In Duarte v. Corps of Engineers, the trial court has, for the second time, denied a motion by the federal government to dismiss Duarte Nursery’s claims for violation of the Due Process Clause against the Army Corps of Engineers. Over two years ago, the Army Corps ordered Duarte off its farm over alleged violations of the Clean Water Act without affording Duarte a hearing, in violation of the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution. PLF filed suit on behalf of Duarte to get the Army Corps’ cease and desist order thrown out.
The government first moved to dismiss this claim because it had not yet taken an enforcement action against Duarte in court, and therefore Duarte’s due process suit was supposedly not yet ripe, meaning that it was too early to sue. The court denied that motion, finding that the Corps’ actions had harmed Duarte and that the farming business could proceed with its due process suit.
Then the federal government filed a civil enforcement action against Duarte, and again asked the court to dismiss Duarte’s due process suit against the Army Corps. This time, the theory was that the due process claim was moot, on the assertion that the cease and desist order was doing no further harm to Duarte. This week, the court ruled against the Corps on this motion, so now Duarte’s Due Process case will proceed to the merits.
This morning, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the combined Alabama redistricting cases – Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference vs. Alabama. PLF filed this amicus brief before the Court. The plaintiffs in these cases challenged Alabama’s 2010 redistricting plan as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Under the Supreme Court’s racial gerrymandering cases, the plaintiffs had to prove that race was the “predominant factor” in the legislature’s redistricting considerations. The lower court ruled in favor of Alabama. It concluded that compliance with the Constitution’s one-person, one-vote requirement – not race – was the predominant factor in the redistricting acts.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Breyer, vacated the lower court’s opinion, but did not reach the merits of the racial gerrymandering claims. Instead, the decision turned on a procedural issue – namely, whether the plaintiffs had adequately presented to the district court their argument that particular districts were racially gerrymandered, as opposed to the state as a whole. The Supreme Court held that only individual districts can be gerrymandered, and found – unlike the district court – that the plaintiffs had indeed made such a claim. Therefore, it sent the case back to the lower court for reconsideration the individual district claims.
I’ll be on air with our friends Armstrong & Getty tomorrow at 7 Pacific to discuss some interesting Supreme Court arguments this week (none of which PLF is involved in). These include the case about whether the states can restrict what organizations may put their symbols on license plates, which raises some very interesting First Amendment questions.
You can listen online here.
Update: If you missed it, you can listen here.
Unfortunately, the New Jersey Supreme Court just significantly cut back on that state’s constitutional protections for private property. New Jersey’s Constitution provides that private property cannot be taken for economic redevelopment except in the case of blight. In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s disastrous Kelo decision, which removed any check the U.S. Constitution has on these takings, the New Jersey Supreme Court breathed new life into its state constitution’s protections. It held that the state must prove that property satisfies the constitutional requirements for blight before it could exercise the awesome power of eminent domain. Mere speculation or conclusory government statements were not enough. This week, that changed. Now, the Constitution’s protections only apply to a subset of cases.
The government must pay you if it takes your house. Should that rule be any different if it takes your furniture?
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument next month in Horne v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, a case involving a Depression-era regulation that, as Justice Kagan put it, might just be the world’s most outdated law. The law requires California raisin producers to turn over a portion of their crop to a Raisin Administrative Committee before they are allowed to sell the remainder on the open market. PLF filed an amicus brief supporting petitioners Melvin and Laura Horne, farmers from Fresno who have been asked to turn over as much as 47 percent of their harvest. We have also written about the case on our blog (here, here, and here) and at the Daily Journal.
The Mercatus Center has published my paper on Competitor’s Veto laws—laws that force you to get permission from your own competition before you’re allowed to start a business—and how the federal government could protect people from such violations of their constitutional right to earn a living. My paper describes in detail the evidence unearthed in our recent lawsuits against Kentucky and Missouri on behalf of entrepreneurs who were unfairly denied their right to start businesses, because government officials thought there was no need for more competition.
Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court missed an opportunity to address a matter of great national importance. The Corps of Engineers can subject private property to strict federal regulation without any meaningful judicial review. This emboldens the agency to exceed its power at will and federalize local ditches, ponds and streams as “waters of the United States” under the expansive Clean Water Act. Even when the agency blatantly misapplies the law, as in Kent Recycling, landowners have no practical recourse but to acquiesce to federal regulatory demands.
In Kent Recycling, the Corps issued the landowners (Belle Company) an erroneous Jurisdictional Determination claiming the subject property contained jurisdictional wetlands. A reviewing officer concluded the determination was improper because it applied the wrong legal standard and was lacking in evidence. But the Corps issued the determination anyway. The trial and appellate courts refused to review the determination leaving the landowner with only three options: (1) abandon the proposed use of the land, at great cost; (2) get a permit that may not be legally required at a cost of over $270,000; or (3), proceed with the proposed project and incur fines of $37,500 a day and possible criminal sanctions.
