1 2 5

Issue: Procedural Guarantees

The Constitution establishes a separation of powers and express guarantees of due process. The fight for liberty is often a matter of ensuring that those who govern us do not exceed their constitutionally limited authority when enacting and enforcing the law.

At PLF, we: fight to end the modern administrative state, including limiting judicial deference to legislative and administrative judgments; restore separation of powers against improper delegation of authority to bureaucrats; define the limited scope of federal power under the Commerce Clause; revive the doctrine of enumerated powers; and ensure due process of law.

Posts

PLF announces appeal to illegal jaguar rule

The designation of critical habitat for jaguar in New Mexico unnecessarily ties thousands of acres of land in red tape. The rule makes it harder for ranchers to get grazing permits, build corrals, stock ponds, or additional fences.

Posts

PLF, Ranchers tell federal agencies they cannot ignore economic costs of their decisions

Before making a decision, most organizations take into account the costs and benefits of a proposed action, and will change course if the costs outweigh the benefits. Unfortunately, the federal government takes a different approach…

Posts

Yes, President Trump Can Replace Richard Cordray with an Acting Director

On Friday, Richard Cordray resigned as director of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. Today, two people are claiming to be the lawful acting director of the CFPB.

Events

Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County

Ring in the new year at a (tea) party in Florida

While the rest of the nation recovers from New Year’s Day celebrations, Pacific Legal Foundation will get right back to work defending liberty in 2018.

Posts

Markle v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

PLF files reply brief in Markle

Pacific Legal Foundation filed its reply brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in Markle v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an important Endangered Species Act case involving another example of federal government unconstitutional overreach.

Posts

Biggs v. Betlatch

Arizona Supreme Court ignores voters’ intent in decision interpreting constitutional limitations on taxation

Last Friday, the Arizona Supreme Court issued its decision in Biggs v. Betlach, a case brought by a group of Arizona legislators challenging the imposition of a hospital charge to pay for state Medicaid expansion.

Posts

Ross v. Acadian Seaplants Ltd.

Property rights are key to protecting Maine’s rockweed ecosystem

the Maine Supreme Judicial Court will hear oral argument in a case that, befitting the season, is a cornucopia of PLF issues.

Posts

Weekly litigation report — November 4, 2017

PLF asks the Supreme Court to bury Williamson County, Seattle attempts to force unionization on Uber/Lyft Drivers, and PLF files a complaint to require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to define “subspecies”.

Posts

Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy & Reliability, et al. v. U.S. Department of Interior, et al.

What constitutes a “subspecies” under the Endangered Species Act?

When the Service rejected a delisting petition for the coastal California gnatcatcher, it acknowledged that it was not going to define “subspecies,” the very term upon which the denial rests, even while acknowledging that the term enjoys no commonly accepted meaning among scientists. Thus, by not defining that key term, the Service effectively reserved to itself the right to use whatever definition of “subspecies” suits it best at any time. This arbitrary power prevents the regulated public from challenging any “subspecies” designation because the Service can always move the goal posts.

1 2 5