PLF at the
U.S Supreme Court

12 victories and counting

PLF’s record of success at the Supreme Court is unmatched by any other organization of our kind and on par with the ACLU—with a fraction of the staff and resources.

DIRECT REPRESENTATION CASES:

Wins

0

Loses

0

Granted, Vacated, Remanded (GVR)

0

TOTAL

0
THE
80S

Pacific Legal Foundation was founded in 1973 by members of then-Governor Ronald Reagan’s staff as the first public interest law firm dedicated to the principles of individual rights and limited government. Early public interest law firms had achieved heroic work defending individual rights, such as the rights to free speech and equal protection under the law. In the 1960s and early 70s, however, the public interest law movement took a notably collectivist turn. The nation needed an effective legal advocate inspired by the American ideals of individualism and liberty to enforce real constitutional limits on government power.

PLF was created to lead the fight.

1987

Nollan v. California
Coastal Commission

THE CASE

Government bureaucracy is a headache. Getting a permit to build on your land can mean endless forms and red tape. Government bureaucrats can take your time and energy, but can they take your land as a condition of issuing a permit? PLF’s first Supreme Court victory in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission answered that question.

In the 1980’s, if a landowner wanted a coastal development permit the California Coastal Commission (CCC) forced them to dedicate a portion of their property to the state and provide public access across their land, even when the development didn’t actually interfere with existing public access. You want a permit? Pay up with your land.

In their Nollan decision, the Court pointed out that the exaction demanded by the CCC amounted to nothing more than “extortion.”

Now, if a government demands someone’s property in exchange for a permit, then the taking of the property must reduce a serious harm caused by the development. “For the public good” isn’t a good enough reason to take someone’s private property. Instead, there must be a direct link between the development and a specific harm it would cause.

THE CASE

Government bureaucracy is a headache. Getting a permit to build on your land can mean endless forms and red tape. Government bureaucrats can take your time and energy, but can they take your land as a condition of issuing a permit? PLF’s first Supreme Court victory in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission answered that question.

In the 1980’s, if a landowner wanted a coastal development permit the California Coastal Commission (CCC) forced them to dedicate a portion of their property to the state and provide public access across their land, even when the development didn’t actually interfere with existing public access. You want a permit? Pay up with your land.

In their Nollan decision, the Court pointed out that the exaction demanded by the CCC amounted to nothing more than “extortion.”

Now, if a government demands someone’s property in exchange for a permit, then the taking of the property must reduce a serious harm caused by the development. “For the public good” isn’t a good enough reason to take someone’s private property. Instead, there must be a direct link between the development and a specific harm it would cause.

THE
90S

Pacific Legal Foundation was founded in 1973 by members of then-Governor Ronald Reagan’s staff as the first public interest law firm dedicated to the principles of individual rights and limited government. Early public interest law firms had achieved heroic work defending individual rights, such as the rights to free speech and equal protection under the law. In the 1960s and early 70s, however, the public interest law movement took a notably collectivist turn. The nation needed an effective legal advocate inspired by the American ideals of individualism and liberty to enforce real constitutional limits on government power.

PLF was created to lead the fight.

1990

Keller v.
State Bar of California

THE CASE

Our freedom of speech protects us from government censorship. But the ingenious B-side to our First Amendment right is our protection from being forced to say (or pay for someone else to say) what the government wants. As Thomas Jefferson put it: “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”

Keller v. State Bar of California debated whether someone could be forced to pay dues to an organization to keep their job, but then have that organization use that money to support political causes. The verdict? The government can’t force you to pay for someone else’s political speech. Or put another way, the government can’t force you to support an issue against your will.

Keller has been cited in 148 federal and state appellate courts and 516 law review articles

THE CASE

Our freedom of speech protects us from government censorship. But the ingenious B-side to our First Amendment right is our protection from being forced to say (or pay for someone else to say) what the government wants. As Thomas Jefferson put it: “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”

Keller v. State Bar of California debated whether someone could be forced to pay dues to an organization to keep their job, but then have that organization use that money to support political causes. The verdict? The government can’t force you to pay for someone else’s political speech. Or put another way, the government can’t force you to support an issue against your will.

Keller has been cited in 148 federal and state appellate courts and 516 law review articles

1997

Suitum v. Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency

It seems to me your argument is: if the TRPA says you can’t use your lot but here’s some [credit], you go over to Harrah’s and you can play roulette with it. Then you say no, we don’t value the [credit]. We require the owner to stand outside the door of Harrah’s and see what she can get for it, though.

