Pacific Legal Foundation

Last updated

Pacific Legal Foundation
FormationMarch 5, 1973;51 years ago (1973-03-05)
Type 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
94-2197343
Headquarters555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1290
Sacramento, California, U.S.
President and CEO
Steven D. Anderson
Chair
Brian G. Cartwright
Budget
Expenses: $20,312,107 (FYE December 2022) [1]
Website pacificlegal.org

The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) is an American nonprofit public interest law firm established for the purpose of defending and promoting individual freedom. [2] [3] PLF attorneys provide pro bono legal representation, file amicus curiae briefs, and hold administrative proceedings with the stated goal of supporting property rights, equality and opportunity, and the separation of powers. The organization is the first and oldest libertarian public interest law firm, having been founded in 1973. [4] [5]

Contents

Pacific Legal Foundation is primarily funded by donations from individuals, foundations, associations, and small businesses. Except for court-awarded attorney fees for case victories, the organization receives no government funding. [6] [7] [8] The foundation is generally described as supporting libertarian or conservative causes. [9]

As of April 2024, PLF has won 18 cases before the United States Supreme Court, with the most recent being Sheetz v. County of El Dorado . [10]

History

Incorporated in Sacramento, California, on March 5, 1973, PLF's original staff was composed mainly of individuals who had been a part of then-Governor Ronald Reagan's welfare reform team. [2] Operating on a proposed budget of $117,000 for the first 10 months of operation, PLF attorneys began litigation activities in June 1973 under the direction of Ronald A. Zumbrun, PLF's first president. [2]

PLF was the first organization in a movement of freedom-based public interest law firms (PILF) in the early 1970s. [11] [12] [13] [14] In describing the reasons for starting PLF, Raymond Momboisse, one of the founders, asserted that PLF represented "the free enterprise system and the little guy." [15]

PLF won its first Supreme Court case in 1987 and has since argued 20 cases, with three more scheduled in 2023. [14]

Currently, PLF has a staff of over 100 employees and three offices across the United States: Sacramento, CA; Arlington, VA; and Palm Beach Gardens, FL. [16] [17]

Property rights

In PLF property rights cases such as Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District , the concept of regulatory takings was further defined, establishing the doctrine of “unconstitutional conditions.” These cases helped to delineate what constitutes a “regulatory taking” and established the “essential nexus test” used in unconstitutional conditions analyses.

The Foundation's attorneys have successfully argued five takings cases at the United States Supreme Court: Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency , Palazzolo v. Rhode Island , Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, and Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania .

PLF has litigated housing and zoning issues in lower courts. PLF successfully challenged San Francisco's "Relocation Assistance Payment Ordinance", which required landlords to pay tenants to regain personal use of their property. [18] [19] Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001) established that home builders have a right to challenge oppressive land-use laws under the Takings Clause—even if the laws predate ownership. [20] Knick v. Township of Scott (2019) established that a property owner has an immediate right to seek redress in the federal courts when a state or local government takes an action that impairs her property rights. [21] Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1996) established that a home builder’s takings claim is ripe for judicial review when the impact of a law on property use is known to a “reasonable degree of certainty” or where the government has no meaningful discretion to reduce a land use law's impact. [22] Shands v. City of Marathon (2023) established the precedent that the government can be found to have taken an owner's property without just compensation when it denies their right to build a house due to environmental restrictions. [23]

Additionally, PLF's property rights cases have focused on environmental regulations. PLF's environmental law litigation has frequently involved challenges to federal regulation of private property under the Clean Water Act or the Endangered Species Act, including five victories at the U.S. Supreme Court. PLF attorneys represented a Minnesota property owner who was denied the right to build on his property in Contoski v. Scarlett, [24] a case that resulted in the removal of the bald eagle from the endangered species list. [25] PLF argued that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to delist the species after it concluded that the bald eagle population had recovered. [26] [27]

