Appeals court rejects Coastal Commission plea to reconsider case
On November 12, we reported that the California Coastal Commission had asked the Court of Appeal to reconsider (for a third time!) its decision and rule in the Commission’s favor. Last week, we filed an answer to the Commission’s petition for rehearing, explaining why the Court need not rehear the appeal. We are pleased to report that, today, the Court of Appeal denied the Commission’s petition and allowed its decision striking down the Commission’s extortionate easement exaction to stand and become final.
The Commission may try to petition the California Supreme Court for review. But the odds of review of the Court of Appeal’s decision are remote. This is especially true, given how the decision simply applies well-established principles and existing precedents.
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.