- Justice Rehnquist

THE CASE

All Bernadine Suitum wanted to do was build a small home for her retirement years in Incline Village, near Lake Tahoe. Yet because a small drainage ditch ran behind her property, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) declared the site to be a “stream environment zone” unsuitable for building. As a consolation prize for destroying her property’s value, the TRPA then determined Bernadine was eligible for “transferable development credits,” an imaginary currency she could attempt to sell to other landowners (with the agency’s approval of course).

In Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the Court held that Mrs. Suitum could go directly to court to defend her property rights without agreeing to the absurd demand that she first try to obtain and use the made-up credits.” Justice Rehnquist even compared the “credits” to casino chips Bernadine could try and use at the roulette table.

This case has proven immensely important for anyone who needs to sue the government to protect their property. Suitum wiped away procedural hurdles blocking landowners’ from the courthouse doors.

Suitum has been cited in 152 federal and state appellate courts and 342 law review articles

THE CASE

All Bernadine Suitum wanted to do was build a small home for her retirement years in Incline Village, near Lake Tahoe. Yet because a small drainage ditch ran behind her property, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) declared the site to be a “stream environment zone” unsuitable for building. As a consolation prize for destroying her property’s value, the TRPA then determined Bernadine was eligible for “transferable development credits,” an imaginary currency she could attempt to sell to other landowners (with the agency’s approval of course).

In Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the Court held that Mrs. Suitum could go directly to court to defend her property rights without agreeing to the absurd demand that she first try to obtain and use the made-up credits.” Justice Rehnquist even compared the “credits” to casino chips Bernadine could try and use at the roulette table.

This case has proven immensely important for anyone who needs to sue the government to protect their property. Suitum wiped away procedural hurdles blocking landowners’ from the courthouse doors.

Suitum has been cited in 152 federal and state appellate courts and 342 law review articles

THE
2000S

Pacific Legal Foundation was founded in 1973 by members of then-Governor Ronald Reagan’s staff as the first public interest law firm dedicated to the principles of individual rights and limited government. Early public interest law firms had achieved heroic work defending individual rights, such as the rights to free speech and equal protection under the law. In the 1960s and early 70s, however, the public interest law movement took a notably collectivist turn. The nation needed an effective legal advocate inspired by the American ideals of individualism and liberty to enforce real constitutional limits on government power.

PLF was created to lead the fight.

2001

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island

We’ve got to find a Sheldon Whitehouse quote

- Justice Rehnquist

THE CASE

Government bureaucrats constantly try to dictate the timeframe for challenging a harmful law or regulation.

Before Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, many government agencies across the country claimed that landowners weren’t allowed to challenge a law or regulation impacting their land if they acquired their land after the law went into effect. If you bought a piece of land, and a law from your grandfather’s era violated your rights: too bad. But PLF’s client Anthony Palazzolo fought for his rights as a landowner and with his case, the Supreme Court righted this wrong.

If a law is unconstitutional, simply being old doesn’t make it right. As Justice Kennedy wrote, “Future generations have a right to challenge unreasonable limitations on the use and value of land.”

Palazzolo has been cited in 402 federal and state appellate courts and 1059 law review articles

THE CASE

Government bureaucrats constantly try to dictate the timeframe for challenging a harmful law or regulation.

Before Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, many government agencies across the country claimed that landowners weren’t allowed to challenge a law or regulation impacting their land if they acquired their land after the law went into effect. If you bought a piece of land, and a law from your grandfather’s era violated your rights: too bad. But PLF’s client Anthony Palazzolo fought for his rights as a landowner and with his case, the Supreme Court righted this wrong.

If a law is unconstitutional, simply being old doesn’t make it right. As Justice Kennedy wrote, “Future generations have a right to challenge unreasonable limitations on the use and value of land.”

Palazzolo has been cited in 402 federal and state appellate courts and 1059 law review articles

2006

Rapanos v. United States

THE CASE

Is a puddle “navigable water?” Is a stream that trickles with some rainwater? For decades, part of the Army Corps of Engineers’ definition of “navigable waters” included any private property containing water that might eventually drain to a river (even a river that is miles away).

In Rapanos v. United States, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s expansive and self-serving definition of “waters.” The late Justice Scalia wrote: “The plain language of the Clean Water Act simply does not authorize this “Land is Waters” approach to federal jurisdiction.”

