Michigan’s foreclosure law: Efficient or unfair?

As you will recall, since last year, Christina Martin has been keeping you up to date on Michigan’s unjust, and unconstitutional foreclosure law in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County. Before PLF took over the direct representation of the victims of this unfair law, including Wayside Church, it filed an amicus brief to support them in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. It explained how Michigan’s tax scheme violates the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

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.

Weekly litigation report — September 2, 2017

This week’s topics: Can the executive branch be the judicial branch? When is “just compensation” unjust? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?

Article: are critical area buffers unconstitutional?

Today, the Seattle Journal of Environmental Law published my article, Are Critical Area Buffers Unconstitutional? Demystifying The Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions. Although the article focuses on developments in Washington state law, it contains arguments relevant to property rights practitioners elsewhere. For example, the article explains why a demand that a landowner dedicate a “buffer area” takes valuable property rights. It also dispels the mistaken belief that conditions imposed pursuant to generally applicable legislation should be subject less rigorous scrutiny than all other conditions.

Does President Trump know that his Administration is blocking an important Michigan road project?

On behalf of its client the Marquette County Road Commission, PLF filed its Reply Brief in Marquette County Road Commission v. EPA.

Seattle’s tax on achievement is a Trojan Horse that threatens the poor and middle class

One of the things that makes Washington’s legal landscape so unique is that the state constitution was drafted by people who, having just witnessed the Civil War, were wary of state and federal government. As a result, our constitution provides many protections rarely found elsewhere in the country, such as a provision prohibiting the government from targeting political minorities to bear uneven tax burdens. Specifically, Article VII, Section I of the Washington State Constitution states that “all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property … The word ‘property’ as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.”

For nearly a century, the Washington’s Supreme Court has repeatedly held that income is property and, therefore, the constitution prohibits targeted income taxes. And all attempts to change this constitutional provision through the courts, legislature, and via popular initiative have failed. Indeed, our state’s top-to-bottom economy has benefitted from this constitutional barrier to targeted income taxes, attracting large and high-paying employers.

Should a business owner recover economic damages when the government condemns his property?

In a brief filed earlier today, PLF attorneys urge the U.S. Supreme Court to answer this important question concerning the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that property shall not be taken without … ›

Weekly litigation report — August 19, 2017

Environmentalists warn of catastrophic sun-darkening on Monday! Support for the Supreme Court to toss Michigan’s theft by tax-forclosure scheme Widespread support for “absent frog” case in Supreme Court And widespread concern for … ›

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

Michigan’s foreclosure law: Efficient or unfair?

As you will recall, since last year, Christina Martin has been keeping you up to date on Michigan’s unjust, and unconstitutional foreclosure law in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County. Before PLF took over the direct representation of the victims of this unfair law, including Wayside Church, it filed an amicus brief to support them in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. It explained how Michigan’s tax scheme violates the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

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.

Weekly litigation report — September 2, 2017

This week’s topics: Can the executive branch be the judicial branch? When is “just compensation” unjust? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?

Article: are critical area buffers unconstitutional?

Today, the Seattle Journal of Environmental Law published my article, Are Critical Area Buffers Unconstitutional? Demystifying The Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions. Although the article focuses on developments in Washington state law, it contains arguments relevant to property rights practitioners elsewhere. For example, the article explains why a demand that a landowner dedicate a “buffer area” takes valuable property rights. It also dispels the mistaken belief that conditions imposed pursuant to generally applicable legislation should be subject less rigorous scrutiny than all other conditions.

Does President Trump know that his Administration is blocking an important Michigan road project?

On behalf of its client the Marquette County Road Commission, PLF filed its Reply Brief in Marquette County Road Commission v. EPA.

Seattle’s tax on achievement is a Trojan Horse that threatens the poor and middle class

One of the things that makes Washington’s legal landscape so unique is that the state constitution was drafted by people who, having just witnessed the Civil War, were wary of state and federal government. As a result, our constitution provides many protections rarely found elsewhere in the country, such as a provision prohibiting the government from targeting political minorities to bear uneven tax burdens. Specifically, Article VII, Section I of the Washington State Constitution states that “all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property … The word ‘property’ as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.”

For nearly a century, the Washington’s Supreme Court has repeatedly held that income is property and, therefore, the constitution prohibits targeted income taxes. And all attempts to change this constitutional provision through the courts, legislature, and via popular initiative have failed. Indeed, our state’s top-to-bottom economy has benefitted from this constitutional barrier to targeted income taxes, attracting large and high-paying employers.

Should a business owner recover economic damages when the government condemns his property?

In a brief filed earlier today, PLF attorneys urge the U.S. Supreme Court to answer this important question concerning the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that property shall not be taken without … ›

Weekly litigation report — August 19, 2017

Environmentalists warn of catastrophic sun-darkening on Monday! Support for the Supreme Court to toss Michigan’s theft by tax-forclosure scheme Widespread support for “absent frog” case in Supreme Court And widespread concern for … ›

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.

