Largest Programs
Pacific Legal Foundation reported its largest program on its FY 2020 Form 990 as:
$12,635,686
Spent in most recent FY
100%
Percent of program expenses
TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ALL AMERICANS THROUGH LITIGATION; EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ABOUT ISSUES VITAL TO OUR FREEDOM THROUGH COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH; AND TRAIN CURRENT AND ASPIRING LAWYE ... (More)
TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ALL AMERICANS THROUGH LITIGATION; EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ABOUT ISSUES VITAL TO OUR FREEDOM THROUGH COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH; AND TRAIN CURRENT AND ASPIRING LAWYERS HOW TO DEFEND OUR LIBERTIES IN COURT.PLF ATTORNEYS DIRECTLY REPRESENTED CLIENTS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES FURTHERING THE FOUNDATION'S OVERARCHING MISSION TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. THE CASES FALL INTO FIVE MAIN CATEGORIES: PROPERTY RIGHTS; SEPARATION OF POWERS; ECONOMIC LIBERTY; FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION; AND EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. IN ALL CASES, ACTIONS ATTRIBUTED TO PLF WERE DONE BY PLF ATTORNEYS PROPERLY ADMITTED TO EACH JURISDICTION.SEE SCHEDULE O FOR A LIST OF CASES LITIGATED DURING THE FISCAL PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2020. PROPERTY RIGHTS: A SOCIETY CANNOT FLOURISH AND INDIVIDUALS CANNOT ADVANCE THEIR PRIVATE INTERESTS WITHOUT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TO CREATE AND PRODUCTIVELY USE PROPERTY. PLF LITIGATES TO ENFORCE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT TAKINGS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY; FIGHT LAWS AND PERMIT CONDITIONS THAT INTERFERE WITH THE RESPONSIBLE AND PRODUCTIVE USE OF PROPERTY; AND STOP UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES OF PROPERTY.BALLINGER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA. REPRESENTING OAKLAND HOMEOWNERS, PLF FILED A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING RENTAL OWNERS TO MAKE CASH PAYMENTS TO TENANTS WHO MUST RELOCATE WHEN THE OWNER WANTS TO OCCUPY THE PROPERTY. THIS IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT THAT AFFECTS ALL HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE CURRENTLY RENTING UNITS OR CONSIDERING DOING SO. THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN FEDERAL COURT, THEN DISMISSED. THE CASE IS ON APPEAL TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT. BRIEFING IS COMPLETE. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS ONGOING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES.BAY POINT PROPERTIES, INC. V. MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. REPRESENTING PROPERTY OWNERS ON A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, ASKING THE SUPREME COURT TO ADDRESS WHETHER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION'S JUST-COMPENSATION CLAUSE PROHIBITS A LEGISLATURE FROM LIMITING HOW JUST COMPENSATION FOR A TAKING IS CALCULATED; AND WHETHER THE JUST-COMPENSATION CLAUSE ALLOWS A JURY TO VALUE THE FEE INTEREST TAKEN AS IF IT WERE STILL ENCUMBERED BY A DISCONTINUED HIGHWAY EASEMENT. PLF SUBMITTED THE PETITION AND REPLY BRIEF, BUT THE PETITION WAS DENIED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES.BENEDETTI V. COUNTY OF MARIN, CALIFORNIA. PLF REPRESENTS A FARMER IN A CHALLENGE TO MARIN COUNTY'S RECENTLY ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, WHICH REQUIRES CURRENT AGRICULTURAL USES OF LAND TO REMAIN SUCH IN PERPETUITY. WILLIE BENEDETTI WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PLANS TO RETIRE FROM THE ACTIVE FARMING OF HIS LAND, BUT THE "FORCED FARMING" AMENDMENT WILL NOT ALLOW HIM TO DO SO. TRIAL LEVEL LITIGATION IS STAYED PENDING ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN. MR. BENEDETTI PASSED AWAY AND PLF NOW REPRESENTS HIS SONS, EXECUTORS OF HIS ESTATE, TO PURSUE THE LITIGATION. ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE, PLF SUBMITTED COMMENTS TO THE COUNTY REGARDING PENDING LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS. THE COASTAL COMMISSION THEN ADOPTED FAVORABLE POLICY CHANGES AND BOTH THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNTY AGREED TO TOLL ANY STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS AND AGREED NOT TO ENFORCE THE CHALLENGED PROVISIONS. THE PARTIES ARE PURSUING A STIPULATED DISMISSAL OF THE CASE. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. BUILDING INDUSTRY ASS'N OF THE BAY AREA V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA. REPRESENTING A TRADE ASSOCIATION OF DEVELOPERS, PLF IS CHALLENGING A CITY ORDINANCE THAT CONDITIONS BUILDING PERMITS ON INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC ART OR AN IN-LIEU FEE TIED TO THE COST OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT. BECAUSE THE CITY'S GENERAL DESIRE FOR PUBLIC ART CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE BORNE ONLY BY THOSE WHO SEEK BUILDING PERMITS, WHEN SUCH DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT CREATE ANY NEED FOR PUBLIC ART, PLF FILED A LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT ARGUING THAT THE FEE VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. THE TRIAL COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION AND PLF APPEALED TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT. AFTER BRIEFING AND ORAL ARGUMENT, THE COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION. THE CASE IS CONCLUDED.CALIFORNIA V. WHEELER. PLF REPRESENTS MIKE AND CHANTEL SACKETT (SEE SACKETT V. