Wen Fa

Attorney

Sacramento

Wen Fa is an attorney at PLF’s national headquarters. He has litigated numerous direct-rep cases dealing with private property, equality under the law, school choice, economic liberty, and the First Amendment.

Wen’s clients include Edmund, a black fourth-grade boy who wants the chance to attend the same schools as his white neighbors; Adam, a fifth-generation business owner who wants to sell his artisanal butter to Wisconsin consumers; and Andy, a voter who wants to wear a shirt with the words “don’t tread on me” when he votes.

Wen has promoted liberty through speeches to Tea Party groups and a panel debate at Berkeley Law. Wen has appeared on radio over a dozen times, and has been quoted in Reason Magazine. He has published a scholarly article in the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal and shorter pieces in newspapers, PLF’s blog, and Fa on First. He is a member of the PLF’s hiring committee and co-manages the summer clerkship program.

Wen holds a Bachelor’s from the University of Texas at Dallas, a Master’s in Political Theory from the London School of Economics, where he studied under libertarian scholar Chandran Kukathas.  Wen graduated from the University of Michigan Law School in 2013, and worked at Human Rights Initiative in Dallas and Institute for Justice in Austin before joining PLF. Wen is licensed to practice law in California, Texas, and several federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States.

Wen is the founder of the Sacramento Chapter of America’s Future Foundation, and a board member of the Sacramento Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society.

Outside of work, Wen likes to exercise, play sports, and tell jokes.

Wen Fa is an attorney at PLF’s national headquarters. He has litigated numerous direct-rep cases dealing with private property, equality under the law, school choice, economic liberty, and the First Amendment.

Wen’s clients include Edmund, a black fourth-grade boy who wants the chance to attend the same schools as his white neighbors; Adam, a fifth-generation business owner who wants to sell his artisanal butter to Wisconsin consumers; and Andy, a voter who wants to wear a shirt with the words “don’t tread on me” when he votes.

Wen has promoted liberty through speeches to Tea Party groups and a panel debate at Berkeley Law. Wen has appeared on radio over a dozen times, and has been quoted in Reason Magazine. He has published a scholarly article in the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal and shorter pieces in newspapers, PLF’s blog, and Fa on First. He is a member of the PLF’s hiring committee and co-manages the summer clerkship program.

Wen holds a Bachelor’s from the University of Texas at Dallas, a Master’s in Political Theory from the London School of Economics, where he studied under libertarian scholar Chandran Kukathas.  Wen graduated from the University of Michigan Law School in 2013, and worked at Human Rights Initiative in Dallas and Institute for Justice in Austin before joining PLF. Wen is licensed to practice law in California, Texas, and several federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States.

Wen is the founder of the Sacramento Chapter of America’s Future Foundation, and a board member of the Sacramento Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society.

Outside of work, Wen likes to exercise, play sports, and tell jokes.

Read less
Personal Liberties

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky

U.S. Supreme Court will review Minnesota’s fashion (non)sense

The U.S. Supreme Court announced it will review our case challenging a Minnesota election law that literally strips free speech rights from the backs of voters. The 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. Voters who don’t cover or remove the apparel could face prosecution and fines of up to $5,000. The high court will likely hear the case in the spring.

Read more
Personal Liberties

Elster v. City of Seattle, Washington

Seattle’s politician enrichment tax forces property owners to subsidize private political speech and violates the First Amendment

Representing Seattle residents and property owners, PLF sued to overturn Seattle’s ordinance mandating public campaign financing. Under the city’s “democracy voucher” program, each Seattle resident receives four $25 vouchers to support eligible candidates for local political office. The money to fund the voucher program is taken from the city’s property owners via a dedicated levy. The lawsuit argues that these compelled subsidies violate the First Amendment right to refrain from speaking – or funding the speech of another person.

Read more
Personal Liberties

Minerva Dairy v. Brancel

Wisconsin flunks constitutional law with artisanal butter grading

Minerva Dairy, and its President, Adam Mueller, are challenging a Wisconsin law that prevents butter makers from outside the state from selling their products in Wisconsin unless they go through an arduous and costly process of getting their butter “graded.” Grading has nothing to do with quality or safety; it is graded by taste, as determined by government bureaucrats. Only Wisconsin has this type of law; neither the federal government nor any other state requires grading. Because Minerva Dairy makes artisanal butter that has its own unique taste, it does not want to submit to Wisconsin grading. Representing Minerva, PLF filed a lawsuit challenging the law as an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause, Due Process, and Equal Protection.

Read more
Post

By Wen Fa

Supreme Court accepts review in PLF’s First Amendment case!

The Supreme Court of the United States granted PLF’s petition for certiorari in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, a First Amendment challenge to a Minnesota law that bans political apparel at the polling place.

Read more
Post

By Wen Fa

Oral argument in PLF’s access regulation challenge on Nov. 17

Next Friday, I’ll be presenting oral argument in the Ninth Circuit in Cedar Point Nursery v. Gould. The case involves a challenge to the ALRB’s access regulation, which allows union organizers to use the private property of agricultural employers to solicit potential union members.

Read more
Post

By Wen Fa

My speech to the Federalist Society at the University of Michigan Law School

I recently spoke to the Federalist Society at the University of Michigan Law School about PLF’s cert petition in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky. In Mansky, we ask the Supreme … ›

Read more
Post

By Wen Fa

Ninth Circuit sides with PLF in an important free speech decision

The First Amendment doesn’t just protect your right to speak, it also protects your right not to speak. So imagine if your municipal government required you to devote 20% of … ›

Read more
Video

PLF files reply in challenge to Minnesota’s ban on political apparel

Minnesota bans political apparel at polling places across the State. The government interprets “political” broadly: the ban applies to shirts with classic American phrases such as “Liberty” or “Don’t tread on me,” as long as those phrases appear alongside a tea party logo — no matter how small.

Read more
Video

Ninth Circuit schedules hearing in union access case

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently announced that it will hear oral argument in the Cedar Point Nursery v. Gould on November 17 in San Francisco. In that case, PLF represents California citrus growers in their constitutional challenge to a law that forces them to give up their property for the benefit of union organizers.

Read more