Ninth Circuit oral argument in sea otter case
Last week, I argued PLF’s sea otter case before the Ninth Circuit. The issue before the Court is an essential one, that could have impacts far beyond this case: Can federal agencies escape judicial scrutiny for illegal actions if they have violated the law before? That seems silly, I know.
You may be familiar with the term “statute of limitations”–which refers to the limited amount of time after an event during which a legal challenge can be brought. In the sea otter case, brought on behalf of a variety of fishing organizations, we challenged a federal rule that terminated statutorily-mandated protections for Southern California’s fishermen and their fishery. We brought the case well within the 6 year statute of limitations for challenging the rule. However, the government contended that we were too late because, two decades earlier, it issued a regulation saying that it might someday take this illegal act. Since the statute of limitations for challenging that regulation had run, the government argued, we couldn’t challenge its more recent illegal action.
Here’s the video of the argument:
It’s always a little foolhardy to predict an outcome based on an oral argument. So I’ll just say I’m confident that the Court understood the immense importance of the issue and, hopefully, will rule in our favor.
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.