Michigan’s foreclosure law: Efficient or unfair?

As you will recall, since last year, Christina Martin has been keeping you up to date on Michigan’s unjust, and unconstitutional foreclosure law in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County. Before PLF took over the direct representation of the victims of this unfair law, including Wayside Church, it filed an amicus brief to support them in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. It explained how Michigan’s tax scheme violates the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

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.

Weekly litigation report — September 2, 2017

This week’s topics: Can the executive branch be the judicial branch? When is “just compensation” unjust? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?

Article: are critical area buffers unconstitutional?

Today, the Seattle Journal of Environmental Law published my article, Are Critical Area Buffers Unconstitutional? Demystifying The Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions. Although the article focuses on developments in Washington state law, it contains arguments relevant to property rights practitioners elsewhere. For example, the article explains why a demand that a landowner dedicate a “buffer area” takes valuable property rights. It also dispels the mistaken belief that conditions imposed pursuant to generally applicable legislation should be subject less rigorous scrutiny than all other conditions.

Does President Trump know that his Administration is blocking an important Michigan road project?

On behalf of its client the Marquette County Road Commission, PLF filed its Reply Brief in Marquette County Road Commission v. EPA.

Seattle’s tax on achievement is a Trojan Horse that threatens the poor and middle class

One of the things that makes Washington’s legal landscape so unique is that the state constitution was drafted by people who, having just witnessed the Civil War, were wary of state and federal government. As a result, our constitution provides many protections rarely found elsewhere in the country, such as a provision prohibiting the government from targeting political minorities to bear uneven tax burdens. Specifically, Article VII, Section I of the Washington State Constitution states that “all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property … The word ‘property’ as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.”

For nearly a century, the Washington’s Supreme Court has repeatedly held that income is property and, therefore, the constitution prohibits targeted income taxes. And all attempts to change this constitutional provision through the courts, legislature, and via popular initiative have failed. Indeed, our state’s top-to-bottom economy has benefitted from this constitutional barrier to targeted income taxes, attracting large and high-paying employers.

Should a business owner recover economic damages when the government condemns his property?

In a brief filed earlier today, PLF attorneys urge the U.S. Supreme Court to answer this important question concerning the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that property shall not be taken without … ›

Weekly litigation report — August 19, 2017

Environmentalists warn of catastrophic sun-darkening on Monday! Support for the Supreme Court to toss Michigan’s theft by tax-forclosure scheme Widespread support for “absent frog” case in Supreme Court And widespread concern for … ›

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, … ›

Michigan’s foreclosure law: Efficient or unfair?

As you will recall, since last year, Christina Martin has been keeping you up to date on Michigan’s unjust, and unconstitutional foreclosure law in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County. Before PLF took over the direct representation of the victims of this unfair law, including Wayside Church, it filed an amicus brief to support them in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. It explained how Michigan’s tax scheme violates the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

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.

Weekly litigation report — September 2, 2017

This week’s topics: Can the executive branch be the judicial branch? When is “just compensation” unjust? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?

Article: are critical area buffers unconstitutional?

Today, the Seattle Journal of Environmental Law published my article, Are Critical Area Buffers Unconstitutional? Demystifying The Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions. Although the article focuses on developments in Washington state law, it contains arguments relevant to property rights practitioners elsewhere. For example, the article explains why a demand that a landowner dedicate a “buffer area” takes valuable property rights. It also dispels the mistaken belief that conditions imposed pursuant to generally applicable legislation should be subject less rigorous scrutiny than all other conditions.

Does President Trump know that his Administration is blocking an important Michigan road project?

On behalf of its client the Marquette County Road Commission, PLF filed its Reply Brief in Marquette County Road Commission v. EPA.

Seattle’s tax on achievement is a Trojan Horse that threatens the poor and middle class

One of the things that makes Washington’s legal landscape so unique is that the state constitution was drafted by people who, having just witnessed the Civil War, were wary of state and federal government. As a result, our constitution provides many protections rarely found elsewhere in the country, such as a provision prohibiting the government from targeting political minorities to bear uneven tax burdens. Specifically, Article VII, Section I of the Washington State Constitution states that “all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property … The word ‘property’ as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.”

For nearly a century, the Washington’s Supreme Court has repeatedly held that income is property and, therefore, the constitution prohibits targeted income taxes. And all attempts to change this constitutional provision through the courts, legislature, and via popular initiative have failed. Indeed, our state’s top-to-bottom economy has benefitted from this constitutional barrier to targeted income taxes, attracting large and high-paying employers.

Should a business owner recover economic damages when the government condemns his property?

In a brief filed earlier today, PLF attorneys urge the U.S. Supreme Court to answer this important question concerning the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that property shall not be taken without … ›

Weekly litigation report — August 19, 2017

Environmentalists warn of catastrophic sun-darkening on Monday! Support for the Supreme Court to toss Michigan’s theft by tax-forclosure scheme Widespread support for “absent frog” case in Supreme Court And widespread concern for … ›

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, … ›