Articles

When it comes to free speech rights, the Supreme Court typically applies the rule of “strict scrutiny,” which holds that a government restriction on free speech is presumed unconstitutional, until the government proves otherwise. The reason is that, given the importance of freedom of speech, courts should “not presume acquiescence ...

PLF filed a brief today in CTIA v. San Francisco, CTIA’s challenge to San Francisco’s alarmist cell-phone warning scheme. San Francisco adopted an ordinance in 2010, modified in 2011, which requires cell phone retailers to post warning signs, distribute a “fact sheet”, and affix on cell phones warning labels that all include ...

The Ninth Circuit quietly but firmly slapped down a San Francisco ordinance that would require cell phone stores to distribute a “fact sheet” to customers, requiring the disclosure of an alarmist and misleading message about the safety of cell phones, even though the City concedes that there is absolutely no evidence that cell phones ha ...

Environment and Property Rights — Wetlands In response to our lawsuit, the Army Corps of Engineers withdrew its wetlands jurisdictional determination in Smith v. United States Army Corps of Engineers.  The Smiths were thanked by the Corps for all the work they did clearing trash and dead trees out of a dry arroyo in New … ...

As we reported back in September, the City of San Francisco lost its bid to force cell phone sellers to post alarmist, misleading warnings about the supposed health risks of cell phone use.  The Ninth Circuit struck down the ordinance because the compelled distribution of the government’s propaganda violated the First Amendment.  Yesterday, ...

San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera has decided that Monster energy drinks are bad for you.  He’s also decided that Monster has to broadcast that message to its consumers. Mere months after ending its battle with cell phone purveyors, the City of San Francisco is embroiled in another commercial speech fight.  This week, the Office & ...

In Harris v. Quinn, the Supreme Court will determine the constitutionality of an Illinois executive order and law that declares all personal home assistants to be public employees, for the sole purpose of being represented by a collective bargaining unit of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) that seeks to lobby for greater government ...

In Beeman v. TDI Managed Care Services, the Ninth Circuit certified to the California Supreme Court the question of whether a statute requiring prescription drug claims processors to compile and summarize information on pharmacy fees for the purpose of distributing that information to pharmacies is compelled speech, in violation of the state consti ...

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Harris v. Quinn, which involves the free speech rights of workers who are forced by the government to support unions directly out of their paychecks. This case may turn out to be one of the most important decisions of the year, and you can read about … ...