Florida appellate court to hold oral argument in PLF case this week

On Tuesday, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal will hold oral arguments in a number of cases, including in Pacific Legal Foundation‘s P.I.E., LLC v. DeSoto County. Christina Martin and … ›

PLF asks Supreme Court to secure property owners’ path to takings claim

This week, PLF filed this amicus brief in Beach Group Investments, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection.  This case raises yet another example of how the lower courts are … ›

Michigan’s foreclosure law: Efficient or unfair?

As you will recall, since last year, Christina Martin has been keeping you up to date on Michigan’s unjust, and unconstitutional foreclosure law in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County. Before PLF took over the direct representation of the victims of this unfair law, including Wayside Church, it filed an amicus brief to support them in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. It explained how Michigan’s tax scheme violates the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

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.

Seattle’s tax on achievement is a Trojan Horse that threatens the poor and middle class

One of the things that makes Washington’s legal landscape so unique is that the state constitution was drafted by people who, having just witnessed the Civil War, were wary of state and federal government. As a result, our constitution provides many protections rarely found elsewhere in the country, such as a provision prohibiting the government from targeting political minorities to bear uneven tax burdens. Specifically, Article VII, Section I of the Washington State Constitution states that “all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property … The word ‘property’ as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.”

For nearly a century, the Washington’s Supreme Court has repeatedly held that income is property and, therefore, the constitution prohibits targeted income taxes. And all attempts to change this constitutional provision through the courts, legislature, and via popular initiative have failed. Indeed, our state’s top-to-bottom economy has benefitted from this constitutional barrier to targeted income taxes, attracting large and high-paying employers.

Should a business owner recover economic damages when the government condemns his property?

In a brief filed earlier today, PLF attorneys urge the U.S. Supreme Court to answer this important question concerning the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that property shall not be taken without … ›

Groups ask Supreme Court to grant PLF’s petition in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County

This week several groups filed “friend of the court” briefs supporting PLF’s Supreme Court petition in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County. Two of the amicus briefs—one by AARP and the … ›

Secure property rights are the key to conservation

Too often, property rights and conservation are treated as if they are in tension. But, in reality, property rights are a proven means to encourage responsible stewardship, resolve conflicts over … ›

Weekly litigation report — July 15, 2017

PLF asks Supreme Court to protect plaintiffs’ right to raise takings claims in federal courts when government steals Complaint filed against Marin County forced farming law Mandatory housing shakedown fees before … ›

Brand Logo for the blog page

Florida appellate court to hold oral argument in PLF case this week

On Tuesday, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal will hold oral arguments in a number of cases, including in Pacific Legal Foundation‘s P.I.E., LLC v. DeSoto County. Christina Martin and … ›

PLF asks Supreme Court to secure property owners’ path to takings claim

This week, PLF filed this amicus brief in Beach Group Investments, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection.  This case raises yet another example of how the lower courts are … ›

Michigan’s foreclosure law: Efficient or unfair?

As you will recall, since last year, Christina Martin has been keeping you up to date on Michigan’s unjust, and unconstitutional foreclosure law in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County. Before PLF took over the direct representation of the victims of this unfair law, including Wayside Church, it filed an amicus brief to support them in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. It explained how Michigan’s tax scheme violates the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

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.

Seattle’s tax on achievement is a Trojan Horse that threatens the poor and middle class

One of the things that makes Washington’s legal landscape so unique is that the state constitution was drafted by people who, having just witnessed the Civil War, were wary of state and federal government. As a result, our constitution provides many protections rarely found elsewhere in the country, such as a provision prohibiting the government from targeting political minorities to bear uneven tax burdens. Specifically, Article VII, Section I of the Washington State Constitution states that “all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property … The word ‘property’ as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.”

For nearly a century, the Washington’s Supreme Court has repeatedly held that income is property and, therefore, the constitution prohibits targeted income taxes. And all attempts to change this constitutional provision through the courts, legislature, and via popular initiative have failed. Indeed, our state’s top-to-bottom economy has benefitted from this constitutional barrier to targeted income taxes, attracting large and high-paying employers.

Should a business owner recover economic damages when the government condemns his property?

In a brief filed earlier today, PLF attorneys urge the U.S. Supreme Court to answer this important question concerning the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that property shall not be taken without … ›

Groups ask Supreme Court to grant PLF’s petition in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County

This week several groups filed “friend of the court” briefs supporting PLF’s Supreme Court petition in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County. Two of the amicus briefs—one by AARP and the … ›

Secure property rights are the key to conservation

Too often, property rights and conservation are treated as if they are in tension. But, in reality, property rights are a proven means to encourage responsible stewardship, resolve conflicts over … ›

Weekly litigation report — July 15, 2017

PLF asks Supreme Court to protect plaintiffs’ right to raise takings claims in federal courts when government steals Complaint filed against Marin County forced farming law Mandatory housing shakedown fees before … ›

The Morning Docket

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

Florida appellate court to hold oral argument in PLF case this week

On Tuesday, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal will hold oral arguments in a number of cases, including in Pacific Legal Foundation‘s P.I.E., LLC v. DeSoto County. Christina Martin and … ›

PLF asks Supreme Court to secure property owners’ path to takings claim

This week, PLF filed this amicus brief in Beach Group Investments, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection.  This case raises yet another example of how the lower courts are … ›

Michigan’s foreclosure law: Efficient or unfair?

