Iliamna Natives Limited, et al. v. EPA
Alaska Natives fight EPA roadblock to economic and social progress
Iliamna and Alaska Peninsula are fighting back to rein in the EPA’s overreach so they can promote Alaska Natives’ self-determination and socio-economic development while protecting their Native culture and traditions through agreements with the mine operators. Represented at no charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, they are challenging the EPA’s so-called veto authority as a violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers.
White v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Feds ignore the Supreme Court to prosecute property owners
Robert White worked for many years to build a highly successful commercial seafood business in North Carolina. While he earned a good livelihood, he invested much of his earnings in coastal property as a way to ensure financial security for his children.But now Robert and his family face financial ruin due to a remorseless power grab by two federal agencies, even after they were unanimously rebuked by the Supreme Court. Represented at no charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, Robert is challenging the agencies’ illegal provisions in federal court to restore his own right to make use of his own land, and to ensure both agencies’ compliance and courts’ proper application of Sackett II.
Ward v. US Army Corps of Engineers
Feds ignore the Supreme Court to wrongfully regulate property owners
Dan Ward is among a growing number of landowners injured by the federal government’s regulatory recalcitrance. His simple desire to build a pond at his rural homestead in Iowa landed him in the crosshairs of the Army Corps’ power-hungry desire to regulate landowners and completely disregard the Supreme Court.
United States v. Melton E. “Val” Valentine, Jr., et al.
Federal agency ignores the Supreme Court to prosecute landowners
No matter how strong its zeal to make an example of the Valentines and deter other landowners from pursuing similar development, the Army Corps cannot simply ignore a Supreme Court decision or assume enforcement powers it doesn’t have. Represented by Pacific Legal Foundation at no charge, the Valentines are now making a full-throated defense of their right to make productive use of their own land, and to ensure both agency compliance and courts’ proper application of Sackett II.
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative v. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Nonprofit fights USDA’s roadblock to new green energy in rural Alaska
IPEC is fighting back to rein in the USDA’s overreach so they can build sustainable, eco-friendly power projects and improve their customers’ quality of life. Represented free of charge by PLF, the cooperative and the Alaska Power Association are challenging the USDA’s authority to prohibit construction and maintenance of roads within national forestlands as a violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers.
Kansas Natural Resource Coalition v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Illegal rulemaking threatens livelihoods, conservation, and the rule of law
With their livelihoods and their constitutional rights on the line, Mr. Edwards, Lone Butte Farms, Schilling Land, JDC Farms, and the Kansas Natural Resource Coalition—an association of 30 county governments—are filing a federal lawsuit to hold the FWS to its obligations as intended by Congress and in a manner that respects private property rights.
New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Government’s unnecessary protection for bountiful bird crushes property rights
Represented free of charge by PLF, the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association is defending livelihoods, property values, and property rights in a federal challenge to the unlawful ESA listing.
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency
Supreme Court limits Clean Water Act abuse in victory for property owners
One of the longest-running legal battles in the history of the Clean Water Act doesn’t involve mega-polluters dumping toxic chemicals into America’s major rivers and lakes. Rather, it involves a couple who wanted to build a home on less than an acre of land in a residential neighborhood. And now, that case could have ramifications for property owners around the country.
Skipper v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Illegal critical habitat designation punishes family’s voluntary conservation efforts
The Skipper family has owned forestland in Clarke County, Alabama, since 1902, which it manages for timber production and conservation. In 1956 they established the Scotch Wildlife Management Area (WMA), agreeing to voluntarily open their land for the state’s wildlife conservation efforts and outdoor recreation. In February 2020, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated the Skipper family’s land as critical habitat for the black pinesnake, reducing the land’s value, triggering burdensome regulatory requirements, and penalizing them for their past conservation activities. The agency imposed these burdens without reliable evidence that pinesnakes live on the property. And it sidestepped cost-benefit requirements that Congress imposed to avoid irrational regulations like this. Joined by the Forest Landowners Association and the Goodloe family, the Skipper family is fighting back.