Filter By:
Sort By:

Month: June 2013

June 28, 2013

President's weekly report — June 28, 2013

We had an incredible week.  Here is a short summary: Property Rights – Unlawful Exactions We had what can only be described as a stunning victory in Koontz v. St. Johns Water Management District. If the vitriol of the environmental community towards this decision is any indication, the cause of property rights did very well.  ...

June 28, 2013

Setting the record straight on Pepin

An editorial in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, discussing Pepin v. Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, accuses shadowy "development forces" of attempting to weaken Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) and prevent the state from protecting endangered species. The court's decision will affect the degree to which we can protect our local ...

June 27, 2013

Court throws out Maurice Underwood’s case—PLF will fight on for the right to earn a living

I'm saddened to report that a federal judge in Reno yesterday dismissed Maurice Underwood's lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Nevada's licensing law for moving companies. That law—the most anti-competitive licensing law in the country—requires any person who wants to run a moving company to first prove that he or she wouldn't compete ...

June 27, 2013

SCOTUS to hear Clean Air Act case

Following last week’s dismissal of United States Forest Service v. Pacific Rivers Council, the Supreme Court had no environmental law case on its docket for next term.  That changed on Monday, when the Court granted review in consolidated cases from the DC Circuit, Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation LP and American ...

June 26, 2013

Hollingsworth v. Perry : Supreme Court rules citizens can't "stand" in the way of politicians who ignore the law

Regardless of readers’ specific views on Prop. 8, today the Court decided an important question about standing — and it got it wrong.  Hollingsworth v. Perry will have serious repercussions that extend far beyond the same-sex marriage debate.  Today’s decision could spell disaster for any group that successfully sponsors an init ...

June 26, 2013

St. Louis license requirement has street performers singing the blues

The Missouri Watchdog had this article yesterday about the lawsuit challenging St. Louis’ requirement that street performers audition before a city official before they can get licenses to perform. We filed a friend of the court brief arguing that the law is unconstitutionally vague even aside from its obvious First Amendment problems. From ...

June 26, 2013

PLF's Official Statement on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court's Prop. 8 case

Although Pacific Legal Foundation takes no position on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, PLF submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court solely on the issue of standing.  PLF argues that sponsors of any successful California initiative have standing to defend the measure in court if elected officials decline to do so.  Today, the ...

June 26, 2013

Does Koontz also blow holes in Williamson County?

Yesterday, Pacific Legal Foundation scored a huge victory for property rights when the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion favoring the property owner in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management Agency. The obvious boon for property owners was that the Court agreed with PLF’s arguments that all conditions imposed on building perm ...

June 26, 2013

Moving-firm law hurts competition

The Lexington Herald-Leader had an editorial yesterday urging Kentucky lawmakers to repeal the state’s anti-competitive licensing law for moving companies, and focusing on our lawsuit on behalf of Raleigh Bruner. Excerpt: Under Kentucky law, anyone may challenge the application and force the newcomer to prove there’s a need for addition ...

June 25, 2013

Official statement: PLF applauds Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder

Consistent with arguments in Pacific Legal Foundation's amicus brief, the U.S. Supreme Court held today that Voting Rights Act's coverage formula, which requires certain "covered" local jurisdictions to receive federal approval before instituting new election procedures, is unconstitutional.  ...