The Docket: July 24, 2026
The Docket is PLF’s weekly newsletter covering the cases, clients, and policy battles shaping the future of liberty in America. You can catch up on last week’s Docket here and subscribe below to receive future editions in your inbox.
A homebuilder challenges a six-figure fee to subdivide one lot into two; Texas nurses set their sights on the State’s “pay to practice” scheme; and PLF attorney Charles Yates applauds the Trump administration’s repeal of an ESA rule historically weaponized against landowners.
California homebuilder challenges City’s six-figure ‘recreation in-lieu’ fee
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “exactions,” or conditions imposed on land-use approvals, must be directly related to the impact and scope of a project to be valid. The Court has even characterized improperly applied exactions as little more than “an out-and-out plan of extortion.”
Yet Americans like California homebuilder Mircea Voskerician are regularly hit with exorbitant demands from local governments simply for permission to make productive use of their property.
In Mircea’s case, the City of Menlo Park demanded his business pay a $127,400 “recreation in-lieu” fee before it would approve his plans to subdivide a property into two lots. Now, Mircea is challenging the six-figure fee in state court as a violation of both state law and the U.S. Constitution.
Texas nurses fight ‘pay to practice’ scheme banning them from working without physician permission
Texas law requires nurse practitioners—even those with 30+ years of experience like PLF client Sandy McCoy—to secure a “collaborative practice agreement” with a physician before they can operate independently.
In practice, these agreements amount to little more than expensive permission slips, with some NPs paying as much as $50,000 simply to practice the skills they are already licensed to practice.
Now, Sandy has teamed up with the nonprofit Texas Nurse Practitioners to challenge the “pay to practice” scheme under the Texas constitution.
PLF applauds repeal of Endangered Species Act’s ‘blanket’ 4(d) rule
On Tuesday, the Trump administration confirmed the repeal of the Endangered Species Act’s “blanket” 4(d) rule, a provision that extended protections generally reserved for endangered species to threatened species.
PLF attorney Charles Yates applauded the repeal, noting that “for many years federal bureaucrats have viewed [the 4(d) rule] as a blank check to control land use across the country.”
Tattoo company files First Amendment lawsuit to challenge South Carolina’s restrictions on protected expression
South Carolina bans tattoo studios within 1,000 feet of any church, school, or playground. It also criminalizes tattooing anyone’s head, face, or neck. These prohibitions do nothing to make tattooing safer; instead, they reflect the State’s disapproval of tattoo art and those who create it.
Under the First Amendment, tattooing is protected expression. So, we’re proud to represent a pair of local tattoo enthusiasts and a pop-up tattoo studio in challenging these restrictions in federal court.
California property owner sues State for violating Fourth Amendment through mandatory participation in Section 8 Housing Program
In 2019, California amended its Fair Employment and Housing Act to effectively require landlord participation in the federal Section 8 program. As a condition of the program, landlords must grant the local housing authority, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Comptroller General “full and free access” to the voucher-assisted rental unit—without a warrant, probable cause, or opportunity for pre-compliance review.
For Thomas Manning, a Sacramento-based business owner with roughly 300 properties under management, the Section 8 obligations are a step too far. States cannot force participation in a federal program that Congress made optional—particularly when participating in that program threatens their constitutional rights.
Thomas is now fighting back with a federal lawsuit challenging California’s mandate, seeking to strengthen property owners’ Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless searches.
