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.
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.
Beach and Bluff Conservancy v. City of Solana Beach
Property owners have a right to protect their homes
The City of Solana Beach enacted regulations to prohibit beachfront owners from building retention walls or other protective structures to safeguard their homes from erosion unless they agreed to grant public access to their property. The regulations also require homeowners to grant public access as a condition for a permit to repair damaged staircases that provide beach access from their homes. A coalition of homeowners challenged the regulations as violating the California Coastal Act and the constitutional prohibition on takings without just compensation. The San Diego County Superior Court invalidated the regulations to the extent they required public access as a condition for protecting existing homes or repairing existing staircases, but refused to invalidate the regulations as applied to future development.
Lynch v. California Coastal Commission
California erodes landowners’ right to protect their property and their ability to challenge government action
The Lynch family sought permission from the California Coastal Commission to repair a storm-damaged seawall and stairway that led from their home at the top of a bluff down to the beach. The Commission permitted the seawall restoration with a condition that they seek an additional permit in the future, and denied the permit for the stairway. To protect their home, the Lynches accepted the conditioned permit under protest and repaired the seawall. PLF represents the Lynches, arguing that the seawall conditional permit and denial of the stairway permit violated their constitutional property rights. California’s appellate courts rejected the Lynch’s claims, and the California Supreme Court added insult to injury by holding that the Lynches forfeited their claims altogether by accepting the permit and repairing the seawall.