Alaska legislators lodge support for permafrost case
Earlier this week, a coalition of Alaska state legislators urged the state’s federal representatives, and relevant members of the new administration, to revoke the so-called Alaska Supplement to the Army Corps of Engineers’ 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual. Citing PLF’s ongoing legal challenge, the legislators’ letter explains that the supplement is illegal because, contrary to clear Congressional direction and the 1987 Manual itself, the supplement purports to assert Clean Water Act jurisdiction over millions of acres of permafrost, i.e., frozen ground. Although most states do not have permafrost, the issue underlying the letter, and PLF’s lawsuit, applies throughout the nation. The Corps has promulgated nine other regional supplements, and each purports to supersede contrary provisions in the otherwise nationally applicable 1987 Manual. Thus, the issue of whether the Corps can put in place a special rule for Alaska will determine whether the agency can get away with similar jurisdiction-expanding efforts in other parts of the country.
What to read next
Shed a (crocodile) tear for Luke Skywalker today, as Mark Hamill’s much ballyhooed Autograph Law is set to be undone and reformed by the same California officials who made the mistake to pass it in the first place. AB 228 has arrived at the Governor’s desk, and in all likelihood will be signed into law any day.
Our new flagship publication, Sword&Scales, offers 16 pages of news and information to bring you up close to the vital work of our legal team. Our ardent defense of the right to own and use private property takes center stage in the inaugural issue. It’s at the core of our mission in the nation’s courts.
On Thursday, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF filed this reply brief in support of its cert petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, we’re representing Minnesota voters in a First Amendment challenge to a ban on political apparel at polling places.
The Daily Journal published my column on California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, recently decided by the California Supreme Court. As the op-ed points out, the ruling undermines Proposition 218’s requirements that all new taxes at the local level need voter approval.