Kaycee Royer graduated from the University of Idaho with an undergraduate degree in Agricultural Economics. After obtaining her undergraduate degree, Kaycee attended the University of Idaho’s College of Law obtaining a J.D. cum laude. Kaycee was the Co-President of the Federalist Society’s Idaho Student Chapter. She also served as the Chief Symposium Editor for the Idaho Law Review, successfully hosting the largest symposium in the history of the Review on the topic of livestock grazing on public lands.
Growing up on a ranch in rural Idaho, Kaycee learned the importance of property rights and balanced environmental regulation. As she grew older, she was exposed to the many injustices faced by farmers and ranchers and developed a passion for being a voice for them in the legal community. During law school, Kaycee had the opportunity to represent water users as a legislative intern at both Idaho Water Users Association in Boise, Idaho and at National Water Resources Association in Washington, D.C.
Kaycee enjoys spending time reading books, cooking, traveling, and downhill skiing.
Kaycee Royer graduated from the University of Idaho with an undergraduate degree in Agricultural Economics. After obtaining her undergraduate degree, Kaycee attended the University of Idaho’s College of Law obtaining a J.D. cum laude. Kaycee was the Co-President of the Federalist Society’s Idaho Student Chapter. She also served as the Chief Symposium Editor for the Idaho Law Review, successfully hosting the largest symposium in the history of the Review on the topic of livestock grazing on public lands.
Growing up on a ranch in rural Idaho, Kaycee learned the importance of property rights and balanced environmental regulation. As she grew older, she was exposed to the many injustices faced by farmers and ranchers and developed a passion for being a voice for them in the legal community. During law school, Kaycee had the opportunity to represent water users as a legislative intern at both Idaho Water Users Association in Boise, Idaho and at National Water Resources Association in Washington, D.C.
Kaycee enjoys spending time reading books, cooking, traveling, and downhill skiing.
Read lessPakdel v. City and County of San Francisco
Mr. Pakdel is a small business owner in Ohio. In 2009 he bought what’s known as a “tenancy in common” (TIC) apartment in San Francisco and leased it to a residential tenant. As part of the purchase, Pakdel signed an agreement with the other owners to convert the building’s six units into condominiums. But the City of San Francisco requires that property owners doing this conversion must offer lifetime leases to any tenants. Rather than allow the city to trample his property rights by dictating the use of his own property, Pakdel is fighting the unconstitutional mandate in federal court.
Read moreKansas Natural Resource Coalition v. Department of Interior
A buffalo rancher by trade, Ken Klemm also uses his 4,000-acre ranch in Kansas for conservation efforts. In fact, Klemm works with the Kansas Natural Resource Coalition (KNRC) to implement a conservation plan for the lesser prairie chicken. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers such local collaboration for determining endangered listings under its 2003 rule called the Policy for Evaluating Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE Rule). Unfortunately, the rule is not lawfully in effect because the Service never submitted the PECE Rule to Congress as required by the Congressional Review Act (CRA). On behalf of KNRC, PLF has filed a lawsuit demanding that the Service submit its rule to Congress so it can legally take effect and allow good conservation work to continue.
Read moreTugaw Ranches, LLC. v. U.S. Department of Interior
Like many western U.S. ranching families, the Picketts have worked on the same land in Idaho for many generations and have a thriving business selling naturally raised beef. And like many ranchers, their business depends on grazing permissions on federal land. But their livelihoods are threatened by rules that set aside over 65-million acres of federal land as a habitat for the sage-grouse — an animal that’s neither threatened nor endangered. In fact, sage-grouse management rules eliminate more than 31,000 jobs.
On behalf of the Picketts, Pacific Legal Foundation is challenging illegal rulemaking by government bureaucrats. Agencies implemented the sage-grouse plans without first submitting them to Congress as required under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). PLF argues the rule is unenforceable until the agencies comply with the CRA, and that it should be properly sent to Congress for consideration and, hopefully, eventual disapproval.
Read moreOn Monday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Washington v. United States. This case dealt directly with whether various Indian Tribes in the Puget Sound could require the state … ›
Read moreOriginally published by Capital Press June 11, 2018. Under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is required to conduct status reviews of … ›
Read moreYesterday, PLF successfully defeated an attempt to dismiss its lawsuit that would require the government to follow its own laws and regulations. At issue is the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), … ›
Read moreThe City of San Francisco has openly discriminated against property owners to remove rights that are protected by the U.S. and California Constitutions as well as rights that are protected by California state law. Our clients have the right to take these claims to federal court where a neutral, qualified judge can hear them.
Read moreThis week PLF filed an amicus brief in Washington v. United States, arguing that the United States Supreme Court should overturn the Ninth Circuit’s incorrect reading of the Stevens Treaties. The Ninth Circuit’s reading not only massively expands the Treaties’ traditional interpretation, but it also improperly imposes an environmental servitude on the State of Washington. Instead, we asked the Court to consider a more balanced approach to reading the Treaties, to protect both Indian and non-Indian citizens alike.
Read moreWhen 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.
Read more