Earlier today, the San Francisco Daily Journal published Pacific Legal Foundation’s op-ed on the Yates v. United States decision handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States this week. In the piece, we laud the Supreme Court’s important—and correct—decision. The … Continue reading
A few weeks ago, I blogged about California’s current effort to have millions of homes and businesses in California declared “public nuisances” because they contain lead paint. The law of public nuisance is very vague: it’s defined as “an unreasonable … Continue reading
Today the Pacific Legal Foundation, along with our friends at the Institute for Justice and the Cato Institute, filed this brief supporting the ACLU in Rosebrock v. Hoffman, a free speech case that is even more interesting for what it could … Continue reading
Two of my articles were recently published in the Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, and Natural Resources Law. The first is entitled “Bringing in The Sheaves: Home Grown Wheat, Weed, And Limits on The Commerce Clause.” This article involves a … Continue reading
This morning, PLF is announcing its new nationwide campaign against “Certificate of Convenience and Necessity” laws. These are licensing requirements that apply to taxi and limo companies, moving companies, ambulances, even car dealerships and hospitals. We call these laws “Competitor’s Veto” … Continue reading
PLF’s petition to the U.S.Supreme Court in Kent Recycling Services v. Corps (14-493) will be up for review as soon as February 18. Federal regulations allow the Corp of Engineers to issue a site-specific Jurisdictional Determination delineating “waters of the … Continue reading
The Daily Journal in San Francisco and Los Angeles published an op ed I wrote about Horne v. U.S.D.A., also known as the “raisin takings case.” As I reported, the U.S. Supreme Court recently granted cert in this case, for the second time. The … Continue reading
Under the Clean Water Act, the United States Army Corps of Engineers regulates wetlands throughout the nation. Owners must obtain a permit from the Corps to develop, build upon, or otherwise alter their properties, if those properties contain “jurisdictional wetlands.” The Corps’ rules specifically exclude from the permitting requirement properties that are separated from other wetlands by man-made barriers, such as roads or dikes. The problem: in an effort to expand its authority, the Corps is ignoring the regulatory exclusion.
Representing a small Alaska company, Universal Welding, PLF filed a lawsuit last week against the Corps for requiring the company to obtain a permit to expand operations on its property, which is separated from a jurisdictional wetland by a county-owned public road. A clearer man-made barrier could not exist. Accordingly, Universal Welding’s property in Fairbanks, Alaska, qualifies for the regulatory exclusion.
But the Corps says it is not bound by its own rules and can require Universal Welding to obtain a permit. Does the Corps care that it is ignoring the rules? No. It has drafted lawyers from the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. to defend against PLF’s lawsuit, which is intended to enforce the rule of law against a bloated government bureaucracy seeking to impose its will in every corner of the nation under the guise of enforcing the Clean Water Act. We will meet them in court. Our motion for summary judgment can be found here: MSJ – Universal Welding.
Pacific Legal Foundation often takes on cases where private property owners face unconstitutional action by the federal government. But another dispute recently caught PLF’s eye, and this battle involves a local government taking on the feds. In a nutshell, the Michigan upper-peninsula government … Continue reading
In the last decade, California was one of a group of states and cities that sued sellers and manufacturers of lead paint on the theory that those companies had contributed to a “public nuisance.” Public nuisance is a very vague … Continue reading