Rapanos rebuffed the Army Corps of Engineers’ “navigable waters” grab for all land. in the country.

Now, thanks to John Rapanos, the government can’t take control of your home just by pointing to some water in your yard.

Rapanos has been cited in 111 federal and state appellate courts and 1053 law review articles

Associated win: Gerke Excavating v. United States (2006).

  • Gerke Excavating was fined $55,000 for grading and removing tree stumps and soil, because the Army Corp of Engineers considered their property a wetland. PLF argued that their property lacked any connection to a navigable water. The Court sent the case back to the lower court to reconsider in light of the decision in Rapanos.

THE CASE

Is a puddle “navigable water?” Is a stream that trickles with some rainwater? For decades, part of the Army Corps of Engineers’ definition of “navigable waters” included any private property containing water that might eventually drain to a river (even a river that is miles away).

In Rapanos v. United States, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s expansive and self-serving definition of “waters.” The late Justice Scalia wrote: “The plain language of the Clean Water Act simply does not authorize this “Land is Waters” approach to federal jurisdiction.”

Rapanos rebuffed the Army Corps of Engineers’ “navigable waters” grab for all land. in the country.

Now, thanks to John Rapanos, the government can’t take control of your home just by pointing to some water in your yard.

Rapanos has been cited in 111 federal and state appellate courts and 1053 law review articles

Associated win: Gerke Excavating v. United States (2006).

  • Gerke Excavating was fined $55,000 for grading and removing tree stumps and soil, because the Army Corp of Engineers considered their property a wetland. PLF argued that their property lacked any connection to a navigable water. The Court sent the case back to the lower court to reconsider in light of the decision in Rapanos.
THE
2010S

Pacific Legal Foundation was founded in 1973 by members of then-Governor Ronald Reagan’s staff as the first public interest law firm dedicated to the principles of individual rights and limited government. Early public interest law firms had achieved heroic work defending individual rights, such as the rights to free speech and equal protection under the law. In the 1960s and early 70s, however, the public interest law movement took a notably collectivist turn. The nation needed an effective legal advocate inspired by the American ideals of individualism and liberty to enforce real constitutional limits on government power.

PLF was created to lead the fight.

2012

Sackett v. EPA

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously for the Sacketts and against the Obama EPA—just like they should.

- Mitt Romney

THE CASE

Before these victories, landowners had little hope to defend themselves against overbearing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers’ regulations associated with the Clean Water Act.

But the Court’s decisions in Sackett v. EPA and United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. set an important precedent limiting the government’s ability to extort private landowners.

Now, landowners dealing with regulations from the EPA or Army Corps of Engineers have the right to immediately challenge those regulations in federal court.

These decisions have opened courthouse doors across the country, giving individuals better access to the courts—and to justice.

Sacket has been cited in 55 federal and state appellate courts and 193 law review articles.

Hawkes has been cited in 37 federal and state appellate courts and 66 law review articles.

Associated Win: Kent Recycling Services, LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2016)
  • Gerke Excavating was fined $55,000 for grading and removing tree stumps and soil, because the Army Corp of Engineers considered their property a wetland. PLF argued that their property lacked any connection to a navigable water. The Court sent the case back to the lower court to reconsider in light of the decision in Rapanos.

THE CASE

Before these victories, landowners had little hope to defend themselves against overbearing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers’ regulations associated with the Clean Water Act.

But the Court’s decisions in Sackett v. EPA and United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. set an important precedent limiting the government’s ability to extort private landowners.

Now, landowners dealing with regulations from the EPA or Army Corps of Engineers have the right to immediately challenge those regulations in federal court.

These decisions have opened courthouse doors across the country, giving individuals better access to the courts—and to justice.

Sacket has been cited in 55 federal and state appellate courts and 193 law review articles.

Hawkes has been cited in 37 federal and state appellate courts and 66 law review articles.

Associated Win: Kent Recycling Services, LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2016)
  • Gerke Excavating was fined $55,000 for grading and removing tree stumps and soil, because the Army Corp of Engineers considered their property a wetland. PLF argued that their property lacked any connection to a navigable water. The Court sent the case back to the lower court to reconsider in light of the decision in Rapanos.

2013

Koontz v. St. Johns River
Water Management District

THE CASE

“Extortion” is a term you usually hear when the FBI walks white collar criminals out of high-rise office buildings. But what about government extortion? What are our rights when the government demands absurd requirements to issue permits and licenses?