As you will recall, since last year, Christina Martin has been keeping you up to date on Michigan’s unjust, and unconstitutional foreclosure law in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County. Before PLF took over the direct representation of the victims of this unfair law, including Wayside Church, it filed an amicus brief to support them in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. It explained how Michigan’s tax scheme violates the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

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.

Seattle’s tax on achievement is a Trojan Horse that threatens the poor and middle class

One of the things that makes Washington’s legal landscape so unique is that the state constitution was drafted by people who, having just witnessed the Civil War, were wary of state and federal government. As a result, our constitution provides many protections rarely found elsewhere in the country, such as a provision prohibiting the government from targeting political minorities to bear uneven tax burdens. Specifically, Article VII, Section I of the Washington State Constitution states that “all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property … The word ‘property’ as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.”

For nearly a century, the Washington’s Supreme Court has repeatedly held that income is property and, therefore, the constitution prohibits targeted income taxes. And all attempts to change this constitutional provision through the courts, legislature, and via popular initiative have failed. Indeed, our state’s top-to-bottom economy has benefitted from this constitutional barrier to targeted income taxes, attracting large and high-paying employers.

Should a business owner recover economic damages when the government condemns his property?

In a brief filed earlier today, PLF attorneys urge the U.S. Supreme Court to answer this important question concerning the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that property shall not be taken without … ›

Groups ask Supreme Court to grant PLF’s petition in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County

This week several groups filed “friend of the court” briefs supporting PLF’s Supreme Court petition in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County. Two of the amicus briefs—one by AARP and the … ›

Secure property rights are the key to conservation

Too often, property rights and conservation are treated as if they are in tension. But, in reality, property rights are a proven means to encourage responsible stewardship, resolve conflicts over … ›

Weekly litigation report — July 15, 2017

PLF asks Supreme Court to protect plaintiffs’ right to raise takings claims in federal courts when government steals Complaint filed against Marin County forced farming law Mandatory housing shakedown fees before … ›

Florida appellate court to hold oral argument in PLF case this week

On Tuesday, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal will hold oral arguments in a number of cases, including in Pacific Legal Foundation‘s P.I.E., LLC v. DeSoto County. Christina Martin and … ›

PLF asks Supreme Court to secure property owners’ path to takings claim

This week, PLF filed this amicus brief in Beach Group Investments, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection.  This case raises yet another example of how the lower courts are … ›

Michigan’s foreclosure law: Efficient or unfair?

As you will recall, since last year, Christina Martin has been keeping you up to date on Michigan’s unjust, and unconstitutional foreclosure law in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County. Before PLF took over the direct representation of the victims of this unfair law, including Wayside Church, it filed an amicus brief to support them in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. It explained how Michigan’s tax scheme violates the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

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.

Seattle’s tax on achievement is a Trojan Horse that threatens the poor and middle class

One of the things that makes Washington’s legal landscape so unique is that the state constitution was drafted by people who, having just witnessed the Civil War, were wary of state and federal government. As a result, our constitution provides many protections rarely found elsewhere in the country, such as a provision prohibiting the government from targeting political minorities to bear uneven tax burdens. Specifically, Article VII, Section I of the Washington State Constitution states that “all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property … The word ‘property’ as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.”

For nearly a century, the Washington’s Supreme Court has repeatedly held that income is property and, therefore, the constitution prohibits targeted income taxes. And all attempts to change this constitutional provision through the courts, legislature, and via popular initiative have failed. Indeed, our state’s top-to-bottom economy has benefitted from this constitutional barrier to targeted income taxes, attracting large and high-paying employers.

Should a business owner recover economic damages when the government condemns his property?

In a brief filed earlier today, PLF attorneys urge the U.S. Supreme Court to answer this important question concerning the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that property shall not be taken without … ›

Groups ask Supreme Court to grant PLF’s petition in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County

This week several groups filed “friend of the court” briefs supporting PLF’s Supreme Court petition in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County. Two of the amicus briefs—one by AARP and the … ›

Secure property rights are the key to conservation

Too often, property rights and conservation are treated as if they are in tension. But, in reality, property rights are a proven means to encourage responsible stewardship, resolve conflicts over … ›

Weekly litigation report — July 15, 2017

PLF asks Supreme Court to protect plaintiffs’ right to raise takings claims in federal courts when government steals Complaint filed against Marin County forced farming law Mandatory housing shakedown fees before … ›