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, BELOW) AS PROPOSED INTERVENORS IN A LAWSUIT BY STATES CHALLENGING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S NEW DEFINITION OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES. PLF WILL ARGUE THAT A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT PREVENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RULE. LITIGATION IS ONGOING. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES.CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. OREGON DEPT. OF FISH AND WILDLIFE. PLF INTERVENED ON BEHALF OF THE OREGON CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION AND THE OREGON FARM BUREAU FEDERATION IN DEFENSE OF THE STATE'S DELISTING OF THE GRAY WOLF UNDER THE OREGON ENDANGERED SPECIES LAW. THE LEGISLATURE RATIFIED THE DELISTING, AND THE DEFENDANTS AND INTERVENORS FILED A SUGGESTION OF MOOTNESS, AFTER WHICH THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE LAWSUIT. THE APPELLATE COURT GRANTED THE PLAINTIFFS' PERMISSION TO REINSTATE THEIR APPEAL. AFTER PLF COMPLETED BRIEFING AND ORAL ARGUMENT, THE APPELLATE COURT RULED THAT THE LEGISLATURE'S RATIFICATION DID MOOT THE CASE AND DID NOT VIOLATE SEPARATION OF POWERS. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES.CEDAR POINT NURSERY V. GOULD. REPRESENTING A CALIFORNIA NURSERY, PLF FILED A COMPLAINT CHALLENGING A STATE REGULATION ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THAT ALLOWS UNION ORGANIZERS TO ACCESS AN EMPLOYER'S PREMISES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOLICITING EMPLOYEES TO JOIN THE UNION. PLF ARGUES THAT THIS IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING AND FURTHER VIOLATES THE FOURTH AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION ON UNREASONABLE SEIZURES. AFTER A LOSS IN THE TRIAL COURT, PLF APPEALED TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT, FILED BRIEFS, AND CONDUCTED ORAL ARGUMENT. AFTER AN ADVERSE DECISION, PLF FILED A PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC, WHICH WAS DENIED WITH A DISSENT. A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS FORTHCOMING. BECAUSE THE CASE IS ONGOING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES.CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, ACCURACY AND RELIABILITY V. U.S. DEPT. OF INTERIOR. ON BEHALF OF A BROAD COALITION OF HOME BUILDERS, SOUND SCIENCE, AND PROPERTY RIGHTS ADVOCATES, PLF SUED THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR IN FEDERAL COURT OVER THE AGENCY'S REFUSAL TO DELIST THE COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER FROM THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. THE SERVICE'S DENIAL VIOLATES THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT BECAUSE IT FAILS TO ARTICULATE ANY DEFINITION OR STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHY THE GNATCATCHER PURPORTEDLY CONSTITUTES ITS OWN SUBSPECIES. IT ALSO VIOLATES THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT BECAUSE THE PUBLIC RECEIVED NO NOTICE OR OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PRIVATELY CONVENED PEER REVIEW PANEL, THE FINAL REPORT OF WHICH HEAVILY INFLUENCED THE AGENCY'S DECISION TO REJECT THE DELISTING PETITION. THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE CASE AND CESAR OPTED NOT TO APPEAL. THE CASE IS CLOSED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES.CHERK FAMILY TRUST V. COUNTY OF MARIN. THE CHERK FAMILY WANTED TO SUPPLEMENT THEIR MODEST RETIREMENT INCOME BY SPLITTING AND SELLING A RESIDENTIAL LOT THEY OWNED IN MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. THE COUNTY CONDITIONED THEIR PERMIT ON PAYMENT OF A $39,960 "AFFORDABLE HOUSING" FEE. PLF REPRESENTS THE FAMILY IN A CHALLENGE TO THE FEE ORDINANCE AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITION THAT TAKES THEIR PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. AFTER AN ADVERSE DECISION IN THE TRIAL COURT, PLF APPEALED TO THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL ON BEHALF OF THE CHERKS AND COMPLETED BRIEFING AND ORAL ARGUMENT. THE COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION AND A PETITION FOR REVIEW TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT WAS DENIED. PLF FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, WHICH WAS DENIED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES.CHRISTENSEN V. CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL COUNCIL. LIKE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS, INDIVIDUAL LANDLORDS HAVE BEEN THROWN INTO FINANCIAL TURMOIL BY THE PANDEMIC AND RESULTING LOCKDOWNS. NONETHELESS, THE CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL COUNCIL ENACTED AN "EMERGENCY RULE" DECLARING THAT COURTS WOULD NOT CONSIDER EVICTION CASES FOR THE DURATION OF GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM'S STATE-OF-EMERGENCY DECLARATION PLUS 90 DAYS. AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THIS BANS EVICTIONS, FORCING LANDLORDS TO TURN AWAY CONSCIENTIOUS INDIVIDUALS SEEKING HOUSING IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO HOUSE TENANTS WHO HARASS NEIGHBORS, CONDUCT CRIMES ON THE PREMISES, DAMAGE THE PROPERTY, AND REFUSE TO PAY RENT. REPRESENTING TWO RETIREES WHO LEASE THEIR PROPERTIES AT MODEST RATES, PLF FILED A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING CALIFORNIA COURTS' REFUSAL TO HEAR EVICTION PROCEEDINGS. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS ONGOING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. (Less)
