American libertarian public interest law firm
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) is an American nonprofit public interest legal organization established for the purpose of defending and promoting individual and economic freedom.[2][3] PLF attorneys provide pro bono legal representation, file amicus curiae briefs, and hold administrative proceedings with the stated goal of supporting property rights, equality before the law, freedom of speech and association, economic liberty, and the separation of powers. The organization is the first and oldest libertarian public interest law firm, having been founded in 1973.[4][5]
Pacific Legal is primarily funded by donations from individuals, foundations, associations, small businesses and corporations. Except for court-awarded attorney fees for case victories, the organization receives no government funding.[6][7][8] The foundation is generally described as supporting libertarian or conservative causes.[9]
As of 2022[update], PLF has litigated 19 cases before the United States Supreme Court, won 17, and lost 2.
History
Incorporated in Sacramento, California, on March 5, 1973, PLF's original staff was composed mainly of individuals who had been a part of then-Governor Ronald Reagan's welfare reform team.[2] Operating on a proposed budget of $117,000 for the first 10 months of operation, PLF attorneys began litigation activities in June 1973 under the direction of Ronald A. Zumbrun, PLF's first president.[2]
PLF was one of the first in a movement of freedom-based public interest law firms (PILF) in the early 1970s.[10] In describing the reasons for starting PLF, Raymond Momboisse, one of the founders, asserted that PLF represented "the free enterprise system and the little guy."[11]
PLF won its first Supreme Court case in 1987 and has since argued 19 cases, with three more scheduled in 2023.[12]
Currently, PLF has a staff of over 100 employees and three offices across the United States: Sacramento, CA; Arlington, VA; and Palm Beach Gardens, FL.[13][14]
Current legal areas
Property rights
PLF's property rights cases have focused on regulatory takings and environmental regulations. The Foundation's attorneys have successfully argued five takings cases at the United States Supreme Court: Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, and Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania.
PLF has litigated housing and zoning issues in lower courts. PLF successfully challenged San Francisco's "Relocation Assistance Payment Ordinance", which required landlords to pay tenants to regain personal use of their property.[15][16] PLF won a case at the Michigan Supreme Court, challenging a common practice of counties foreclosing properties for unpaid taxes and keeping the surplus home equity.[17]
PLF's environmental law litigation has frequently involved challenges to federal regulation of private property under the Clean Water Act or the Endangered Species Act, including five victories at the U.S. Supreme Court. PLF attorneys represented a Minnesota property owner who was denied the right to build on his property in Contoski v. Scarlett,[18] a case that resulted in the removal of the bald eagle from the endangered species list.[19] PLF argued that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to delist the species after it concluded that the bald eagle population had recovered.[20][21]
PLF represented Andy Johnson in a dispute with the Environmental Protection Agency. Johnson built a stock pond on his property in Wyoming to provide water for his cattle. EPA found that he had violated the Clean Water Act, demanded that he remove the pond, and fined him $37,500 per day, eventually resulting in $16 million in fines.[22] Wyoming's senators called the agency's action "heavy-handed bureaucracy."[23] The case was settled in 2016, with EPA dropping the fines and demands, and Johnson agreeing to plant willow trees to protect the ground from erosion.[24] Johnson's case was highlighted by President Trump when he signed an Executive Order to reduce regulatory agencies' ability to rely on administrative guidance to justify enforcement actions against citizens.[25][26][27]
PLF represented Uri Rafaeli, a Michigan resident whose property was foreclosed and sold at auction for a property tax debt of $8.41. The county kept the entire proceeds from the auction, over $24,000.[17] PLF appeared before the Michigan Supreme Court to challenge a state law which was aimed at preventing blight but allows counties to keep the entire proceeds from property auctions, even if the amount raised at auction is greater than the amount owed in back taxes.[17] The court ruled in favor of Rafaeli and found the practice illegal under the Michigan Constitution.[17][28] The practice, which PLF refers to as "home equity theft", is also legal in other states such as Arizona, Massachusetts, and Montana. PLF plans to work towards removing these laws through the court system or encouraging legislative change.[29][30] PLF has helped pass legislation in Wisconsin,[31][32] Montana,[33][34] and North Dakota[35] to end home equity theft.