In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, the Court decided whether government could require landowners to surrender part of their land, or pay exorbitant fees, in exchange for a government-issued building permit. The Court ruled that extortion is extortion—even if it’s coming from a government agency. If the government decides to take someone’s land for a necessary public good, it can do that, but it must pay that landowner first. Koontz showed that a government permit isn’t an excuse to violate a landowner’s rights.

Koontz has been cited in 82 federal and state appellate courts and 284 law review articles

THE CASE

“Extortion” is a term you usually hear when the FBI walks white collar criminals out of high-rise office buildings. But what about government extortion? What are our rights when the government demands absurd requirements to issue permits and licenses?

In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, the Court decided whether government could require landowners to surrender part of their land, or pay exorbitant fees, in exchange for a government-issued building permit. The Court ruled that extortion is extortion—even if it’s coming from a government agency. If the government decides to take someone’s land for a necessary public good, it can do that, but it must pay that landowner first. Koontz showed that a government permit isn’t an excuse to violate a landowner’s rights.

Koontz has been cited in 82 federal and state appellate courts and 284 law review articles

2016

United States Army Corps
of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously for the Sacketts and against the Obama EPA—just like they should.

- Mitt Romney

THE CASE

Before these victories, landowners had little hope to defend themselves against overbearing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers’ regulations associated with the Clean Water Act.

But the Court’s decisions in Sackett v. EPA and United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. set an important precedent limiting the government’s ability to extort private landowners.

Now, landowners dealing with regulations from the EPA or Army Corps of Engineers have the right to immediately challenge those regulations in federal court.

These decisions have opened courthouse doors across the country, giving individuals better access to the courts—and to justice.

Sacket has been cited in 55 federal and state appellate courts and 193 law review articles.

Hawkes has been cited in 37 federal and state appellate courts and 66 law review articles.

Associated Win: Kent Recycling Services, LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2016)
  • Gerke Excavating was fined $55,000 for grading and removing tree stumps and soil, because the Army Corp of Engineers considered their property a wetland. PLF argued that their property lacked any connection to a navigable water. The Court sent the case back to the lower court to reconsider in light of the decision in Rapanos.

THE CASE

Before these victories, landowners had little hope to defend themselves against overbearing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers’ regulations associated with the Clean Water Act.

But the Court’s decisions in Sackett v. EPA and United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. set an important precedent limiting the government’s ability to extort private landowners.

Now, landowners dealing with regulations from the EPA or Army Corps of Engineers have the right to immediately challenge those regulations in federal court.

These decisions have opened courthouse doors across the country, giving individuals better access to the courts—and to justice.

Sacket has been cited in 55 federal and state appellate courts and 193 law review articles.

Hawkes has been cited in 37 federal and state appellate courts and 66 law review articles.

Associated Win: Kent Recycling Services, LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2016)
  • Gerke Excavating was fined $55,000 for grading and removing tree stumps and soil, because the Army Corp of Engineers considered their property a wetland. PLF argued that their property lacked any connection to a navigable water. The Court sent the case back to the lower court to reconsider in light of the decision in Rapanos.

2018

Minnesota Voters
Alliance v. Mansky

How about a shirt with a rainbow flag, would that be allowed? How about a shirt that says Parkland Strong? How about an NRA shirt? How about a shirt with the text of the Second Amendment? How about the First Amendment?

- Justice Alito

THE CASE

As a United States citizen, our right to vote is crucial. But can the government ban passive political speech at the ballot box that doesn’t disrupt the voting process?

In Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF defended Andy Cilek’s, freedom of speech and his right to vote. On Election Day 2010, Andy wore a “Don’t Tread on Me” T-shirt supporting the Tea Party. Yet simply because of his shirt, Minnesota poll workers prevented him from voting and recorded his name and address for potential prosecution. The Supreme Court ruled that broad bans on political expression, even near polling places, violate our freedom of speech.

The precedent set by this case has been critical for defending our freedom of speech at the polls—no matter what shirt we’re wearing.

MVA has been cited in 9 federal and state appellate courts and 18 law review articles

THE CASE

As a United States citizen, our right to vote is crucial. But can the government ban passive political speech at the ballot box that doesn’t disrupt the voting process?

In Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF defended Andy Cilek’s, freedom of speech and his right to vote. On Election Day 2010, Andy wore a “Don’t Tread on Me” T-shirt supporting the Tea Party. Yet simply because of his shirt, Minnesota poll workers prevented him from voting and recorded his name and address for potential prosecution. The Supreme Court ruled that broad bans on political expression, even near polling places, violate our freedom of speech.

The precedent set by this case has been critical for defending our freedom of speech at the polls—no matter what shirt we’re wearing.

MVA has been cited in 9 federal and state appellate courts and 18 law review articles

2018

National Association of
Manufactures v.
Department of Defense

THE CASE

How much time do citizens have to challenge new regulations, after they are enacted? In National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Had tried limiting the window of time to contest a new agency law or regulation in court to 120 days—even though most people rarely know a new regulation is even being submitted in such a short time. PLF and our clients argued that people should have the standard six years to challenge a new law or regulation—and the Supreme Court agreed.

Now there is a reasonable amount of time to challenge harmful, burdensome, or unconstitutional EPA regulations. This victory set an important precedent defending people’s opportunity to properly defend their rights and challenge unjust laws in a court of law.

National Association of Manufactures has been cited in 20 federal and state appellate courts and 29 law review articles.

THE CASE

How much time do citizens have to challenge new regulations, after they are enacted? In National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Had tried limiting the window of time to contest a new agency law or regulation in court to 120 days—even though most people rarely know a new regulation is even being submitted in such a short time. PLF and our clients argued that people should have the standard six years to challenge a new law or regulation—and the Supreme Court agreed.

Now there is a reasonable amount of time to challenge harmful, burdensome, or unconstitutional EPA regulations. This victory set an important precedent defending people’s opportunity to properly defend their rights and challenge unjust laws in a court of law.

National Association of Manufactures has been cited in 20 federal and state appellate courts and 29 law review articles.

2018

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service

According to the ordinary understanding of how adjectives work, ‘critical habitat’ must also be ‘habitat.’

- Justice Roberts

THE CASE

Can a piece of land be “critical habitat” for the recovery of an endangered species, if that land is neither “critical” nor “habitat”? If land is designated a “critical habitat” for an endangered species, it makes sense that the species needs to live on that land. In Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Court checked the federal government’s power to designate private land as “critical habitat” for an endangered species—especially when land isn’t actually habitable for a species.

Because of Weyerhaeuser, a landowner may challenge federal overreach in court before a neutral judge. If the government cannot show a species actually lives on land designated as critical habitat, then the court can declare the designation invalid, freeing the property from the grasping hand of the federal government.

Weyerhaeuser has been cited in 9 federal and state appellate courts and 11 law review articles

THE CASE

Can a piece of land be “critical habitat” for the recovery of an endangered species, if that land is neither “critical” nor “habitat”? If land is designated a “critical habitat” for an endangered species, it makes sense that the species needs to live on that land. In Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Court checked the federal government’s power to designate private land as “critical habitat” for an endangered species—especially when land isn’t actually habitable for a species.

Because of Weyerhaeuser, a landowner may challenge federal overreach in court before a neutral judge. If the government cannot show a species actually lives on land designated as critical habitat, then the court can declare the designation invalid, freeing the property from the grasping hand of the federal government.

Weyerhaeuser has been cited in 9 federal and state appellate courts and 11 law review articles

2019

Knick v. Township
of Scott, Pennsylvania

 

THE CASE

How much time do citizens have to challenge new regulations, after they are enacted? In National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Had tried limiting the window of time to contest a new agency law or regulation in court to 120 days—even though most people rarely know a new regulation is even being submitted in such a short time. PLF and our clients argued that people should have the standard six years to challenge a new law or regulation—and the Supreme Court agreed.

Now there is a reasonable amount of time to challenge harmful, burdensome, or unconstitutional EPA regulations. This victory set an important precedent defending people’s opportunity to properly defend their rights and challenge unjust laws in a court of law.

 

 

THE CASE

How much time do citizens have to challenge new regulations, after they are enacted? In National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Had tried limiting the window of time to contest a new agency law or regulation in court to 120 days—even though most people rarely know a new regulation is even being submitted in such a short time. PLF and our clients argued that people should have the standard six years to challenge a new law or regulation—and the Supreme Court agreed.

Now there is a reasonable amount of time to challenge harmful, burdensome, or unconstitutional EPA regulations. This victory set an important precedent defending people’s opportunity to properly defend their rights and challenge unjust laws in a court of law.