Weekly litigation report — September 23, 2017

Ninth Circuit sides with PLF in compelled speech case On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit issued a favorable opinion in American Beverage Association v. City and County of San Francisco, an … ›

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.

Designating non-habitat as "critical habitat?" Where does it stop?

In 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Gunnison sage-grouse as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act and designated over 1.4 million acres as “critical habitat” in Colorado … ›

Weekly litigation update — August 12, 2017

Wheat farming goes on trial Tuesday EPA defends its actions in response brief filed with Sixth Circuit Critical habitat for frogs and a toad challenged Amicus brief filed in Indian … ›

PLF sues U.S Fish and Wildlife to protect small businesses

There appears to be a universal recognition that small business is the lifeblood of our economy and a necessary component of our way of life: Economic freedom is the foundation … ›

White House WOTUS update

We reported here that the Administration had proposed withdrawing the 2015 WOTUS rule as directed by Executive Order. And, that EPA would soon be issuing a new rule defining “waters … ›

Weekly litigation report — July 15, 2017

PLF asks Supreme Court to protect plaintiffs’ right to raise takings claims in federal courts when government steals Complaint filed against Marin County forced farming law Mandatory housing shakedown fees before … ›

PLF petitions "unprecedented and sweeping" Endangered Species Act case to U.S. Supreme Court

In February, 2013, PLF filed suit in federal court on behalf of Markle Interests, LLC., challenging the designation of the landowners’ property as “critical habitat” by the U.S. Fish and … ›

Weekly litigation report — July 8, 2017

California Supreme Court tells landowners to watch homes fall into the sea Land use in Florida: If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance …. PLF, other organizations, ask Arizona Supreme … ›

Brand Logo for the blog page

Weekly litigation report — September 23, 2017

Ninth Circuit sides with PLF in compelled speech case On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit issued a favorable opinion in American Beverage Association v. City and County of San Francisco, an … ›

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.

Designating non-habitat as "critical habitat?" Where does it stop?

In 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Gunnison sage-grouse as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act and designated over 1.4 million acres as “critical habitat” in Colorado … ›

Weekly litigation update — August 12, 2017

Wheat farming goes on trial Tuesday EPA defends its actions in response brief filed with Sixth Circuit Critical habitat for frogs and a toad challenged Amicus brief filed in Indian … ›

PLF sues U.S Fish and Wildlife to protect small businesses

There appears to be a universal recognition that small business is the lifeblood of our economy and a necessary component of our way of life: Economic freedom is the foundation … ›

White House WOTUS update

We reported here that the Administration had proposed withdrawing the 2015 WOTUS rule as directed by Executive Order. And, that EPA would soon be issuing a new rule defining “waters … ›

Weekly litigation report — July 15, 2017

PLF asks Supreme Court to protect plaintiffs’ right to raise takings claims in federal courts when government steals Complaint filed against Marin County forced farming law Mandatory housing shakedown fees before … ›

PLF petitions "unprecedented and sweeping" Endangered Species Act case to U.S. Supreme Court

In February, 2013, PLF filed suit in federal court on behalf of Markle Interests, LLC., challenging the designation of the landowners’ property as “critical habitat” by the U.S. Fish and … ›

Weekly litigation report — July 8, 2017

California Supreme Court tells landowners to watch homes fall into the sea Land use in Florida: If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance …. PLF, other organizations, ask Arizona Supreme … ›

The Morning Docket

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

Weekly litigation report — September 23, 2017

Ninth Circuit sides with PLF in compelled speech case On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit issued a favorable opinion in American Beverage Association v. City and County of San Francisco, an … ›

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.

Designating non-habitat as "critical habitat?" Where does it stop?

In 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Gunnison sage-grouse as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act and designated over 1.4 million acres as “critical habitat” in Colorado … ›

Weekly litigation update — August 12, 2017

Wheat farming goes on trial Tuesday EPA defends its actions in response brief filed with Sixth Circuit Critical habitat for frogs and a toad challenged Amicus brief filed in Indian … ›

PLF sues U.S Fish and Wildlife to protect small businesses

There appears to be a universal recognition that small business is the lifeblood of our economy and a necessary component of our way of life: Economic freedom is the foundation … ›

White House WOTUS update

We reported here that the Administration had proposed withdrawing the 2015 WOTUS rule as directed by Executive Order. And, that EPA would soon be issuing a new rule defining “waters … ›

Weekly litigation report — July 15, 2017

PLF asks Supreme Court to protect plaintiffs’ right to raise takings claims in federal courts when government steals Complaint filed against Marin County forced farming law Mandatory housing shakedown fees before … ›

PLF petitions "unprecedented and sweeping" Endangered Species Act case to U.S. Supreme Court

In February, 2013, PLF filed suit in federal court on behalf of Markle Interests, LLC., challenging the designation of the landowners’ property as “critical habitat” by the U.S. Fish and … ›

Weekly litigation report — July 8, 2017

California Supreme Court tells landowners to watch homes fall into the sea Land use in Florida: If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance …. PLF, other organizations, ask Arizona Supreme … ›

Weekly litigation report — September 23, 2017

Ninth Circuit sides with PLF in compelled speech case On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit issued a favorable opinion in American Beverage Association v. City and County of San Francisco, an … ›

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.

Designating non-habitat as "critical habitat?" Where does it stop?

In 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Gunnison sage-grouse as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act and designated over 1.4 million acres as “critical habitat” in Colorado … ›

Weekly litigation update — August 12, 2017

Wheat farming goes on trial Tuesday EPA defends its actions in response brief filed with Sixth Circuit Critical habitat for frogs and a toad challenged Amicus brief filed in Indian … ›

PLF sues U.S Fish and Wildlife to protect small businesses

There appears to be a universal recognition that small business is the lifeblood of our economy and a necessary component of our way of life: Economic freedom is the foundation … ›

White House WOTUS update

We reported here that the Administration had proposed withdrawing the 2015 WOTUS rule as directed by Executive Order. And, that EPA would soon be issuing a new rule defining “waters … ›

Weekly litigation report — July 15, 2017

PLF asks Supreme Court to protect plaintiffs’ right to raise takings claims in federal courts when government steals Complaint filed against Marin County forced farming law Mandatory housing shakedown fees before … ›

PLF petitions "unprecedented and sweeping" Endangered Species Act case to U.S. Supreme Court

In February, 2013, PLF filed suit in federal court on behalf of Markle Interests, LLC., challenging the designation of the landowners’ property as “critical habitat” by the U.S. Fish and … ›

Weekly litigation report — July 8, 2017

California Supreme Court tells landowners to watch homes fall into the sea Land use in Florida: If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance …. PLF, other organizations, ask Arizona Supreme … ›