EPA gets slammed . . . again!
No, I’m not talking about the Sackett decision wherein a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court hammered the EPA for its complete disregard for the rights of citizens to challenge the agency’s heavy-handed enforcement practices. I’m talking about something else.
Last year, the EPA tried to pull a rabbit out of the hat by claiming it could veto a “dredge and fill” permit issued by the Corps of Engineers, at any time in the future. This claim put literally tens of thousands of Clean Water Act permits in doubt, stifling investment and undermining the economy.
In May, I testified to a House Committee about EPA abuse of power and its total disdain for the rule of law. Fortunately, a district court judge put an end to this nonsense by ruling that EPA has no authority to retroactively revoke a “dredge and fill” permit issued by the Corps. The Judge’s langauge is harsh and illuminating. You can and should read the decision here. Bill Raney’s two-page commentary on the opinion at the Charleston Daily Mail is also worth a read.
What to read next
Shed a (crocodile) tear for Luke Skywalker today, as Mark Hamill’s much ballyhooed Autograph Law is set to be undone and reformed by the same California officials who made the mistake to pass it in the first place. AB 228 has arrived at the Governor’s desk, and in all likelihood will be signed into law any day.
Our new flagship publication, Sword&Scales, offers 16 pages of news and information to bring you up close to the vital work of our legal team. Our ardent defense of the right to own and use private property takes center stage in the inaugural issue. It’s at the core of our mission in the nation’s courts.
On Thursday, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF filed this reply brief in support of its cert petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, we’re representing Minnesota voters in a First Amendment challenge to a ban on political apparel at polling places.
The Daily Journal published my column on California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, recently decided by the California Supreme Court. As the op-ed points out, the ruling undermines Proposition 218’s requirements that all new taxes at the local level need voter approval.