Skip to main content

Permit demands and property rights

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District

Updated Oct 19, 2026

In brief

The Court ruled that permit-condition tests cover property demands even when a permit is denied and also apply to demands for money, then sent Koontz’s case back.

Where it stands
Decided

Decided 5-4 · June 25, 2013 · Opinion by Justice Alito

What it’s about
Koontz challenged the St. Johns River Water Management District’s demand for property or money to approve his land-use permit.
Who it affects
For land-use permit applicants, property demands must be tied to the project and roughly match its effects, even if the permit is denied; the same rules apply to demands for money.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for Coy A. Koontz, Jr. v. St. Johns River Water Management District
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

The Court ruled these demands must be connected to the project and roughly matched to its effects even when the permit is denied; it overturned the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling (reversed it) and sent the case back (remanded it).

The case concerned what public agencies may require in return for approving land-use permits.

Question presented

Is the government liable for a taking when it refuses to issue a permit until the landowner has agreed to dedicate personal resources to a public use?

What the Court decided

Holding

1. The government’s demand for property from a land-use permit applicant must satisfy the Nollan / Dolan requirements even when it denies the permit. 2. The government’s demand for property from a land-use permit applicant must satisfy the Nollan / Dolan requirements even when its demand is for money. 77 So. 3d 1220, reversed and remanded.

Result
Reversed

The vote

  • Joined the judgment
  • Dissented
  • Wrote an opinion
Majority · 5joined the Court's opinion
  1. Thomas
  2. Scalia
  3. Kennedy
  4. Roberts
  5. Alitowrote the opinion
Dissenting · 4disagreed with the result
  1. Breyer
  2. Kaganwrote the dissent
  3. Ginsburg
  4. Sotomayor
5 justices joined the judgment, 4 dissented.

From the opinions

“I think the Court gets the first question it addresses right.”

— Justice Kagan(dissent)

What's next

The case returns to the Florida Supreme Court for further proceedings. The ruling did not itself award Koontz compensation.

Documents

2

Docket activity

10
  • New analysis added

    Oct 19, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Oct 19, 2026 · Generated

  • New analysis added

    Oct 19, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis

    Oct 19, 2026 · Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary

    Oct 19, 2026 · Generated

Show 5 more
  • AI analysis generated: Decision Record

    Oct 19, 2026 · Generated

  • Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata

    Oct 19, 2026 · Court records

  • Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata

    Oct 17, 2026 · Court records

  • Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Koontz

    Oct 30, 2014 · Court records

  • Opinion added: Koontz

    Jun 25, 2013 · Court records

Sources

Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.

Checked Oct 19, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis