Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
Supreme Court affirms property owners’ protections from illegal permitting conditions
In 1982, Marilyn and Patrick Nollan wanted to convert their one-story beach bungalow into a modest two-story home. The house had been the Nollans’ part-time beach house, but they loved the serene beach views of the Pacific Ocean so much that they decided to add a second story on the house and make it their permanent family home.
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Supreme Court ends government gimmicks to avoid paying just compensation to property owners
By wiping away procedural hurdles blocking landowners from the courthouse doors, Suitum has since been immensely important for anyone who needs to sue the government to protect their property.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
Supreme Court affirms landowners’ right to just compensation regardless of when government takes property
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island represents an important check on government and a powerful protection of property rights. Government might have the power to regulate private property, but it must pay property owners for any land it takes—regardless of when it takes a property owner’s land.
Rapanos v. United States
Supreme Court rules EPA “navigable waters” definition illegal
Back in 1989, Michigan developer John Rapanos was simply clearing his property to build homes and a shopping mall when he became so ensnared in a regulatory quagmire, it took the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve. John’s troubles began when he pulled up some trees on his 54-acre site and filled the stump holes with sand. Federal regulators claimed an adjacent drainage ditch qualified John’s land as a wetland that required a permit to develop and issued a cease-and-desist order. When John didn’t back down, the government filed a federal lawsuit accusing him of violating the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Merrifield v. Lockyer
Pest control entrepreneur defeats California’s unconstitutional licensing law
This landmark victory freed California’s nonpesticide animal control services from unnecessary, burdensome licensing mandates, gave consumers more choice in pest control techniques and providers, and cleared the way for entrepreneurs in the states comprising the Ninth Circuit.to pursue the occupations of their choosing and exercise their constitutional right to earn a living.
Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy & Reliability, et al. v. U.S. Department of Interior, et al.
Flocks of California gnatcatchers need no federal protection
The federal government has expanded its reach using the Endangered Species Act to cover spurious “subspecies.” The ESA does not define “subspecies” and the Fish and Wildlife Service has offered no definition of its own. Instead, it simply announces when it has determined a “subspecies” to exist and, relying on the subspecies’ smaller numbers relative to the entire species, imposes onerous regulations. The California gnatcatcher was listed as a threatened subspecies, but a 2013 study shows that, at a DNA level, the songbird is not meaningfully distinct from millions of gnatcatchers dwelling in Baja California. PLF represents a coalition of property owners, developers, and scientists in a challenge to the continued listing of this thriving species.
Brannan v. State of Texas
Defending beachfront property rights against “rolling easements”
After a 1998 tropical storm moved the vegetation line landward of Texas beachfront homes, state officials informed the beachfront homeowners that, based on its policy of considering the public beach to extend inland to the vegetation line (wherever it goes), the homes were encroachments on a public beach and subject to removal for violating the State’s Open Beaches Act. That “rolling easement” policy was invalidated by PLF’s Texas Supreme Court victory in Severance v. Patterson (2012). PLF represented Angela Brannan and other beachfront homeowners in Surfside, Texas, who were subjected to the “rolling easement” and resulting loss of their property by government fiat. The Texas Court of Appeals ruled that the owners could pursue their takings claims as validated by the Severance case. Local counsel took over the case on remand.
St. Johns River Water Management District v. Koontz
There’s no “off site” exception to Fifth Amendment’s takings clause
Coy A. Koontz sought to develop commercial land, most of which lies within a riparian habitat protection zone in Orange County, Florida. He applied for a dredge and fill permit with the St. Johns Water Management District, which agreed to grant the permit only on the condition that he place a conservation easement over his land, and perform mitigation off-site by replacing culverts and plugging certain drainage canals on distant District-owned properties. When Koontz refused to perform the off-site mitigation, St. Johns denied the permit. PLF successfully represented Koontz before the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that a land-use agency cannot condition a permit on the payment of a mitigation fee to be used to pay for facilities that have no connection to the impacts of the permitted development.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners v. Fish and Wildlife Service
Prairie dogs and property owners: Both need protection from massive federal overreach
For decades, the federal Endangered Species Act has simultaneously stifled responsible conservation of the Utah prairie dog, while barring property owners from using their own land as they wish. So PLF asked the United States Supreme Court to step in, to protect both the prairie dog and property rights of the people who share the same land. Representing a group of landowners called the People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners, PLF challenged the constitutionality of the federal prohibitions. Our initial victory in federal district court allowed the state to adopt a conservation program that benefitted both people and the prairie dog. It has relocated prairie dogs from backyards, playgrounds, and other residential areas to improved state conservation lands. However, that successful conservation program ground to a halt when the Tenth Circuit restored the federal regulation. Our petition asked to restore both the state conservation program and constitutional limits on federal power, which the Supreme Court denied.