PLF represented Andy Johnson in a dispute with the Environmental Protection Agency. Johnson built a stock pond on his property in Wyoming to provide water for his cattle. EPA found that he had violated the Clean Water Act, demanded that he remove the pond, and fined him $37,500 per day, eventually resulting in $16 million in fines. [28] Wyoming's senators called the agency's action "heavy-handed bureaucracy." [29] The case was settled in 2016, with EPA dropping the fines and demands, and Johnson agreeing to plant willow trees to protect the ground from erosion. [30] Johnson's case was highlighted by President Trump when he signed an Executive Order to reduce regulatory agencies' ability to rely on administrative guidance to justify enforcement actions against citizens. [31] [32] [33]

PLF has been at the forefront of the campaign to eradicate home equity theft nationwide, culminating in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Tyler v. Hennepin County , which declared the practice unconstitutional. [34] [35] PLF represented Uri Rafaeli, a Michigan resident whose property was foreclosed and sold at auction for a property tax debt of $8.41. The county kept the entire proceeds from the auction, over $24,000. [36] PLF won its case at the Michigan Supreme Court challenging a state law which was aimed at preventing blight but allows counties to keep the entire proceeds from property auctions, even if the amount raised at auction is greater than the amount owed in back taxes. [36] [36] The court ruled in favor of Rafaeli and found the practice illegal under the Michigan Constitution. [36] [37] The practice, which PLF refers to as "home equity theft", is also legal in other states such as Arizona, Massachusetts, and Montana. [38] [39] PLF has helped pass legislation in Wisconsin, [40] [41] Montana, [42] [43] and North Dakota [44] to end home equity theft.

PLF has frequently litigated property disputes along the coast and other shorelines, including several cases challenging actions by the California Coastal Commission. [45] [46] [47] [48] The organization argues there is no conflict between private ownership of shoreline and the public good, because development can increase opportunities to experience the beach and to protect it. [49]

Equality and opportunity

PLF argues that certain licensing laws and similar regulations violate the individual right to earn a living and result in a loss of jobs and a lower standard of living for Americans. [50] PLF has battled against Certificate of Need (CON) laws in multiple states that require new entrants to a job market to receive a "certificate of need" from the government to which businesses currently engaged in the occupation may object to the competition. [51] PLF represented Arty Vogt from Lloyd's Transfer & Storage in a challenge to West Virginia's CON law regulating interstate movers, which required new moving companies in the state to be approved by incumbents. The case concluded in 2017 when the state passed a law effectively repealing the regulation. [52] [53] In 2019, PLF won a lawsuit in Kentucky, challenging the state's CON law regulating non-emergency medical transportation. [54] PLF has challenged and succeeded in ending CON laws for other movers operating in Oregon, [55] Missouri, [56] and Pennsylvania. [57] Additionally, PLF has also filed cases challenging CON laws that limit new birth centers in Georgia [58] and Iowa. [59]

In 2008, PLF won Merrifield v. Lockyer, a challenge to California licensing of pest control. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "economic protectionism for its own sake, regardless of its relation to the common good, cannot be said to be in the furtherance of a legitimate governmental interest." [60]

PLF has participated in cases challenging affirmative action policies, both under the federal Constitution's Equal Protection Clause and state constitutional provisions such as California's Proposition 209 and Washington's Initiative 200. At the California Supreme Court, PLF principal attorney Sharon L. Browne won two significant victories upholding the constitutionality of Proposition 209. [61]

In 2018, PLF filed a number of lawsuits on behalf of boys seeking to compete on high school dance teams. [62] In South Dakota, the South Dakota High School Activities Association changed their regulations to allow boys to compete in competitive dance following PLF's lawsuit. [63] Additionally, the Minnesota State High School League also amended their rules to allow boys in competitive dance following lawsuits filed by PLF on behalf of two male students. [64] In 2019, PLF, representing a group of black and Hispanic parents, filed a federal lawsuit arguing that Connecticut's enrollment standards for its magnet schools are discriminatory. Connecticut caps the enrollment of black and Hispanic students in magnet schools at 75%, while no less than 25% of students can be white or Asian. [65] [66] PLF was also involved in Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc. vs San Jose, in which the California Supreme Court upheld the amendment banning racial preferences. [67]

In 2018, PLF sued New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, challenging his proposed changes to the admissions policies of New York City's specialized high schools. De Blasio proposed expanding the Discovery program, which admits students just under the cutoff for the admissions test, from 6% to 20% of all students accepted, a move which he claimed would increase black and Hispanic diversity in those schools. PLF represents Asian-American parents and advocacy groups who claim that the mayor's plans discriminates against Asian-American students and amounts to unconstitutional racial balancing. [68] [69]

PLF also challenged a magnet school's admissions policy in Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board .

