California decision chills public interest litigation
Earlier today, the California Supreme Court denied review of the case Vargas v. City of Salinas, which sought review of an outrageous, ruinous award of over $250,000 in attorneys’ fees against two individuals who brought a nonfrivolous public interest lawsuit against a city (they won a legal issue, but lost on the facts). PLF filed an amicus letter in support of the petitioners, explaining what a dangerous precedent the case set for the practice of public interest law. We pointed out the absurdity of applying California’s Anti-SLAPP statute (intended to punish those who file lawsuits intended to stop people from exercising First Amendment rights) as a fee shifting mechanism for cities when defending against a nonfrivolous public interest lawsuit — which is itself an exercise of First Amendment rights entitled to protection against government sanction.
The denial of review is a disappointment, but also a caution to public interest practice at the trial court level. Unless and until California’s Anti-SLAPP law is reined in, lawsuits involving statements made by government officials during – or related to – legislative, executive, or judicial proceedings will proceed under the shadow of this fee-shifting bonanza.
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.