KC Transport, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor
Fighting bureaucrats’ nonsensical claim that trucks can be mines
Represented by Pacific Legal Foundation at no charge, KC Transport is asking the Supreme Court to abrogate the Chevron Step One-and-a-Half doctrine and decide the scope of MSHA’s authority under the Mine Act, and thus strengthen the separation of powers by limiting MSHA’s grandiose view of its own power.
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado
Supreme Court rules against extortionate permit fees
Once his land was ready and all George needed was a county building permit, he was stunned when told he could have his permit, but only if he paid a so-called traffic impact fee of more than $23,000. George weighed the immense cost against the hard work he put into his land and his yearning for a retirement home, and he paid the fee under protest. The County ignored his protest, so George sued, arguing the fees constituted an unconstitutional permit condition under three Supreme Court decisions—including two PLF victories.
Bill Walmsley, et al. v. Federal Trade Commission
Illegally formed private regulatory board threatens horseracing livelihoods
Represented in federal court at no charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, the horsemen and the Horsemen’s Benevolent Protective Association Iowa are challenging the illegal regulatory scheme that outsources legislative, executive, and judicial powers to a private industry association.
Leachco, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Small family business battles arbitrary prosecution for baby pillow
Jamie Leach is a self-described “Innovationer™” who, after a close call with her seven-month-old son, leveraged her experience as a registered nurse and mom to start Leachco, Inc., a small, family-owned business based in Ada, Oklahoma, that’s determined to make the world safer for babies.
Ariyan Inc. v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans
Fighting for timely just compensation for government-damaged property
Hemorrhaging money and time, and unable to repair their properties or restore their businesses, these small businesses and property owners are asking the Supreme Court to confirm their constitutional right to reasonably timely just compensation.
Duke Bradford, et al. v. Secretary Julie A. Su, et al.
Outdoor adventure guides battle the president’s unlawful workplace power grab
Duke Bradford grew up in Nebraska, attended the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and had law school in his sights. But the pull of Colorado’s mountains where he skied once a year as a child was stronger. His two seasons as a snowmobile guide and ski patroller sparked the idea for a rafting company, and in 1998, Duke opened Arkansas Valley Adventures (AVA).
Tyler v. Hennepin County
Victory! Supreme Court declares home equity theft unconstitutional
On May 25, 2023, the Supreme Court announced a unanimous decision in favor of Geraldine, ruling that home equity theft violates the Takings Clase of the Fifth Amendment. The Court explained that property rights are fundamental and cannot be erased by a state statute that redefines them out of existence. “The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the decision, “but no more.”
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid
Supreme Court affirms property rights for California fruit growers
Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company are California growers that produce fruit for millions of Americans. Collectively, they employ around 3,000 Californians. In 2015, the United Farm Workers (UFW) viewed the workers as ripe for the picking and sent union organizers to storm the workplaces during harvest time to encourage them to unionize. Even though property owners have a right to exclude trespassers, the state’s Union Access Regulation takes an easement that allows these union organizers to enter a business’s private property three hours a day, 120 days a year. The businesses asked the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate California’s unlawful regulation and affirm that government can’t allow unions to invade private property and disrupt commercial operations without paying compensation for a property taking. On November 13, 2020, the Supreme Court announced that the justices would hear the case.
Wilkins v. United States
Government bait-and-switch tramples on property rights and peace of mind
Wil Wilkins and Jane Stanton live next to Montana’s Bitterroot National Forest. A road that crosses both of their properties is the result of a limited-use easement granted to the U.S. Forest Service by the properties’ previous owners in 1962. The general public is not supposed to use the road, but in 2006 the Forest Service began advertising the road as public. Since then, public use of the road has caused serious traffic hazards, road damage, fire threats, noise, trespassing, illegal hunting, and speeding, as well as a gunshot aimed at Wil’s cat. Because the Forest Service is essentially trying to gain a better easement than it paid for back in 1962, Wil and Jane are fighting back.