Florida appellate court to hold oral argument in PLF case this week

On Tuesday, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal will hold oral arguments in a number of cases, including in Pacific Legal Foundation‘s P.I.E., LLC v. DeSoto County. Christina Martin and … ›

New lawsuit challenging Endangered Species Act overreach

This morning, we filed a complaint in federal district court in D.C. challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 2016 “biological opinion” governing FEMA’s implementation of the national flood insurance program … ›

Still fighting to keep public lands open to all

Yesterday, we filed our reply brief in Granat v. USDA, where we ask the court to review the U.S. Forest Service’s decision to close thousands of previously available roads and trails to motorized … ›

Yes, Trump can revoke national monuments

The Washington Post has published my op-ed defending the President’s power to revoke existing national monuments. Several months ago, President Trump ordered a review of the last 21 years of monument designations. For good reason, the evidence is indisputable that abuse of the monument power has been far worse the last few years.

Why Fish and Wildlife is wrong on critical habitat

Recently, the Sacramento Bee ran an op-ed entitled “Why Fish and Wildlife is right on endangered frogs” that criticized a lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of California farmers and ranchers. The op-ed misrepresents the lawsuit and perpetuates a misconception about the Endangered Species Act.

PLF’s lawsuit does not question whether the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was right to list three California amphibians as protected species under the ESA. Nor does it question whether the Service was right to designate critical habitat to conserve the species. Under the law, the Service is required to make these determinations.

New Jersey goes all in on the Constitution in sports betting case

Can Congress dictate to states what their own laws must be? Anyone familiar with federalism will likely immediately say “no.” Our Founders drafted a Constitution that preserved the independence of the the states, believing that dividing power between the federal government and the states would be a bulwark to protect our liberty. To preserve the Founders’ design, the Supreme Court has said that the federal government cannot “commandeer” the states by requiring them to adopt or enforce federal policy.

Yet the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, passed by Congress in 1992, purports to tell most states—but not others—that they must forbid sports gambling. In particular, it forbids states from “authorizing” sports betting “by law,” which means that those states that forbade sports betting in 1992 must continue doing so forever. That’s unconstitutional.

The Framers’ fear of concentrated power was well-founded

In 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Raymond Lucia and his former investment company with violating federal securities laws and regulations. You’d think that Mr. Lucia would be entitled … ›

Pacific Legal Foundation Applauds Administration’s Monument Review

Today, the Department of Interior and Secretary Zinke announced the conclusion of an extensive, public review of national monuments. The agency has not disclosed its recommendations for individual monuments, which … ›

PLF’s Markle critical habitat case draws broad amicus support

This week, business groups, associations, think tanks, and government entities all filed “friends of the court” amicus briefs supporting PLF in its high-profile Supreme Court case for property owners’ rights, Markle Interests, … ›

Brand Logo for the blog page

Florida appellate court to hold oral argument in PLF case this week

On Tuesday, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal will hold oral arguments in a number of cases, including in Pacific Legal Foundation‘s P.I.E., LLC v. DeSoto County. Christina Martin and … ›

New lawsuit challenging Endangered Species Act overreach

This morning, we filed a complaint in federal district court in D.C. challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 2016 “biological opinion” governing FEMA’s implementation of the national flood insurance program … ›

Still fighting to keep public lands open to all

Yesterday, we filed our reply brief in Granat v. USDA, where we ask the court to review the U.S. Forest Service’s decision to close thousands of previously available roads and trails to motorized … ›

Yes, Trump can revoke national monuments

The Washington Post has published my op-ed defending the President’s power to revoke existing national monuments. Several months ago, President Trump ordered a review of the last 21 years of monument designations. For good reason, the evidence is indisputable that abuse of the monument power has been far worse the last few years.

Why Fish and Wildlife is wrong on critical habitat

Recently, the Sacramento Bee ran an op-ed entitled “Why Fish and Wildlife is right on endangered frogs” that criticized a lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of California farmers and ranchers. The op-ed misrepresents the lawsuit and perpetuates a misconception about the Endangered Species Act.

PLF’s lawsuit does not question whether the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was right to list three California amphibians as protected species under the ESA. Nor does it question whether the Service was right to designate critical habitat to conserve the species. Under the law, the Service is required to make these determinations.

New Jersey goes all in on the Constitution in sports betting case

Can Congress dictate to states what their own laws must be? Anyone familiar with federalism will likely immediately say “no.” Our Founders drafted a Constitution that preserved the independence of the the states, believing that dividing power between the federal government and the states would be a bulwark to protect our liberty. To preserve the Founders’ design, the Supreme Court has said that the federal government cannot “commandeer” the states by requiring them to adopt or enforce federal policy.

Yet the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, passed by Congress in 1992, purports to tell most states—but not others—that they must forbid sports gambling. In particular, it forbids states from “authorizing” sports betting “by law,” which means that those states that forbade sports betting in 1992 must continue doing so forever. That’s unconstitutional.

The Framers’ fear of concentrated power was well-founded

In 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Raymond Lucia and his former investment company with violating federal securities laws and regulations. You’d think that Mr. Lucia would be entitled … ›

Pacific Legal Foundation Applauds Administration’s Monument Review

Today, the Department of Interior and Secretary Zinke announced the conclusion of an extensive, public review of national monuments. The agency has not disclosed its recommendations for individual monuments, which … ›

PLF’s Markle critical habitat case draws broad amicus support

This week, business groups, associations, think tanks, and government entities all filed “friends of the court” amicus briefs supporting PLF in its high-profile Supreme Court case for property owners’ rights, Markle Interests, … ›

The Morning Docket

Stay up to date with the Morning Docket, a weekly highlight of PLF's best articles, videos, and podcasts.