PLF has frequently litigated property disputes along the coast and other shorelines, including several cases challenging actions by the California Coastal Commission.[36][37][38][39] The organization argues there is no conflict between private ownership of shoreline and the public good, because development can increase opportunities to experience the beach and to protect it.[40]
Equality and opportunity
PLF argues that certain licensing laws and similar regulations violate the individual right to earn a living and result in a loss of jobs and a lower standard of living for Americans.[41] PLF has battled against Certificate of Need (CON) laws in multiple states that require new entrants to a job market to receive a "certificate of need" from the government to which businesses currently engaged in the occupation may object to the competition.[42] PLF represented several moving companies challenging Kentucky’s CON laws.[43] PLF represented Arty Vogt from Lloyd's Transfer & Storage in a challenge to West Virginia's CON law regulating interstate movers, which required new moving companies in the state to be approved by incumbents. The case concluded in 2017 when the state passed a law effectively repealing the regulation.[44] In 2019, PLF filed suit in Kentucky, challenging the state's CON law regulating non-emergency medical transportation.[45]
PLF has challenged and succeeded in ending CON laws for movers in Kentucky,[46] West Virginia,[47] Oregon,[48] Missouri,[49] and Pennsylvania.[50] PLF has also filed cases challenging CON laws that limit new birth centers in Georgia[51] and Iowa.[52]
In 2008, PLF won Merrifield v. Lockyer, a challenge to California licensing of pest control. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "economic protectionism for its own sake, regardless of its relation to the common good, cannot be said to be in the furtherance of a legitimate governmental interest."[53]
PLF has participated in cases challenging affirmative action policies, both under the federal Constitution's Equal Protection Clause and state constitutional provisions such as California's Proposition 209 and Washington's Initiative 200.[54] In 2018, PLF filed a number of lawsuits on behalf of boys seeking to compete on high school dance teams.[55] In South Dakota, the South Dakota High School Activities Association changed their regulations to allow boys to compete in competitive dance following PLF's lawsuit.[56] Additionally, the Minnesota State High School League also amended their rules to allow boys in competitive dance following lawsuits filed by PLF on behalf of two male students.[57] In 2019, PLF, representing a group of black and Hispanic parents, filed a federal lawsuit arguing that Connecticut's enrollment standards for its magnet schools are discriminatory. Connecticut caps the enrollment of black and Hispanic students in magnet schools at 75%, while no less than 25% of students can be white or Asian.[58][59] PLF was also involved in Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc. vs San Jose, in which the California Supreme Court upheld the amendment banning racial preferences.[60]
In 2018, PLF sued New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, challenging his proposed changes to the admissions policies of New York City's specialized high schools. De Blasio proposed expanding the Discovery program, which admits students just under the cutoff for the admissions test, from 6% to 20% of all students accepted, a move which he claimed would increase black and Hispanic diversity in those schools. PLF represents Asian-American parents and advocacy groups who claim that the mayor's plans discriminates against Asian-American students and amounts to unconstitutional racial balancing.[61][62]
PLF also challenged a magnet school's admissions policy in Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board.
Separation of powers
PLF has litigated several cases arguing for citizen access to judicial review. In Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court held that the Sacketts could go to court to challenge an EPA compliance order.[63] In U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc, the Court held that a jurisdictional determination that the property in question constituted "waters of the United States" was a final agency action subject to judicial review.[64]
In 2017, PLF began studying and commenting on the Congressional Review Act as a tool to eliminate regulations.[65][66] In 2018, they filed two lawsuits demanding that regulatory agencies follow the CRA and submit their new rules to Congress.[67]
In 2018, PLF launched a campaign to end what it characterizes as unconstitutional regulation through litigation, legislation, and executive action, focusing on restoring its interpretation of an original understanding of the separation of powers.[68] PLF launched a legal challenge of FDA's Deeming Rule, arguing that it was signed by a career civil servant, rather than an officer of the United States as required by the appointments clause of the Constitution.[69][70] In 2019, PLF released a study of 2,952 rules issued by HHS between 2001 and the beginning of the Trump administration which claimed that 71% were issued unconstitutionally, the majority being signed by career executive employees (civil servants), not "an officer of the United States."[71] The study found that 98% of the FDA's rules issued in that time period were issued by career employees.[71]
During the COVID-19 pandemic, PLF helped to draft and advance legislation in 11 states to limit executive powers.[72][73]
Historic legal areas
Freedom of speech and association
PLF successfully challenged Minnesota polling place laws that violated voters' right to free speech in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky. The Supreme Court held 7–2 in favor of PLF's client, the Minnesota Voters Alliance, finding that the state's restrictions on clothing worn in the polling place were not reasonable and violated the First Amendment.[74] PLF was also instrumental in overturning a Virginia law banning the advertising of happy hours, suing on behalf of restaurateurs who could not advertise drink specials in the state in violation of the First Amendment.[75][76] Additionally, in Keller v. State Bar of California, PLF successfully curbed the California State Bar's use of compulsory dues to finance political and ideological activities.[77]
PLF represents two freelancer groups suing to block the implementation of California AB5, which severely limits the number of pieces freelance writers and photographers may provide to publishers. The lawsuit alleges that the law treats journalists differently than fine artists, grant writers, and marketing representatives.[78][79]
Other
In the early 1980s, PLF filed a case that critics have called a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), which attempted to obtain the mailing list of the Abalone Alliance to get the group to pay for the police costs of the largest anti-nuclear civil-disobedience act in U.S. history, at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. The case was rejected multiple times for the plaintiffs' lack of standing, and was eventually dismissed altogether.[80] PLF stated that it did receive funding from utility companies, but would not disclose whether PG&E, the plant's owner, had contributed.[81]
Law school programs
Chapman University
PLF operated a "Liberty Clinic" at Chapman University's Fowler School of Law, where a PLF attorney supervises a trial-court program as part of the law school's Constitutional Jurisprudence Clinic.[82][83] Students in the clinic had hands-on roles in ongoing court cases and learn how strategic litigation works. This is no longer available at Chapman University.
University of California, Berkeley
In 2018, PLF began teaching a seminar and field placement at UC Berkeley School of Law on strategic constitutional litigation.[84][85] The seminar, taught by PLF Executive Vice President and General Counsel John M. Groen, focuses on property rights and economic liberty. In the field placement, students join a PLF litigation team to work on on-going court cases.[86]
