PLF files its Supreme Court reply brief in Murr v. Wisconsin

The Supreme Court of the United States today received PLF’s Reply Brief on the Merits in Murr v. Wisconsin, filed on behalf of the Murr family. The case is now fully briefed, and ready for scheduling oral argument. It is … Continue reading

President’s weekly report — June 3, 2016

Supreme Court Victory! The Supreme Court gave Pacific Legal Foundation a resounding victory on Monday in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes. The unanimous Court held that a Corps of Engineers’ Jurisdictional Determination (i.e. wetlands delineation) is immediately … Continue reading

Amici line up in support of the Murr family

Yesterday, eleven separate briefs representing over 30 entities were filed in the Supreme Court of the United States in support of the Murrs in this high profile regulatory taking case. Of particular note, the State of Nevada was joined by … Continue reading

PLF files opening brief at Supreme Court in Murr v. Wisconsin

Pacific Legal Foundation today filed its Petitioners’ Brief on the Merits in this case pending before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court granted review on January 15th, 2016, and oral argument will be held in early October. … Continue reading

Supreme Court agrees to hear PLF “relevant parcel” case

For almost 25 years since Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, it has been well established that government agencies commit an unconstitutional taking when their regulations deprive a property owner’s land of “all economically viable use.” But when a property … Continue reading

Stay tuned: Another PLF case on the Supreme Court “relist” watch

In addition to Corps v. Hawkes and Kent Recycling v. Corps, Pacific legal Foundation has a third case that has been “relisted” and is being given serious consideration for a grant of certiorari.  Under the current procedure, the Supreme Court of … Continue reading

Federal government argues it cannot be sued in federal court for a violation of the Fifth Amendment

In Brott et. al. v. United States, a group of Michigan property owners have brought suit against the United States for a violation of their rights under the Fifth Amendment. They contend that the federal “rails to trails” program has … Continue reading