PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine

It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›

Article: are critical area buffers unconstitutional?

Today, the Seattle Journal of Environmental Law published my article, Are Critical Area Buffers Unconstitutional? Demystifying The Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions. Although the article focuses on developments in Washington state law, it contains arguments relevant to property rights practitioners elsewhere. For example, the article explains why a demand that a landowner dedicate a “buffer area” takes valuable property rights. It also dispels the mistaken belief that conditions imposed pursuant to generally applicable legislation should be subject less rigorous scrutiny than all other conditions.

Washington state exaction scheme before the U.S. Supreme Court

San Juan County’s scheme to force shoreline property owners into dedicating water treatment buffers is now pending on a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case, Common … ›

Fighting to protect San Juan property owners from land grab

On June 2, 2015, Division I of the Washington State Court of Appeals is set to hear oral argument in the first state case seeking to limit government’s ability to … ›

Fighting to protect San Juan property owners from land grab

Yesterday, PLF attorneys filed an amicus brief in support of San Juan County’s shoreline property owners in the case, Common Sense Alliance v. Growth Management Hearings Board. At issue is … ›

Washington trial court fumbles the ball in a post-Koontz case

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District last year, I have been on a speaking tour with a prominent government attorney, discussing the … ›

Los Angeles responds to our General Plan 2035 letter

The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission is currently in the process of adopting General Plan 2035. Like Obamacare, General Plan 2035 checks in at a whopping 900 pages. It … ›

Appellate court ruling blesses extortionate land-use practices

Yesterday, the California First District Court of Appeal ruled against us in Powell v. County of Humboldt.  This is the case challenging the County of Humboldt’s requirement that our clients, … ›

VICTORY! California Coastal Commission "checks out," scales back its demands on the Marshall Tavern renovation

Yesterday, the California Coastal Commission voted to amend the permit to renovate the Marshall Tavern, reducing project-killing conditions that had no connection to the renovation plan.  PLF is representing the … ›

Brand Logo for the blog page

PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine

It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›

Article: are critical area buffers unconstitutional?

Today, the Seattle Journal of Environmental Law published my article, Are Critical Area Buffers Unconstitutional? Demystifying The Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions. Although the article focuses on developments in Washington state law, it contains arguments relevant to property rights practitioners elsewhere. For example, the article explains why a demand that a landowner dedicate a “buffer area” takes valuable property rights. It also dispels the mistaken belief that conditions imposed pursuant to generally applicable legislation should be subject less rigorous scrutiny than all other conditions.

Washington state exaction scheme before the U.S. Supreme Court

San Juan County’s scheme to force shoreline property owners into dedicating water treatment buffers is now pending on a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case, Common … ›

Fighting to protect San Juan property owners from land grab

On June 2, 2015, Division I of the Washington State Court of Appeals is set to hear oral argument in the first state case seeking to limit government’s ability to … ›

Fighting to protect San Juan property owners from land grab

Yesterday, PLF attorneys filed an amicus brief in support of San Juan County’s shoreline property owners in the case, Common Sense Alliance v. Growth Management Hearings Board. At issue is … ›

Washington trial court fumbles the ball in a post-Koontz case

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District last year, I have been on a speaking tour with a prominent government attorney, discussing the … ›

Los Angeles responds to our General Plan 2035 letter

The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission is currently in the process of adopting General Plan 2035. Like Obamacare, General Plan 2035 checks in at a whopping 900 pages. It … ›

Appellate court ruling blesses extortionate land-use practices

Yesterday, the California First District Court of Appeal ruled against us in Powell v. County of Humboldt.  This is the case challenging the County of Humboldt’s requirement that our clients, … ›

VICTORY! California Coastal Commission "checks out," scales back its demands on the Marshall Tavern renovation

Yesterday, the California Coastal Commission voted to amend the permit to renovate the Marshall Tavern, reducing project-killing conditions that had no connection to the renovation plan.  PLF is representing the … ›

The Morning Docket

Stay up to date with the Morning Docket, a weekly highlight of PLF's best articles, videos, and podcasts.

PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine

It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›

Article: are critical area buffers unconstitutional?

Today, the Seattle Journal of Environmental Law published my article, Are Critical Area Buffers Unconstitutional? Demystifying The Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions. Although the article focuses on developments in Washington state law, it contains arguments relevant to property rights practitioners elsewhere. For example, the article explains why a demand that a landowner dedicate a “buffer area” takes valuable property rights. It also dispels the mistaken belief that conditions imposed pursuant to generally applicable legislation should be subject less rigorous scrutiny than all other conditions.

Washington state exaction scheme before the U.S. Supreme Court

San Juan County’s scheme to force shoreline property owners into dedicating water treatment buffers is now pending on a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case, Common … ›

Fighting to protect San Juan property owners from land grab

On June 2, 2015, Division I of the Washington State Court of Appeals is set to hear oral argument in the first state case seeking to limit government’s ability to … ›

Fighting to protect San Juan property owners from land grab

Yesterday, PLF attorneys filed an amicus brief in support of San Juan County’s shoreline property owners in the case, Common Sense Alliance v. Growth Management Hearings Board. At issue is … ›

Washington trial court fumbles the ball in a post-Koontz case

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District last year, I have been on a speaking tour with a prominent government attorney, discussing the … ›

Los Angeles responds to our General Plan 2035 letter

The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission is currently in the process of adopting General Plan 2035. Like Obamacare, General Plan 2035 checks in at a whopping 900 pages. It … ›

Appellate court ruling blesses extortionate land-use practices

Yesterday, the California First District Court of Appeal ruled against us in Powell v. County of Humboldt.  This is the case challenging the County of Humboldt’s requirement that our clients, … ›

VICTORY! California Coastal Commission "checks out," scales back its demands on the Marshall Tavern renovation

Yesterday, the California Coastal Commission voted to amend the permit to renovate the Marshall Tavern, reducing project-killing conditions that had no connection to the renovation plan.  PLF is representing the … ›

PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine

It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›

Article: are critical area buffers unconstitutional?

Today, the Seattle Journal of Environmental Law published my article, Are Critical Area Buffers Unconstitutional? Demystifying The Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions. Although the article focuses on developments in Washington state law, it contains arguments relevant to property rights practitioners elsewhere. For example, the article explains why a demand that a landowner dedicate a “buffer area” takes valuable property rights. It also dispels the mistaken belief that conditions imposed pursuant to generally applicable legislation should be subject less rigorous scrutiny than all other conditions.

Washington state exaction scheme before the U.S. Supreme Court

San Juan County’s scheme to force shoreline property owners into dedicating water treatment buffers is now pending on a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case, Common … ›

Fighting to protect San Juan property owners from land grab

On June 2, 2015, Division I of the Washington State Court of Appeals is set to hear oral argument in the first state case seeking to limit government’s ability to … ›

Fighting to protect San Juan property owners from land grab

Yesterday, PLF attorneys filed an amicus brief in support of San Juan County’s shoreline property owners in the case, Common Sense Alliance v. Growth Management Hearings Board. At issue is … ›

Washington trial court fumbles the ball in a post-Koontz case

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District last year, I have been on a speaking tour with a prominent government attorney, discussing the … ›

Los Angeles responds to our General Plan 2035 letter

The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission is currently in the process of adopting General Plan 2035. Like Obamacare, General Plan 2035 checks in at a whopping 900 pages. It … ›

Appellate court ruling blesses extortionate land-use practices

Yesterday, the California First District Court of Appeal ruled against us in Powell v. County of Humboldt.  This is the case challenging the County of Humboldt’s requirement that our clients, … ›

VICTORY! California Coastal Commission "checks out," scales back its demands on the Marshall Tavern renovation

Yesterday, the California Coastal Commission voted to amend the permit to renovate the Marshall Tavern, reducing project-killing conditions that had no connection to the renovation plan.  PLF is representing the … ›