J. David Breemer

Senior Attorney

Sacramento

David (Dave) Breemer developed a passion for liberty while reading classics such as John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government and Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man, as he pursued a Master’s Degree in American Political Theory at University of California, Davis. During this time, Dave began to believe that individual freedom and choice is a God-given and inviolable gift that cannot be taken away through governmental power.

Dave then traveled throughout North America for several years as an adventure tour guide, discussing American ideas of freedom with groups of young people form Europe, Australia, and Japan while rafting, skydiving, and hiking in places like Monument Valley, Las Vegas, and Alaska.

In 1998, Dave went to law school at the University of Hawaii where he studied and co-authored several property rights-oriented law reviews with Professor David L. Callies, a noted land use authority. In 2001, Dave graduated summa cum laude from law school, second in his class, and returned to California to work as an attorney for PLF.

Since joining PLF, Dave has worked as an attorney in PLF’s property rights group. In that capacity, he has litigated numerous federal and state court cases vindicating constitutional rights, particularly those related to the ability to use and enjoy private property. Examples include: Knick v. Township of Scott, U.S. Supreme Court No. 17-647; MVA v. Minnesota, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 16-1435; Levin v. City and County of San Francisco, 71 F. Supp. 3d 1072 (N.D. Cal., 2014); Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head, 724 F.3d 533 (4th Cir. 2013); Severance v. Patterson, 390 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. 2012); Severance v. Patterson, 566 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2009); Crown Point Dev., Inc. v. City of Sun Valley, 506 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 2007).

In his time at PLF, Dave has also written many law review articles about the Supreme Court’s property rights jurisprudence. He continues to believe that property rights are vital to securing other rights—such as privacy, self-expression, and financial freedom—and as a result, he continues to be passionate about securing the right to use and enjoy property for all Americans in the courts of this nation.

David (Dave) Breemer developed a passion for liberty while reading classics such as John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government and Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man, as he pursued a Master’s Degree in American Political Theory at University of California, Davis. During this time, Dave began to believe that individual freedom and choice is a God-given and inviolable gift that cannot be taken away through governmental power.

Dave then traveled throughout North America for several years as an adventure tour guide, discussing American ideas of freedom with groups of young people form Europe, Australia, and Japan while rafting, skydiving, and hiking in places like Monument Valley, Las Vegas, and Alaska.

In 1998, Dave went to law school at the University of Hawaii where he studied and co-authored several property rights-oriented law reviews with Professor David L. Callies, a noted land use authority. In 2001, Dave graduated summa cum laude from law school, second in his class, and returned to California to work as an attorney for PLF.

Since joining PLF, Dave has worked as an attorney in PLF’s property rights group. In that capacity, he has litigated numerous federal and state court cases vindicating constitutional rights, particularly those related to the ability to use and enjoy private property. Examples include: Knick v. Township of Scott, U.S. Supreme Court No. 17-647; MVA v. Minnesota, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 16-1435; Levin v. City and County of San Francisco, 71 F. Supp. 3d 1072 (N.D. Cal., 2014); Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head, 724 F.3d 533 (4th Cir. 2013); Severance v. Patterson, 390 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. 2012); Severance v. Patterson, 566 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2009); Crown Point Dev., Inc. v. City of Sun Valley, 506 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 2007).

In his time at PLF, Dave has also written many law review articles about the Supreme Court’s property rights jurisprudence. He continues to believe that property rights are vital to securing other rights—such as privacy, self-expression, and financial freedom—and as a result, he continues to be passionate about securing the right to use and enjoy property for all Americans in the courts of this nation.

Read less
Property Rights

Ballinger v. City of Oakland

Unconstitutional tenant relocation scheme hurts families, housing

When the Air Force reassigned Lyndsey and Sharon Ballinger to Washington DC, in 2015, they kept their house in Oakland, California, renting it on a month-to-month lease so they could return to it. When the couple and their two small children came home this spring, a new city law forced them to pay their tech-sector tenants $6,500—for the right to move back into their own home. The law aims to help residents affected by soaring housing costs. But because the law’s good intent comes at the expense of their constitutional protections, the Ballingers filed a federal lawsuit.

Read more
Property Rights

Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County

Michigan County Steals House for $8 Debt

In 2014, Oakland County, Michigan foreclosed on a home owned by Uri Rafaeli’s business—Rafaeli, LLC—over an $8.41 tax debt. The County sold the property for $24,500, and kept profits. Ditto for Andre Ohanessian, when the County seized and sold his property for $82,000, and pocketed every penny left over from the $6,000 tax debt. While most states refund the surplus, Michigan is among a handful of states that allow property theft to fill government coffers. PLF has asked the Michigan Supreme Court to strike down this bureaucratic theft and restore our clients’ constitutional rights.

Read more
Personal Liberties

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky

Victory for Free Speech! U.S. Supreme Court ruling protects political self-expression

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a polling-place dress code in Minnesota, upholding free speech rights across the nation and protecting the right of Americans to peacefully express their political views at the polls.

PLF represented Minnesota voters, including Andy Cilek, who showed up at his polling place wearing a t-shirt that read “Don’t tread on me.” State law bans voters from wearing any “political” apparel at a polling place. This includes any t-shirt, button, or other items that could be construed as political, or even organizations that take political positions such as the AFL-CIO or NRA. A poll worker not only prevented Andy from voting for five hours, but also took down his name for possible prosecution.

Read more
Post

By J. David Breemer

PLF wins in New Orleans property demolition case

Today, we received a favorable, published decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Garrett v. City of New Orleans.   This case challenges the City’s demolition … ›

Read more
Post

By J. David Breemer

PLF files its merits brief in the Knick Supreme Court property case

In late May, PLF attorneys filed this brief on the merits in the case of Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, which is currently before the United States Supreme Court. The … ›

Read more
Post

By J. David Breemer

Horrifying government overreach: PLF asks Supreme Court to hear challenge to cemetery access law

Rose Mary Knick owns a quiet, 90-acre, stone-fenced farm in rural Pennsylvania. The parcel is bounded on all sides by old stone walls and no trespassing signs at various intervals. According to the local government, it also contains an ancient burial ground of some sort…

Read more
Post

By J. David Breemer

PLF asks Supreme Court to hear massive beach land grab case

This week, Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys filed a Petition for Certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court to review the case of Nies v Town of Emerald Isle, discussed more here  The Petition presents the important question of “whether the Takings Clause permits a state to statutorily redefine an entire coastline of privately owned dry beach parcels as a “public trust” area open for public use, without just compensation?”

As this blog explained here, and here, this case arising from the Town of Emerald Isle’s enactment of ordinances allowing the public and town officials to use the Nies’ privately owned dry beach land, without any compensation

The state courts held the

Read more
Op-Ed

Madison’s principles on trial

James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, once said that “[g]overnment is instituted to protect property of every sort This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own”

The Supreme Court is now poised to hear a property rights case, Murr v Wisconsin, which puts Madison’s principle to the test The outcome may go far toward determining whether American governments will continue to respect established private property rights in an era of increased regulation — or whether they can avoid this duty simply by redefining “property” to make it go away

The Murr case involves a family,

Read more
Post

By J. David Breemer

Supreme Court schedules oral argument in Murr for March 20, 2017

Today, the United States Supreme Court issued its oral argument calendar for March, 2017 Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) is pleased to note that the Court included PLF’s important property rights case, Murr v State of Wisconsin, on that March calendar The Court has specifically scheduled the Murr case for argument on March 20, 2017 (more…)

Read more