Separation of powers

PLF has litigated several cases arguing for citizen access to judicial review. In Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court held that the Sacketts could go to court to challenge an EPA compliance order. [70] In U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc, the Court held that a jurisdictional determination that the property in question constituted "waters of the United States" was a final agency action subject to judicial review. [71]

In 2018, PLF launched a campaign to end what it characterizes as unconstitutional regulation through litigation, legislation, and executive action, focusing on restoring its interpretation of an original understanding of the separation of powers. [72] PLF launched a legal challenge of FDA's Deeming Rule, arguing that it was signed by a career civil servant, rather than an officer of the United States as required by the appointments clause of the Constitution. [73] [74] In 2019, PLF released a study of 2,952 rules issued by HHS between 2001 and the beginning of the Trump administration which claimed that 71% were issued unconstitutionally, the majority being signed by career executive employees (civil servants), not "an officer of the United States." [75] The study found that 98% of the FDA's rules issued in that time period were issued by career employees. [75]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, PLF helped to draft and advance legislation in 11 states to limit executive powers. [76] [77]

Freedom of speech and association

PLF successfully challenged Minnesota polling place laws that violated voters' right to free speech in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky . The Supreme Court held 7–2 in favor of PLF's client, the Minnesota Voters Alliance, finding that the state's restrictions on clothing worn in the polling place were not reasonable and violated the First Amendment. [78] PLF was also instrumental in overturning a Virginia law banning the advertising of happy hours, suing on behalf of restaurateurs who could not advertise drink specials in the state in violation of the First Amendment. [79] [80] Additionally, in Keller v. State Bar of California , PLF successfully curbed the California State Bar's use of compulsory dues to finance political and ideological activities. [81]

Law school programs

Chapman University

PLF operated a "Liberty Clinic" at Chapman University's Fowler School of Law, where a PLF attorney supervises a trial-court program as part of the law school's Constitutional Jurisprudence Clinic. [82] [83] Students in the clinic had hands-on roles in ongoing court cases and learn how strategic litigation works. This is no longer available at Chapman University.

University of California, Berkeley

In 2018, PLF began teaching a seminar and field placement at UC Berkeley School of Law on strategic constitutional litigation. [84] [85] The seminar, taught by PLF Executive Vice President and General Counsel John M. Groen, focuses on property rights and economic liberty. In the field placement, students join a PLF litigation team to work on on-going court cases. [86]

Supreme Court cases

PLF has litigated 20 cases before the United States Supreme Court. Its 18 victories are:

Its two losses are:

Notable people

See also

Related Research Articles

In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:

In United States constitutional law, a regulatory taking occurs when governmental regulations limit the use of private property to such a degree that the landowner is effectively deprived of all economically reasonable use or value of their property. Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution governments are required to pay just compensation for such takings. The amendment is incorporated to the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926), more commonly known as Euclid v. Ambler, was a United States Supreme Court landmark case argued in 1926. It was the first significant case regarding the relatively new practice of zoning. The Supreme Court's finding that local ordinance zoning was a valid exercise of the police power bolstered zoning in the United States and influenced other countries.

Inverse condemnation is a legal concept and cause of action used by property owners when a governmental entity takes an action which damages or decreases the value of private property without obtaining ownership of the property through the use of eminent domain. Thus, unlike the typical eminent domain case, the property owner is the plaintiff and not the defendant.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test for when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute. The decision articulated a doctrine known as "Chevron deference". Chevron deference consists of a two-part test that is deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Washington Legal Foundation</span> Non-profit organization in the USA

The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) is a non-profit legal organization located at 2007-2009 Massachusetts Avenue NW, on Embassy Row in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1977, the Foundation's stated goal is "to defend and promote the principles of freedom and justice." The organization promotes pro-business and free-market positions and is widely perceived as conservative.

Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), more commonly Dolan v. Tigard, is a United States Supreme Court case. It is a landmark case regarding the practice of zoning and property rights, and has served to establish limits on the ability of cities and other government agencies to use zoning and land-use regulations to compel property owners to make unrelated public improvements as a condition to getting zoning approval, citing the violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Stras</span> American federal circuit judge (born 1974)

David Ryan Stras is an American lawyer and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He is a former Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a claimant does not waive his right to challenge a regulation as an uncompensated regulatory taking by purchasing property after the enactment of the regulation challenged.

Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent that held that a state could not authorize invidious discrimination by private landlords without entangling itself in the ensuing discriminatory private decisions. Thus, the state constitutional amendment by referendum purporting to authorize landlord freedom was unconstitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating due process rights

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights, limiting governmental powers focusing on criminal procedures. It was ratified, along with nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that limited access to federal court for plaintiffs alleging uncompensated takings of private property under the Fifth Amendment. In June 2019, this case was overruled in part by the Court's decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania.

In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a California Coastal Commission regulation which required private homeowners to dedicate a public easement along valuable beachfront property as a condition of approval for a construction permit to renovate their beach bungalow was unconstitutional. The Coastal Commission had asserted that the public-easement condition was a legitimate state interest of diminishing the "blockage of the view of the ocean" caused by the home renovation, even though the easement wouldn't create any additional public view of the ocean. The Court held that in evaluating such claims, there must be an "essential nexus" between a legitimate state interest and the actual conditions of the permit being issued.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 566 U.S. 120 (2012), also known as Sackett I, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court ruled that because the Environmental Protection Agency's orders constitute "final agency action" under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal courts may hear appeals from its orders.

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation. They include challenges by states against the ACA, reactions from legal experts with respect to its constitutionality, several federal court rulings on the ACA's constitutionality, the final ruling on the constitutionality of the legislation by the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and notable subsequent lawsuits challenging the ACA. The Supreme Court upheld ACA for a third time in a June 2021 decision.

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that it was possible for government-induced, temporary flooding to constitute a "taking" of property under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, such that compensation could be owed to the owner of the flooded property.

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that land-use agencies imposing conditions on the issuance of development permits must comply with the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, even if the condition consists of a requirement to pay money, and even if the permit is denied for failure to agree to the condition. It was the first case in which monetary exactions were found to be unconstitutional conditions.

Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, No. 17-647, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with compensation for private property owners when the use of that property is taken from them by state or local governments, under the Due Process Clause and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The immediate question asks if private land owners must exhaust all state-offered venues for mediation before seeking action in the federal courts. The case specifically addresses the Court's prior decision from the 1985 case Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, which had previously established that all state court venues must be exhausted first, but which has since resulted in several split decisions among circuit courts. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2019 to overturn part of Williamson County that required state venue action be taken first, allowing taking-compensation cases to be brought directly to federal court.

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving eminent domain and labor relations. In its decision, the Court held that a regulation made pursuant to the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act that required agricultural employers to allow labor organizers to regularly access their property for the purposes of union recruitment constituted a per se taking under the Fifth Amendment. Consequently, the regulation may not be enforced unless “just compensation” is provided to the employers.

Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case about government seizure of property for unpaid taxes, when the value of the property seized is greater than the tax debt. A unanimous court held that the surplus value is protected by the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.

