Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District: Whether the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” tests apply to conditioning receipt of a land-use permit on paying money, and whether a Fifth Amendment “taking” can occur if no land-use permit is issued. The Court ruled there must be a “nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the government’s conditions for issuing a land-use permit and the effects of the proposed development even when the government denies the permit and even when the demand is for money.

American Trucking Association v. City of Los Angeles: Whether a government has the authority to impose restrictions on the use of its own property under the market participant exception - in this case to avoid preemption under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. The Court held that a government may not escape preemption under the market participant exception where it has used its authority to impose criminal sanctions to coerce consent to a concession agreement.

Maryland v. King:  Whether the Fourth Amendment allows states to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes. The Court held that “DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure.” Furthermore the Court stated that swabbing the inside of a cheek for DNA purposes is not unreasonable and that the "intrusion is negligible." All 50 states require the collection of DNA from felony convicts, and 28 states and the Federal Government have adopted laws similar to Maryland authorizing DNA collection from arrestees.

City of Arlington v. FCC: Whether courts should defer to a federal agency's determination that it has authority to interpret a statute. The Court held that courts must apply the Chevron framework to an agency's interpretation of a statutory ambiguity that concerns the scope of the agency's jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that "the distinction between 'jurisdictional' and 'nonjursidictional' interpretations is a mirage" and that "the question - whether framed as an incorrect application of agency authority or an assertion of authority not conferred - is always whether the agency has gone beyond what Congress has permitted it to do." 

McBurney v. Young: Whether a state statute violates the U.S. Constitution's Privileges and Immunities Clause and the dormant Commerce Clause when it allows only state citizens to access to public records. The Court ruled in McBurney v. Young that Virginia could keep public records access limited to residents of Virginia, agreeing with the amicus brief signed by ICMA.

Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center:  Whether National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits have to be obtained for channeled stormwater runoff from logging roads. The Court held that discharges of stormwater that ran off logging roads into ditches, culverts and channels did not require an NPDES permit. The Court noted that the State of Oregon, like most state and local governments which own or administer logging roads, had comprehensive environmental guidelines in place, making further federal regulation unnecessary.

 Wos v. E.M.A: Whether Medicaid preempts a state statute allowing the state to recover one-third of a Medicaid recipient’s tort settlement.  The Supreme Court rejected North Carolina’s fixed one-third rule, indicating that the state must set up a process which separates medical expenses (which the state can receive a share of) and money for pain and suffering (which the claimant gets to keep).

Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council: The flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the very same waterway does not qualify as a discharge of pollutants under the Clean Water Act.

Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States: Whether government actions that cause recurring flooding must continue permanently to take property within the meaning of the Takings Clause. The Court held unanimously that recurrent flooding that is induced by the government and temporary in nature is not automatically exempt from liability under the Takings Clause.  

To learn more about significant cases affecting local governments check out the SLLC's website.