PLF at the
U.S. Supreme Court

THE ISSUE

Government bureaucrats constantly try to dictate the timeframe for challenging a harmful law or regulation.

Before this case, many government agencies across the country claimed that landowners weren't allowed to challenge a law or regulation impacting their land if they acquired their land after the law went into effect. If you bought a piece of land, and a law from your grandfather's era violated your rights: too bad.

But PLF's client Anthony Palazzolo fought for his rights as a landowner and with his case, the Supreme Court righted this wrong.

THE DECISION

The Court ruled that if a law is unconstitutional, simply being old doesn't make it right.

As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "Future generations have a right to challenge unreasonable limitations on the use and value of land."

THE IMPACT

Palazzolo has been cited in 402 federal and state appellate courts and 1059 law review articles

"the court's ruling in Palazzolo v. Rhode Island also had an important side effect: It sent a message that all of society -- not just a few unlucky landowners -- must be prepared to bear the cost of environmental regulation. –Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

THE ISSUE

Before this victory, landowners had little hope to defend themselves against overbearing regulations associated with the Clean Water Act.

Chantell and Michael Sackett received a local permit to build a home on a half-acre lot with no connection to water. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared their property to contain a wetland and demanded they restore the lot to its natural condition or pay fines of up to $75,000 per day. Further, EPA asserted they had no right to judicial review of the enforcement order.

THE DECISION

The Court's unanimous decision set an important precedent limiting the government's ability to extort private landowners. Now, landowners dealing with a Clean Water Act enforcement order have the right to immediately challenge those regulations in federal court.

"If you related the facts of this case as they come to us to an ordinary homeowner, don't you think most ordinary homeowners would say this kind of thing can't happen in the United States?" –Justice Alito, to the government's attorney in oral argument.

THE IMPACT

This case marked a turning point in the growth of the administrative state. Previous Supreme Court decisions allowed for extreme deference of agency actions, but Sackett signaled to lower courts that they should be scrutinizing regulatory agencies more closely.

Sackett has been cited in 55 federal and state appellate courts and 193 law review articles.

THE ISSUE

Extending the victory in Sackett, this case established the principle that Americans have a right to their day in court to challenge overreaches of the regulatory state.

Together, Sackett and Hawkes have opened courthouse doors across the country, giving individuals better access to the courts—and to justice.

THE DECISION

The Chief Justice wrote that the Hawkes Company shouldn't have to wait for the government to "'drop the hammer' in order to have their day in court."

He added that "parties need not await enforcement proceedings before challenging final agency action, where such proceedings carry the risk of 'serious criminal and civil penalties.'"

THE IMPACT

Hawkes has been cited in 37 federal and state appellate courts and 66 law review articles.

Associated Win (GVR): Kent Recycling Services, LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2016)

Kent Recycling wanted to establish a solid waste landfill in Louisiana, but the overzealous Army Corps of Engineers determined that the property contained wetlands. Kent disputed this claim, but lower courts claimed they could not review the dispute. A few days after PLF's victory in Hawkes, the Court sent the case back to the lower court to reconsider.

THE ISSUE

How much time do citizens have to challenge new regulations, after they are enacted?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had tried limiting the window of time to contest a new agency law or regulation in court to 120 days—even though most people rarely know a new regulation is even being submitted in such a short time. PLF and our clients argued that people should have the standard six years to challenge a new law or regulation—and the Supreme Court agreed.

THE DECISION

After National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, there is now a reasonable amount of time to challenge harmful, burdensome, or unconstitutional regulations

This victory set an important precedent defending people's opportunity to properly defend their rights and challenge unjust laws in a court of law.

THE IMPACT

National Association of Manufacturers has been cited in 20 federal and state appellate courts and 29 law review articles.

THE ISSUE

What do your property rights mean really? At their core, they mean the ability to decide—and control—what happens on your property as long as it doesn't hurt others. That's something California politicians have always struggled to understand.

In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, California strawberry grower Mike Fahner was fighting California's law that required him to allow union activists on his property for 3 hours a day, 120 days a year to disrupt the Nursery's work in an attempt to recruit his well-paid and happy workers.

THE DECISION

The Court ruled that states like California can't simply wish (or legislate) away landowners' property rights. And if the government feels strongly enough about a regulation that takes property owners' land, the government must pay for it.

As Chief Justice Roberts succinctly put it in the decision: "Government action that physically appropriates property is no less a physical taking because it arises from a regulation."

THE IMPACT

Cedar Point sent a clear message to state and local governments that individuals' property rights cannot be a casualty of any special interest or political cause.

Now, governments have clear guidance from the nation's top court that property rights cannot be infringed or ignored without proper compensation.

THE ISSUE

The Quiet Title Act allows property owners to resolve disputes with the federal government. But when elderly blacksmith Wil Wilkins and his neighbor Jane Stanton tried to sue the Forest Service over an easement bait-and-switch, a federal court said the statute of limitations had lapsed—and that the court therefore couldn't review the case, even to consider evidence that the statute hadn't lapsed at all.

The Supreme Court agreed to consider whether people like Wil and Jane can still bring claims against the federal government.

THE DECISION

Calling the government's arguments "unavailing," a 6-3 majority held that the Quiet Title Act's statute of limitations was non-jurisdictional—meaning Wil and Jane can go to federal court to argue that their claims should be heard and resolved.

THE IMPACT

The decision leveled the playing field for property owners across the country, particularly in Western states where the federal government owns about half the land. "At a big picture level," SCOTUSblog wrote, the Wilkins decision "limit[s] the ability of the federal government to use these 'technicalities' to avoid scrutiny in litigation of its activities."

Now, governments have clear guidance from the nation's top court that property rights cannot be infringed or ignored without proper compensation.

THE ISSUE

Across the United States, local governments are allowed to foreclose on private homes and land to settle owners' outstanding property tax debts. But the government shouldn't be allowed to keep more than is owed.

Hennepin County seized the one-bedroom condo of Minneapolis grandmother Geraldine Tyler as payment for approximately $15,000 in back taxes, costs, interests, and penalties. The County auctioned the property for $40,000 and kept it all for various public purposes—a clear violation of Geraldine's Fifth Amendment rights.

THE DECISION

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the government cannot take a windfall at the expense of property owners. The Court explained that property rights are fundamental and cannot be erased by a state statute that redefines them out of existence. "[P]roperty rights cannot be so easily manipulated," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion, quoting his own previous majority opinion in Cedar Point Nursery, a 2021 PLF victory.

THE IMPACT

Because of the Tyler decision, 21 states must change their laws to ensure surplus proceeds from tax foreclosures are returned to the homeowners. Countless struggling Americans have been rescued from future home equity theft: A Pacific Legal Foundation study found that before Tyler, about three American families every day fell victim to the unconstitutional practice.

Tyler "sets a significant precedent," notes Ilya Somin, law professor at George Mason University. First, it forces states to stop stealing home equity. "In addition, the holding that states cannot just redefine property rights at will has important implications for other property rights issues," Somin says.