References

  1. ↑ From Rogers & Company: https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Pacific-Legal-Foundation-Final-Audit-Report-FY-2022.pdf, at the PLF page: https://pacificlegal.org/financials/
  2. 1 2 3 Zumbrun, Ronald A. (2004). "Life, Liberty, and Property Rights," in Bringing Justice to the People: The Story of the Freedom-Based Public Interest Law Movement (Lee Edwards, ed.). Washington, DC: Heritage Books, ISBN   0974366528, pp. 41–44
  3. ↑ Dolan, Maura (February 8, 1996). "Giving the Right Its Day in Court". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 13, 2016.
  4. ↑ Charles Murray, By the People: Rebuilding Liberty without Permission, page 146.
  5. ↑ Damon Root, Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court, page 106.
  6. ↑ "Financials". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved March 27, 2019.
  7. ↑ "Submit A Case". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved March 27, 2019.
  8. ↑ "Donate". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved May 9, 2019.
  9. ↑ "Libertarian group sues to block student debt cancellation". AP NEWS. September 27, 2022. Retrieved January 22, 2023.
  10. 1 2 Yeatman, Nicole W. C. (April 14, 2024). "The government had George Sheetz 'over a barrel.' He took his case to the Supreme Court—and won". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved May 27, 2024.
  11. ↑ Weinstein, Henry (June 1979). "Defending What? The Corporation's Public Interest". Juris Doctor: 39.
  12. ↑ Southworth, Ann (2008). Lawyers of the Right: Professionalizing the Conservative Coalition. University of Chicago Press (published January 26, 2009). p. 193. ISBN   0226768333.
  13. ↑ "Pacific Legal Foundation Aims to Extend Supreme Court Win Streak". news.bloomberglaw.com. Retrieved May 20, 2024.
  14. 1 2 "Pacific Legal Foundation Snags Supreme Court Trifecta". Reuters .
  15. ↑ Southworth, Ann (2005). "Conservative Lawyers and the Contest Over the Meaning of "Public Interest Law"". UCLA Law Review (52): 1248.
  16. ↑ "Staff". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved March 27, 2019.
  17. ↑ Groover, Heidi. "Meet the Bellevue Libertarians Who Are Fighting Seattle's Progressive Housing Laws". The Stranger. Retrieved March 27, 2019.
  18. ↑ "Levin v. City and County of San Francisco". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
  19. ↑ Tash, Debra (March 20, 2017). "San Francisco fails in assault on Pacific Legal Foundation's big court win for local landlords". Citizens Journal. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
  20. ↑ "Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001)". Justia Law. Retrieved May 28, 2024.
  21. ↑ "Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved May 28, 2024.
  22. ↑ "Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725 (1997)". Justia Law. Retrieved May 28, 2024.
  23. ↑ "RODNEY SHANDS, et al., vs CITY OF MARATHON, etc., et al.,". Justia Law. Retrieved May 28, 2024.
  24. ↑ "Contoski v. Scarlett | D. Minn. | Judgment | Law | CaseMine". www.casemine.com. Retrieved March 27, 2019.
  25. ↑ "Bald Eagle Delisting". www.fws.gov. Retrieved March 27, 2019.
  26. ↑ "The bald eagle still flying high". Pacific Legal Foundation. December 20, 2010. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
  27. ↑ "govinfo". www.govinfo.gov. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
  28. ↑ Cabrero, Alex (May 11, 2016). "5-year fight with EPA finally over for Wyoming man and his pond". Deseret News. Retrieved October 31, 2019.
  29. ↑ Healy, Jack (September 18, 2015). "Family Pond Boils at Center of a 'Regulatory War' in Wyoming". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved May 7, 2019.
  30. ↑ Cama, Timothy (May 10, 2016). "EPA settles with Wyoming farmer over man-made pond". TheHill. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
  31. ↑ Board, The Editorial. "Opinion | No More Rule by Memorandum". WSJ. Retrieved October 31, 2019.
  32. ↑ "Trump highlights Wyoming man's battle against EPA during White House ceremony". Bridger Valley Pioneer. Retrieved October 31, 2019.
  33. ↑ "Remarks by President Trump at Signing of Executive Orders on Transparency in Federal Guidance and Enforcement". whitehouse.gov . Retrieved October 31, 2019– via National Archives.
  34. ↑ "DEI – Home Equity Theft – MassNAELA". massnaela.com. Retrieved May 28, 2024.