Florida appellate court to hold oral argument in PLF case this week

On Tuesday, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal will hold oral arguments in a number of cases, including in Pacific Legal Foundation‘s P.I.E., LLC v. DeSoto County. Christina Martin and … ›

New lawsuit challenging Endangered Species Act overreach

This morning, we filed a complaint in federal district court in D.C. challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 2016 “biological opinion” governing FEMA’s implementation of the national flood insurance program … ›

Still fighting to keep public lands open to all

Yesterday, we filed our reply brief in Granat v. USDA, where we ask the court to review the U.S. Forest Service’s decision to close thousands of previously available roads and trails to motorized … ›

Yes, Trump can revoke national monuments

The Washington Post has published my op-ed defending the President’s power to revoke existing national monuments. Several months ago, President Trump ordered a review of the last 21 years of monument designations. For good reason, the evidence is indisputable that abuse of the monument power has been far worse the last few years.

Why Fish and Wildlife is wrong on critical habitat

Recently, the Sacramento Bee ran an op-ed entitled “Why Fish and Wildlife is right on endangered frogs” that criticized a lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of California farmers and ranchers. The op-ed misrepresents the lawsuit and perpetuates a misconception about the Endangered Species Act.

PLF’s lawsuit does not question whether the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was right to list three California amphibians as protected species under the ESA. Nor does it question whether the Service was right to designate critical habitat to conserve the species. Under the law, the Service is required to make these determinations.

New Jersey goes all in on the Constitution in sports betting case

Can Congress dictate to states what their own laws must be? Anyone familiar with federalism will likely immediately say “no.” Our Founders drafted a Constitution that preserved the independence of the the states, believing that dividing power between the federal government and the states would be a bulwark to protect our liberty. To preserve the Founders’ design, the Supreme Court has said that the federal government cannot “commandeer” the states by requiring them to adopt or enforce federal policy.

Yet the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, passed by Congress in 1992, purports to tell most states—but not others—that they must forbid sports gambling. In particular, it forbids states from “authorizing” sports betting “by law,” which means that those states that forbade sports betting in 1992 must continue doing so forever. That’s unconstitutional.

The Framers’ fear of concentrated power was well-founded

In 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Raymond Lucia and his former investment company with violating federal securities laws and regulations. You’d think that Mr. Lucia would be entitled … ›

Pacific Legal Foundation Applauds Administration’s Monument Review

Today, the Department of Interior and Secretary Zinke announced the conclusion of an extensive, public review of national monuments. The agency has not disclosed its recommendations for individual monuments, which … ›

PLF’s Markle critical habitat case draws broad amicus support

This week, business groups, associations, think tanks, and government entities all filed “friends of the court” amicus briefs supporting PLF in its high-profile Supreme Court case for property owners’ rights, Markle Interests, … ›

Florida appellate court to hold oral argument in PLF case this week

On Tuesday, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal will hold oral arguments in a number of cases, including in Pacific Legal Foundation‘s P.I.E., LLC v. DeSoto County. Christina Martin and … ›

New lawsuit challenging Endangered Species Act overreach

This morning, we filed a complaint in federal district court in D.C. challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 2016 “biological opinion” governing FEMA’s implementation of the national flood insurance program … ›

Still fighting to keep public lands open to all

Yesterday, we filed our reply brief in Granat v. USDA, where we ask the court to review the U.S. Forest Service’s decision to close thousands of previously available roads and trails to motorized … ›

Yes, Trump can revoke national monuments

The Washington Post has published my op-ed defending the President’s power to revoke existing national monuments. Several months ago, President Trump ordered a review of the last 21 years of monument designations. For good reason, the evidence is indisputable that abuse of the monument power has been far worse the last few years.

Why Fish and Wildlife is wrong on critical habitat

Recently, the Sacramento Bee ran an op-ed entitled “Why Fish and Wildlife is right on endangered frogs” that criticized a lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of California farmers and ranchers. The op-ed misrepresents the lawsuit and perpetuates a misconception about the Endangered Species Act.

PLF’s lawsuit does not question whether the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was right to list three California amphibians as protected species under the ESA. Nor does it question whether the Service was right to designate critical habitat to conserve the species. Under the law, the Service is required to make these determinations.

New Jersey goes all in on the Constitution in sports betting case

Can Congress dictate to states what their own laws must be? Anyone familiar with federalism will likely immediately say “no.” Our Founders drafted a Constitution that preserved the independence of the the states, believing that dividing power between the federal government and the states would be a bulwark to protect our liberty. To preserve the Founders’ design, the Supreme Court has said that the federal government cannot “commandeer” the states by requiring them to adopt or enforce federal policy.

Yet the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, passed by Congress in 1992, purports to tell most states—but not others—that they must forbid sports gambling. In particular, it forbids states from “authorizing” sports betting “by law,” which means that those states that forbade sports betting in 1992 must continue doing so forever. That’s unconstitutional.

The Framers’ fear of concentrated power was well-founded

In 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Raymond Lucia and his former investment company with violating federal securities laws and regulations. You’d think that Mr. Lucia would be entitled … ›

Pacific Legal Foundation Applauds Administration’s Monument Review

Today, the Department of Interior and Secretary Zinke announced the conclusion of an extensive, public review of national monuments. The agency has not disclosed its recommendations for individual monuments, which … ›

PLF’s Markle critical habitat case draws broad amicus support

This week, business groups, associations, think tanks, and government entities all filed “friends of the court” amicus briefs supporting PLF in its high-profile Supreme Court case for property owners’ rights, Markle Interests, … ›