PLF asks California Supreme Court to hear due process case against Coastal Commission
PLF recently filed a friend of the court letter with the California Supreme Court, encouraging the justices to grant review in an important due process challenge against the California Coastal Commission.
The Coastal Commission brought a highly questionable enforcement action against our friends at Drakes Bay Oyster Company, accusing the company of operating their oyster farm without a permit. Without the permit, that is, for which the company applied years before but the Commission never acted on.
The Coastal Commission is required under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution to serve as a neutral decision maker on enforcement actions. But in Drakes Bay’s lawsuit against the Commission challenging the enforcement action, the supposedly neutral Commission turned over the defense of the lawsuit to its decidedly biased enforcement staff. Now, when the case returns to the Commission for further proceedings, the Commission’s neutrality will have been permanently compromised by months of confidential closed session briefings from their own prosecution staff. This violates the Due Process Clause, and PLF and several other friends of the Court think that the California Supreme Court should accept the case to require the Coastal Commission to abide by the Constitution.
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.