  35. ↑ hlr (November 13, 2023). "Tyler v. Hennepin County". Harvard Law Review. Retrieved May 28, 2024.
  36. 1 2 3 4 White, Ed. "Local governments can't keep extra cash in tax foreclosures". Ionia Sentinel – Standard-Ionia, MI. Retrieved July 21, 2020.
  37. ↑ Journal, A. B. A. "State supreme court rules for property owner who lost home over $8 tax debt". ABA Journal. Retrieved July 21, 2020.
  38. ↑ "Unpaid $8.41 property tax bill cost Michigan man his house". www.cbsnews.com. November 8, 2019. Retrieved November 11, 2019.
  39. ↑ Kalil-Barrino, Marisa. "Southfield man underpaid his property taxes by $8.41, lost home and money". Detroit Metro Times. Retrieved November 11, 2019.
  40. ↑ "Legislative Alert: Foreclosure Equity Bill Signed into Law".
  41. ↑ "Wisconsin ended home equity theft. Other states should follow". May 4, 2022.
  42. ↑ "SENATE BILL NO. 253" (PDF).
  43. ↑ "New Montana Law will save homes by ending state's predatory tax foreclosure system". May 8, 2019.
  44. ↑ "Testimony of Daniel J. Dew, Pacific Legal Foundation, on HB 1199 North Dakota Senate Finance and Taxation Committee March 23, 2021" (PDF).
  45. ↑ "Lent v. California Coastal Commission". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved December 31, 2019.
  46. ↑ "Wall v. Cal. Coastal Commission". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved December 31, 2019.
  47. ↑ "Greene v. California Coastal Commission". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved December 31, 2019.
  48. ↑ "Zito v. North Carolina Coastal Resource Commission; Town of Nags Head". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved December 31, 2019.
  49. ↑ "Property owners with strong property rights make our coasts more beautiful". Pacific Legal Foundation. December 20, 2019. Retrieved December 31, 2019.
  50. ↑ "Economic Liberty". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved March 27, 2019.
  51. ↑ ""Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity" for moving companies: the Competitor's Veto". Pacific Legal Foundation. November 17, 2013. Retrieved March 27, 2019.
  52. ↑ "Finally, a right to move – and to compete – in West Virginia". Washington Examiner. July 5, 2017. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
  53. ↑ "Vogt v. Ferrell, No. 2:16-CV-04492" (PDF).
  54. ↑ "Legacy Medical Transport, LLC and Phillip Truesdell v. Adam Meier, et al". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved December 31, 2019.
  55. ↑ "H.B. 2817, 75th Leg. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Or. 2009)".
  56. ↑ "Munie v. Koster, No. 4:10-CV-01096-AGF, 2011 WL 839608 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 7, 2011)".
  57. ↑ "Competitors Veto: A Roadblock to New Business".
  58. ↑ "Georgia birth center director fights crony protectionism to help expectant mothers".
  59. ↑ "Iowa midwives fight back against cronyism to help expectant mothers".
  60. ↑ Shapiro, Ilya (September 22, 2008). "Big Victory for Economic Liberty". Cato Institute. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
  61. ↑ See Hi-Voltage Wire Works v. San Jose (2000), 24 Cal.4th 537, 12 P.3d 1068, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 653, No. S080318, November 30, 2000; Coral Construction v. City and County of San Francisco, S152934 (August 2, 2010).
  62. ↑ Hayworth, Bret (April 19, 2018). "South Dakota boy takes legal action to dance on girls teams in competitions". Sioux City Journal. Retrieved March 27, 2019.
  63. ↑ Leigh, Erika (May 9, 2018). "Local dancers react to SDHSAA temporary overturning competition ban for boys". www.ksfy.com. Retrieved March 27, 2019.
  64. ↑ Press, St Paul Pioneer (April 23, 2019). "Minnesota boys to be allowed on high school dance teams". www.duluthnewstribune.com. Archived from the original on April 24, 2019. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  65. ↑ Cohen, Rachel M. (February 11, 2019). "A Lawsuit Threatens a Groundbreaking School-Desegregation Case". The Nation. ISSN   0027-8378 . Retrieved March 27, 2019.
  66. ↑ Kauffman, Matthew (February 15, 2018). "Suit Challenges Sheff Magnet-School Lottery Process". courant.com. Retrieved May 9, 2019.
  67. ↑ "Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc. v. City of San Jose (2000)".
