Yesterday, Townhall published my op-ed highlighting the importance of PLF’s big, unanimous Supreme Court win in our Hawkes case (and its predecessor, Sackett) and whether these cases foreshadow anything for one of our cases currently pending before the Court. As regular … Continue reading
In the last few days, we’ve received a great collection of amicus briefs supporting our cert petition challenging the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the green sturgeon case, Building Industry Association of the Bay Area v. United States Department of Commerce. The issue … Continue reading
Complaint filed to stop “competitors’ veto” in West Virginia PLF attorneys challenged West Virginia’s Competitor’s Veto law on behalf of Arty Vogt, who owns a moving company based in Virginia. Arty would like to provide moving services within neighboring West … Continue reading
This week, PLF filed comments, joined by Bonner County, Idaho and the Idaho State Snowmobile Association (ISSA), on the Service’s proposed critical habitat designation for the woodland caribou. The comment argues that the Service must address changes in the species’ … Continue reading
I used to play a game called Frogger on my Dad’s ancient Apple II when I was a kid. His office smelled of pipe tobacco and wool blankets. It’s a good memory. In Frogger, you use the arrow keys to guide … Continue reading
So ask PLF attorneys on behalf of trade and property rights groups in a cert petition filed this week. The case, Building Industry Association of the Bay Area v. United States Department of Commerce, concerns the critical habitat designation for a … Continue reading
Today a Ninth Circuit three-judge panel issued a remarkable legal opinion. The bottom line: Decisions to include areas as part of critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under the ESA are judicially reviewable, while decisions not to exclude areas from critical habitat are not judicially reviewable. It’s one heck of a legal opinion.
Logic dictates that decisions to include or exclude areas from critical habitat are flip sides of the same coin. When deciding which area to include, one necessarily decides which areas not to include, i.e., which areas to exclude. It comes down to a question of what to leave in and what to leave out. But the Ninth Circuit panel didn’t see it that way when it opined that government decisions “not to exclude” areas from critical habitat designation for the green sturgeon species could not be judicially reviewed, on the ground that there was “no law to apply.”
The decision is wrong on the facts and wrong on the law. But this case is of more than academic interest to lawyers. Almost the entire West Coast of the United States has been designated by the government as critical habitat for the green sturgeon, placing substantial roadblocks to economic development and growth in the states of Washington, Oregon, and California. Quality of life issues for millions of Americans are at stake.
We are reviewing our legal options.
The physical invasion of the raisin snatchers — a property rights victory at the Supreme Court In a week marked by several major Supreme Court decisions that were quite disappointing to advocates of limited government and the rule of law, there was one … Continue reading
Lawsuit abuse — Filing without injury PLF filed this letter brief asking the California Supreme Court to review of Animal Legal Defense Fund v. LT Napa Partners—which PLF asked the Supreme Court to overturn an Unfair Competition Law (UCL) case that threatens … Continue reading
POTUS’s WOTUS headed for SCOTUS? The President’s EPA minions issued the long-dreaded Waters of the United States rule this week, guaranteeing another clash before the Supreme Court of the United States. For more, and a link to our comments on the … Continue reading