Coalition for Fairness in Soho and Noho, Inc. v. New York City
New York City defies Supreme Court, leverages zoning to extort six-figure “arts” fees from pioneering artists
The Coalition for SoHo-NoHo and a group of homeowners is protecting the constitutional principle affirmed in Nollan, Dolan, Koontz, and Sheetz: Governments cannot force residents to pay exorbitant sums of money for problems they do not create.
redT Homes v. City and County of Denver, Colorado
Fighting Denver’s inclusionary zoning extortion to build new affordable housing
redT Homes is fighting back with a federal lawsuit challenging Denver’s unconstitutional housing fees.
Shelby and Trey Scharp v. Teton County
Teton County’s “workforce housing” fees force homeowners to pay for problems they didn’t create
The Scharps are fighting back with a federal lawsuit to vindicate their own property rights and protect all Americans from similar governmental overreach when making reasonable, productive use of their own land.
Pilling v. City of Healdsburg, CA
Entrepreneur mom fights zoning extortion to build new housing in California
Inclusionary zoning fees make building more expensive. Making something more expensive does not make it more affordable.
Oom Living, LLC v. City of Seattle
Fighting Seattle’s permitting extortion to build new housing
The government may not deny a benefit, even a discretionary one, based on a person's exercise of constitutional rights. Represented at no charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, Jenna and Oom are now fighting back with a state lawsuit challenging Seattle’s unconstitutional permitting condition.
Nathan Rimmer v. City of Edmonds, WA
Defeating extortionate “forever tree” permit conditions to build family home
City of Edmonds cannot demand use of Nathan’s land that’s irrelevant or disproportionate to the permit he’s seeking. The City’s demand is unconstitutional, invalid, and cannot stand in the way of a final decision on his application. Such a rule serves no purpose other than to further aggrandize local zoning and land use authority while trampling the Constitution.Represented free of charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, Nathan is fighting back in state court to restore the right to use his own property free of unlawful conditions and end the extortionate practice of “forever tree” conditions for everyone else.
Jennifer Schultz and Ceanna Johnston v. Washington Vet Board and Secretary of Health
Defending the right to practice horse floating against unreasonable licensing requirements
Floating has a long history of being practiced by professionals who are not veterinarians. Washington should encourage, rather than criminalize, such skilled and caring trained professionals. Washington’s overly restrictive law harms horses and unreasonably denies citizens their right to earn a living—a blatant violation of the Washington Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause and the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Represented at no charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, Jennifer and Ceanna are fighting back in state court for their right to provide an essential equine healthcare service without undue government interference.
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado
Supreme Court rules against extortionate permit fees
Once his land was ready and all George needed was a county building permit, he was stunned when told he could have his permit, but only if he paid a so-called traffic impact fee of more than $23,000. George weighed the immense cost against the hard work he put into his land and his yearning for a retirement home, and he paid the fee under protest. The County ignored his protest, so George sued, arguing the fees constituted an unconstitutional permit condition under three Supreme Court decisions—including two PLF victories.
HomeRoom, Inc. v. City of Shawnee, Kansas
Shared household ban harms families, housing, and due process
People choose to live with non-relatives for many reasons—they’re new to town, they want to make friends and build a community, they have no family nearby, or they can’t afford to buy a house or pay rent on a solo income. At a time when Americans are delaying marriage and families (in 2017, nearly 32% of all American adults lived in a shared household) and amidst an affordable housing crisis, the need for shared living is skyrocketing. But when an innovative new roommate living startup tried to meet this need in one Kansas city, the city council responded with an outright ban on co-living among four or more unrelated people.