The Docket: June 12, 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 new blog honors the late Gordon S. Wood; the Sabey family shares the harrowing story of their children being taken without a warrant; and a California life coach files a federal lawsuit in defense of her First Amendment rights.
Remembering Gordon S. Wood and the idea of America
This week, America lost one of the foremost historians of the American Founding with the passing of Brown University professor Gordon S. Wood.
Through his work, he inspired generations of students, writers, constitutional lawyers, and historians to not only study the American Founding, but to continue its legacy.
“Strangers though we were,” PLF’s Brittany Hunter reflects, “he is the reason I ended up working on a communications team for a constitutional law firm like Pacific Legal Foundation.”
American Heroes: The government took their children at 1 a.m. without a warrant
Most parents assume that if the government wants to take their children, it first has to convince a judge. PLF clients Josh Sabey and Sarah Perkins learned otherwise.
On this month’s episode of American Heroes, PLF’s Kathy Hoekstra sits down with Josh and Sarah to discuss their harrowing experience with the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families, how their family fought to reunite, and why they chose to challenge the government’s actions in court.
“I think we felt like it’s our responsibility to fight back as citizens,” Josh recalls. “The government is not allowed to behave this way, and we’re not going to let it.”
Life coach fights California’s attempt to license conversation
Under California law, any paid conversation that touches on emotions, motivation, or behavior potentially qualifies as the “practice of psychology” and requires a license. As written, no life coach, pastor, or mentor can clearly understand whether their work counts.
Now, PLF client and life coach Anna Runkle is fighting back with a federal lawsuit arguing the California Board of Psychology violated her First Amendment rights by prosecuting her for practicing psychology without a license.
NLRB’s in-house tribunal undermines fairness and rule of law
Labor disputes, like any other legal dispute, should be heard in a courtroom—not redirected to an agency tribunal where the normal rules of due process are suspended.
But that’s exactly what happened to PLF client Phil Peerless and his company, Atlantic Veal & Lamb, when the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns decimated his business—resulting in a round of layoffs and a bitter labor dispute with recently unionized staff.
Today, Phil and his company are fighting back with PLF’s help—challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s sham court that stripped their right to a fair trial.
California architect did everything right—and Nevada fined him $29,000 anyway
When Jeffrey Hagen, a California-based architect, agreed to help a longtime client with a Las Vegas project, he did everything by the book—applying for reciprocity with the Nevada State Board of Architecture, truthfully disclosing that he was already working with a client and that he was a California architect, not a Nevada one.
Still, the Board chose to make an example out of him—imposing a $29,000 fine after a proceeding in which it served as its own prosecutor, judge, and jury. After Jeffrey appealed the decision to a district court that upheld the fine, PLF joined the fight.
“The Board wasn’t trying to remedy a harm—no one was hurt by what Hagen did,” said PLF attorney Cameron Halling after oral argument before the Nevada Supreme Court last week. “When the government uses its penalty power to deter and punish rather than restore, the accused have a right to a jury.”
Quick Hits
- Wall Street Journal: It isn’t romantic when the Labor Department says ‘your mine’
- Washington Examiner: Backdoor rulemaking—The government’s obsession with guidance
- Why a fund for young innovators is challenging California’s intrusive reporting mandate
- Federal court hears oral argument on whether HISA’s private enforcement regime is constitutional
