Gopher frog case briefed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
Readers of this blog will remember the case of Markle v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wherein PLF represents the landowners in challenging the designation of1500 acres of private timber land in Louisiana as “critical habitat” for the dusky gopher frog. Although the land is unsuitable for use by the gopher frog (which resides in Mississippi), because it does not contain the physical and biological characteristics the Service says the frog needs to survive, and designation of the land will cost the landowners up to $33.9 million in lost profits, the Service claims it can regulate the land forever until it becomes accessible and usable for species conservation. This sets a dangerous precedent that would allow overzealous federal bureaucrats to set aside private land anywhere in the country in the hope that it may someday be used by a protected species. In its challenge to this federal land grab, PLF argues the agency has gone too far in violation of the express language of the Endangered Species Act, the will of Congress, and the U.S. Constitution. The case is now pending in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals where briefing is now complete. We filed our final brief in the case on Monday and are waiting for the court to set a date for oral argument which should be held in a few months. This case has been widely followed in the media and should be of concern to everyone who cares about the “rule of law.” We expect a final decision in the case by the end of the year.
learn more about
Weyerhaeuser/Markle v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
As a child, Edward Poitevent’s family cut down Christmas trees on their lumber-rich land in Louisiana, and one day he’d like to leave the property to his own children. But federal bureaucrats jeopardized his legacy when they declared nearly 1,500 acres of his family’s private land as a critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog—a species not seen in the state for more than 50 years. Neither the Endangered Species Act nor congressional intent justifies such government-sanctioned property theft. Represented by PLF, Edward sued and on October 1st, 2018, he will join another affected property owner, Weyerhaeuser Company, at the U.S. Supreme Court to defend their constitutionally protected property rights.Read more
What to read next
Our friends at Institute for Justice have convinced the Supreme Court to soon decide in the case Timbs v. Indiana whether the Constitution restrains states (and not just the federal government) from … ›