the U.S. Supreme Court reverse the Ninth Circuit's decision to apply the rough proportionality test to an inverse condemnation claim. Efforts to extend the Nollan/Dolan tests would require communities to bear the burden of proving that each and every individual standard contained in their planning and zoning legislative policies were roughly proportional to the impact of regulation upon the property affected and undermine their ability to facilitate land-use planning.
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997)
U.S. Supreme Court decision in Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
APA requests the U.S. Supreme Court clarify the application of the "finality" requirement of the ripeness doctrine to land use cases so that the requirement serves its intended purpose, which is to encourage the decision maker to arrive at a definitive position on the issue that is alleged to inflict an actual, concrete, and justiciable injury.