PLF petitioned the Supreme Court arguing that those with an interest in the property were denied due process and should have been allowed an opportunity in court to challenge the accuracy and validity of the Corps’ Jurisdictional Determination. This was important not only for the petitioners, but for the tens of thousands of landowners across the Country who are illegally subjected to heavy-handed federal regulation of their property without a fair judicial remedy. Unfortunately, the High Court denied review of the case today leaving landowners across the country a the mercy of agency overreaching.
Although the court did not address this issue in this case, there are other cases now pending in the appellate courts that raise the same issue, including our case in the 8th Circuit; Hawkes v. Corps. We will continue to press the Supreme Court until it determines whether Jurisdictional Determinations are subject to judicial review just like the compliance orders in our landmark Sackett case.
Environment & Endangered Species Act — 60-day notice filed for the Kangaroo Rat
As required by the Endangered Species Act, we filed a sixty-day notice on intent to sue with the United States Fish & Wildlife Service over the Service’s failure to act on our petition to delist the Stephens Kangaroo Rat. Ad described here, our petition is based on new scientific studies that show the rat is not endangered because its populations are not as isolated as once believed. If the Service doesn’t act in sixty days, we’ll sue.
Free Speech — Commercial speech vindicated in Virginia
In response to our lawsuit in McLean v. City of Alexandria, the City has repealed its ordinance that banned “for sale” signs on cars parked on city streets. The sort of restriction on commercial speech violates the First Amendment and rather than defend the unconstitutional law in court, the City made the wise decision to repeal it. For more on the case view a news video here or see our blog here.
Property Rights — Settlement in secret easement case
Martin County agreed to settle our lawsuit in Breinig v. Martin County where we’ve been representing the Flash Beach Grill. When the Robert and Anita Breinig sought to expand their operations, they were told that they couldn’t use a substantial amount of their property because there was an unrecorded secret conservation easement on it. What’s more, because they were already using part of that property for their restaurant, they were told they were subject to fines of $1000 per day. This is flatly illegal because to be effective easements must be recorded so people like the Breinigs will know about the restrictions before they buy property in the county. This week the County settled, and will now allow the Breinig’s to use their property for their restaurant. For more, see our blog post here. Continue reading
The EPA is preparing to adopt carbon emissions rules this summer that would likely shutter coal-powered plants in Florida and cost billions of dollars in compliance requirements. The rules would also hurt manatees, which are currently listed as “endangered” by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
As our readers know, the USFWS may soon reclassify the manatee as “threatened,” because the species has made excellent gains in recent years. Just last month, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission counted more than 6,000 manatees in Florida waters. That’s the most manatees the Commission has ever found in its aerial surveys of the species. Power plants rank among the most popular places for manatees to congregate in the chilly winter months.
According to a recent article by the Miami Herald, about two-thirds of Florida’s manatees survive the colder months by swimming in the warm waters that flow from power plants. If the EPA forces some of those plants to shut down, it would most likely hurt manatees, potentially undermining their recovery. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s last status review of the manatee specifically identified the “the potential loss of warm water at power plants” as “a significant habitat threat to the Florida manatee.” That report said, “the loss of major power plant outfalls could result in a substantial decline in manatee abundance along the Atlantic Coast and in southwestern Florida.” The EPA would do well to consider the unintended, but predictable, consequences that its regulations may have on the future of the manatee.
Law students and young lawyers who care about liberty, and believe in the principles that make our country a shining city upon a hill, take note: Pacific Legal Foundation wants you!
Pacific Legal Foundation’s College of Public Interest Law offers two-year litigation fellowships to graduates interested in rapidly gaining experience in major constitutional cases. The fellowships are open to all graduating individuals of demonstrated high achievement and offer an exceptional opportunity as a stepping stone to private practice, public agency law, an academic career, or a permanent place with Pacific Legal Foundation.
Applicants accepted for the College of Public Interest Law Fellowship will begin September, 2016. Fellows work in the Sacramento, California, headquarters of Pacific Legal Foundation, the largest and oldest national public interest law foundation litigating in support of private property rights, environmental balance, individual liberties, limited government, and the free enterprise system. Guided by experienced attorneys, each Fellow will take part in hands-on litigation, including lead attorney responsibilities in both trial level and appellate cases; and write publishable legal scholarship.
So what are you waiting for? Get busy applying. For more information, like where to send your application, click here.