The scope of PLF's Hawkes Co. Supreme Court case could have implications for millions of landowners
PLF Director of Communications Harold Johnson interviews PLF attorneys Reed Hopper and Mark Miller about Hawkes Co., Inc., et al. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, a case being appealed at the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of March. PLF is representing Hawkes Co., a business who wants to harvest peat from it’s property in northwestern Minnesota. The United States Army Corps of Engineers claims the usage of the property falls under the Clean Water Act and the owners of Hawkes Co. would have to get costly permits, that would be detrimental to their business.
We invite you to listen weekly and subscribe to PLF’s Courting Liberty podcast. The show features a weekly look at development in our high-profile cases, interviews with PLF attorneys and clients, in-depth analysis with policy experts, our “Ask a Lawyer” segment, and everything else PLF.
learn more about
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes
Hawkes Company is a family-owned business in Minnesota that harvests peat moss, for landscaping. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers improperly claimed jurisdiction over the property as regulated wetlands. This put Hawkes in the untenable position of (1) abandoning all use of the land at great loss; (2) spending several hundred thousand dollars to seek an unnecessary federal permit; or (3) using the land without federal approval at the risk of $37,500-a-day fines and criminal prosecution. When Hawkes challenged the Corps in court, lower courts dismissed the case as unripe for review. But the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that a Jurisdictional Determination is a binding legal decision subject to immediate judicial challenge.Read more
What to read next
Our friends at Institute for Justice have convinced the Supreme Court to soon decide in the case Timbs v. Indiana whether the Constitution restrains states (and not just the federal government) from … ›
This morning the Ninth Circuit released this opinion in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra, a case about whether California can demand confidential donor forms from nonprofit organizations operating within … ›