  68. ↑ Camera, Lauren (December 14, 2018). "Asian-Americans Sue New York City Over School Desegregation Plan". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved May 9, 2019.
  69. ↑ Shapiro, Eliza (December 14, 2018). "Challengers of Affirmative Action Have a New Target: New York City's Elite High Schools". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved May 9, 2019.
  70. ↑ https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-1062 and Charles Murray, By the People: Rebuilding Liberty without Permission, pp. 170–171.
  71. 1 2 "United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc". www.oyez.org. 2016. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  72. ↑ "Restoring the Indispensable Protection for Liberty". National Review. April 12, 2018. Retrieved April 30, 2019.
  73. ↑ "3 New Lawsuits Challenge the FDA's Deeming Rule". Vaping360. January 31, 2018. Retrieved April 30, 2019.
  74. ↑ Olson, Walter (February 7, 2018). "PLF files legal challenge to FDA vaping rules". Overlawyered. Retrieved April 30, 2019.
  75. 1 2 Tolliver, Sandy (April 29, 2019). "1,860 unconstitutional FDA rules". TheHill. Retrieved May 16, 2019.
  76. ↑ "2022 Templeton Freedom Award Finalist Spotlight: Pacific Legal Foundation". October 28, 2022.
  77. ↑ "Massachusetts lawmakers challenge Charlie Baker's pandemic emergency powers through new bills". March 10, 2021.
  78. ↑ "Opinion analysis: Court strikes down Minnesota ban on "political" apparel at the polls". SCOTUSblog. June 14, 2018. Retrieved March 27, 2019.
  79. ↑ Hankerson, Mechelle (January 23, 2019). "With the state facing a lawsuit, lawmakers move on lifting happy hour restrictions". Virginia Mercury. Retrieved March 27, 2019.
  80. ↑ Tracy, Geoff. "I fought for and won the right to advertise happy hour in Virginia". The Washington Post .
  81. 1 2 "Keller v. State Bar of California". FindLaw. U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved September 13, 2016.
  82. ↑ "Constitutional Jurisprudence Clinic". www.chapman.edu. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  83. ↑ PLF's Liberty Clinic at Chapman University on YouTube
  84. ↑ "Student Opportunities".
  85. ↑ "Law Schedule of Classes".
  86. ↑ "Berkeley". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  87. 1 2 "Nollan v. California Coastal Commission". www.oyez.org. 1986. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  88. ↑ "Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency". www.oyez.org. 1996. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  89. ↑ "SUITUM v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY". FindLaw. U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved September 13, 2016.
  90. ↑ "Palazzolo v. Rhode Island". www.oyez.org. 2000. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  91. ↑ "Palazzolo v. Rhode Island". FindLaw. U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved September 13, 2016.
  92. ↑ "Rapanos v. United States [04-1034]". FindLaw. U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved September 13, 2016.
  93. ↑ "No. 11-1447". U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved September 13, 2016.
  94. ↑ "Waters of the United States". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  95. ↑ "Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  96. ↑ "Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky". www.oyez.org. 2017. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  97. ↑ "Opinion analysis: Frogs and humans live to fight another day". SCOTUSblog. November 27, 2018. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  98. ↑ "Weyerhaeuser/Markle v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  99. ↑ Syllabus – Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania
  100. ↑ "Challenge to public access on private Montana land gets high court liftoff".
  101. ↑ "Here's how big the Tyler victory is".
  102. ↑ "Supreme Court limits Clean Water Act abuse in victory for property owners".
  103. ↑ "Fess Parker: Patriot, Actor, Businessman and former PLF Trustee". Pacific Legal Foundation. March 18, 2010. Retrieved July 16, 2019.
  104. 1 2 "Board of Trustees". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved February 7, 2023.
  105. ↑ "Robert Kane Biography" (PDF).

38°35′00″N121°29′33″W / 38.5834°N 121.4924°W / 38.5834; -121.4924

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.