It would seem that the California Appeals Court has chosen to ignore a ruling by the US Supreme Court.

“… There is no basis for affording property rights less protection in the hands of legislators than administrators,” Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court in April. “The Takings Clause applies equally to both – which means that it prohibits legislatures and agencies alike from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land-use permits.”

The high court vacated the first appeals court ruling and remanded it back to the court for further deliberations. But last month, the California court reaffirmed its first decision, finding that the traffic impact fees were constitutional despite the higher scrutiny advanced by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why then, should anyone follow a ruling by either the Supremes or the California Appeals court?

If a lower court  (or any government agency) chooses to disregard a higher court, Then why should any of us follow any court ruling (or for that matter, any law at all) with which we  which we disagree?

Either we have the rule of law, adjudicated by the courts and enforced by the police, or we don’t. There is no middle ground. Law or Anarchy. Choose.