David Hood v. CA Department of Agriculture

Fighting California’s lawless general searches under the guise of pest control

David is fighting back with free representation from PLF. He filed a federal lawsuit to restore his right to be secure in his own property and limit the government’s ability to trespass on private property under the guise of an unconstitutional general warrant.

Sabey parents reading to children
Joshua Sabey, et al. v. Butterfield et al.

Parents defend custodial rights and children’s security from lawless search and seizure

Alarmed by her three-month-old son’s 103-degree temperature and at the family pediatrician’s urging, graduate student Sarah Perkins brought baby Cal to a hospital emergency room just a few miles from their home in Waltham, Massachusetts. Sarah’s husband Josh Sabey, a documentary filmmaker, sta

Serene Virginia farm nestled amidst rolling hills and lush green fields
Medeiros v. Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources

Hunters’ ‘right to retrieve’ tramples property owners’ right to exclude trespassers

Jim Medeiros and his family run their own business, White Oak Meadows, on land they bought in 2012 in Dinwiddie County, Virginia. Located outside of Richmond, the family cultivates environmentally responsible forest and farm products, including beef and poultry raised solely on grasses and native vegetation. Ranching can be a tough-enough industry when dealing with natural challenges such as weather. But every year, Jim runs into a man-made problem with hunters—and their hunting dogs.

Relaxing massage experience with a cozy massage table
Vondra v. City of Billings

Local government wields unannounced, warrantless search power over private businesses and home practitioners

Short stints in a salon and a chiropractor’s office are all it took for Theresa Vondra to discover her true passion: helping people achieve total body wellness through massage therapy. She graduated from massage therapy school in 2006 and spent several years working for others before starting her own practice in Billings, Montana, where she was born and raised. Through hard work and learning on the fly, Theresa has grown her business to two locations and seven staff members.

Impressive US Department of Education building stands tall
Hanke and Yoo v. Secretary Cardona

Educrats can’t ignore oversight board members appointed by the previous administration

In the final months of the previous administration, the president appointed several people to serve on the National Board for Education Sciences (NBES)—a board that advises officials within the agency on research and funding priorities. But the U.S. Department of Education refuses to deliver the appointees’ signed commissions, which are proof of their valid appointments. Worse, the department refuses to let the board meet. Unelected bureaucrats cannot keep rightfully appointed officials from meeting their obligations by ignoring their appointments. Professors Steve Hanke and John Yoo are fighting back to end the bureaucratic gamesmanship and allow NBES directors to do their jobs.

Trindys, a restaurant and bar in Georgetown, Kentucky
Goodwood Brewing Company, LLC v. Beshear

Kentucky restaurants challenging Governor Beshear’s never-ending emergency powers

Since the pandemic began a year ago, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear has used his emergency powers to unilaterally enact COVID-19-related policies. In February, the legislature overwhelmingly voted to rein in his authority, passing three bills to limit the governor’s use of pandemic-related emergency orders. Gov. Beshear immediately filed suit, claiming these new laws unconstitutionally interfere with his broad emergency authority. While the governor attempts to ignore the constitutional separation of powers, local businessowners are paying the price, struggling to keep up with the ever-changing restrictions impacting their financial livelihoods. Several local breweries and restaurants are now challenging the governor’s enforcement of COVID-related orders which under the new legislation have expired. 

Colorful fishing boats lined up at the harbor, ready to set sail,
Burke v. Raimondo, et al.

Governments’ misguided battle threatens California fishermen and their way of life.

Swordfish is a very popular seafood and one of the most abundant types of fish on the West Coast. It is also a significant source of income and way of life for many California families. But federal legal changes threatened to wipe out longtime family-owned businesses, as well as the entire domestic swordfish supply. The new rule supposedly aimed to reduce the number of accidental captures of other animals in the drift gill nets used by swordfish fishermen. However, with plenty of protections already on the books, the rule would do little to further protect endangered species. But it would destroy the freedom of responsible fisherman to earn a living. To preserve an industry that’s fed Californians and supported their livelihoods for generations, swordfishing families fought back against federal overreach.

Property Rights
Peter Stavrianoudakis, et al., v. United States Department of Fish & Wildlife and California Department of Fish & Wildlife

Falconry regulations run afoul of the Bill of Rights

Peter Stavrianoudakis is a longtime licensed falconer in California who just wants to do what people have been doing for thousands of years—raise and train falcons. But state and federal regulations have become so restrictive, he and fellow falconers around the country are left to choose between their falcons or their constitutional rights. Pacific Legal Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Peter and other falconers, as well as the American Falconry Conservancy, challenging the constitutionality of falconry regulations enforced by both the California and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Departments.

Scenic view of Bainbridge Island captures the essence of natural beauty
Preserve Responsible Shoreline Management (PRSM) v. City of Bainbridge Island; Olympic Stewardship Foundation (OSF) v. Growth Management Hearings Board

Coastal property rights run aground in Washington State

Coastal counties in Washington State passed “critical areas” ordinances requiring all shoreline property owners to dedicate a “buffer” zone and a strip of their beach property to the public as a mandatory condition on any new development. The counties assert this purported power under the state’s Shoreline Management Act, in which Washington’s legislature explicitly rendered property rights “secondary” to the public’s interest in the environment. Citizens groups in Bainbridge Island and Jefferson County challenged these conditions as unconstitutional takings because the need for buffers were not supported by the scientific record and took more than necessary to mitigate any negative impacts cause by development of the property. PLF represents the Bainbridge Island property owners (PRSM) in the challenge, which was stayed pending resolution of the Jefferson County case (OSF), in which PLF participated as amicus.