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.

Supreme Court directs West Hollywood to respond to PLF’s legislative exactions challenge

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the City of West Hollywood to respond to PLF’s certiorari petition in the legislative exactions case, 616 Croft Ave, LLC v. City … ›

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 … ›

PLF Statement on Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District Victory

Sacramento, CA; June 25, 2013:  The U.S. Supreme Court today handed a victory to all property owners by ruling in favor of Pacific Legal Foundation’s client, Coy Koontz Jr., in … ›

Did the government push too far in Koontz?

With all of the talk about last week’s oral argument in Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District, there has been surprisingly little said about the radical position taken … ›

Koontz oral argument: Pacific Legal Foundation's legacy of Supreme Court success

Post coauthored by Lana Harfoush, Christina Martin and Jonathan Wood The countdown is over!  Today Paul J. Beard II argued Pacific Legal Foundation’s Koontz case before the United States Supreme Court.  Koontz … ›

Koontz oral argument: the balance of Dolan

Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in PLF’s property rights case, Koontz.  In a series of posts last week, we scrutinized the arguments being made and argued … ›

Paul Beard and Coy Koontz on Fox News

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Koontz oral argument: what do state and local governments think the Takings Clause protects?

In Koontz, governments across the country argue that the Takings Clause only applies to real property and not to demands for money.  But that argument can’t be squared with the … ›

Brand Logo for the blog page

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.

Supreme Court directs West Hollywood to respond to PLF’s legislative exactions challenge

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the City of West Hollywood to respond to PLF’s certiorari petition in the legislative exactions case, 616 Croft Ave, LLC v. City … ›

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 … ›

PLF Statement on Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District Victory

Sacramento, CA; June 25, 2013:  The U.S. Supreme Court today handed a victory to all property owners by ruling in favor of Pacific Legal Foundation’s client, Coy Koontz Jr., in … ›

Did the government push too far in Koontz?

With all of the talk about last week’s oral argument in Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District, there has been surprisingly little said about the radical position taken … ›

Koontz oral argument: Pacific Legal Foundation's legacy of Supreme Court success

Post coauthored by Lana Harfoush, Christina Martin and Jonathan Wood The countdown is over!  Today Paul J. Beard II argued Pacific Legal Foundation’s Koontz case before the United States Supreme Court.  Koontz … ›

Koontz oral argument: the balance of Dolan

Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in PLF’s property rights case, Koontz.  In a series of posts last week, we scrutinized the arguments being made and argued … ›

Paul Beard and Coy Koontz on Fox News

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Koontz oral argument: what do state and local governments think the Takings Clause protects?

In Koontz, governments across the country argue that the Takings Clause only applies to real property and not to demands for money.  But that argument can’t be squared with the … ›

The Morning Docket

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

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.

Supreme Court directs West Hollywood to respond to PLF’s legislative exactions challenge

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the City of West Hollywood to respond to PLF’s certiorari petition in the legislative exactions case, 616 Croft Ave, LLC v. City … ›

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 … ›

PLF Statement on Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District Victory

Sacramento, CA; June 25, 2013:  The U.S. Supreme Court today handed a victory to all property owners by ruling in favor of Pacific Legal Foundation’s client, Coy Koontz Jr., in … ›

Did the government push too far in Koontz?

With all of the talk about last week’s oral argument in Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District, there has been surprisingly little said about the radical position taken … ›

Koontz oral argument: Pacific Legal Foundation's legacy of Supreme Court success

Post coauthored by Lana Harfoush, Christina Martin and Jonathan Wood The countdown is over!  Today Paul J. Beard II argued Pacific Legal Foundation’s Koontz case before the United States Supreme Court.  Koontz … ›

Koontz oral argument: the balance of Dolan

Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in PLF’s property rights case, Koontz.  In a series of posts last week, we scrutinized the arguments being made and argued … ›

Paul Beard and Coy Koontz on Fox News

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Koontz oral argument: what do state and local governments think the Takings Clause protects?

In Koontz, governments across the country argue that the Takings Clause only applies to real property and not to demands for money.  But that argument can’t be squared with the … ›

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.

Supreme Court directs West Hollywood to respond to PLF’s legislative exactions challenge

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the City of West Hollywood to respond to PLF’s certiorari petition in the legislative exactions case, 616 Croft Ave, LLC v. City … ›

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 … ›

PLF Statement on Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District Victory

Sacramento, CA; June 25, 2013:  The U.S. Supreme Court today handed a victory to all property owners by ruling in favor of Pacific Legal Foundation’s client, Coy Koontz Jr., in … ›

Did the government push too far in Koontz?

With all of the talk about last week’s oral argument in Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District, there has been surprisingly little said about the radical position taken … ›

Koontz oral argument: Pacific Legal Foundation's legacy of Supreme Court success

Post coauthored by Lana Harfoush, Christina Martin and Jonathan Wood The countdown is over!  Today Paul J. Beard II argued Pacific Legal Foundation’s Koontz case before the United States Supreme Court.  Koontz … ›

Koontz oral argument: the balance of Dolan

Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in PLF’s property rights case, Koontz.  In a series of posts last week, we scrutinized the arguments being made and argued … ›

Paul Beard and Coy Koontz on Fox News

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Koontz oral argument: what do state and local governments think the Takings Clause protects?

In Koontz, governments across the country argue that the Takings Clause only applies to real property and not to demands for money.  But that argument can’t be squared with the … ›