Pacific Legal Foundation

“The tax preparer and PLF financial management provide the Form 990 to the Audit Committee, along with each trustee, giving them the opportunity to raise any concerns and/or ask questions prior to the filing date. A deadline is given to the trustees to insure a timely filing of the tax return.”

“PLF bylaws provide that any self-dealing transaction must be approved by a majority of the board, with the interested trustee(s) excluded from voting. The board must also conduct reasonable investigation and determine it could not have obtained a more advantageous arrangement. The Governance and Nominating Committee is charged with annual review of trustees including securing any disclosure of potential conflicts of interest with a written form signed annually by each trustee. Employees are required by our conflicts of interest policy to disclose to the Director of Human Resources any actual or potential conflict of interest which are then resolved by the President.”

“CEO compensation is reviewed annually by the Governance and Nominating Committee which makes recommendations to the full board to determine compensation. Job descriptions for the CEO and other key executives are evaluated against independent market sources and compensation data. PLF's independent board applies the "rebuttable presumption of reasonableness procedures in its evaluation of the compensation arrangements of key employees.”

“Copies are available on the organization's website or upon request.”

“Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) litigates nationwide to secure all Americans' inalienable rights to live responsibly and productively in their pursuit of happiness. PLF combines strategic and principled litigation, communication, and research to achieve landmark court victories enforcing the Constitution's guarantee of individual liberty.”

“PLF attorneys directly represented clients in the following cases furthering the Foundation's overarching mission to protect and enhance individual liberty. The cases further the goals of individual rights and liberty in the realms of property rights, separation of powers, equality under the law, and economic opportunity. In all cases, actions attributed to PLF were done by PLF attorneys properly admitted to each jurisdiction. 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 secure the right to the productive and ordinary use of land; prevent governments from taking property; fight unconstitutional or unlawful regulatory requirements; promote balance in environmental laws; and stop unreasonable searches and seizures. 835 Hinesburg Road LLC v. South Burlington, Vermont. 835 Hinesburg Road, LLC, is challenging a city's designation of a portion of its land as open space "Habitat Blocks." The ordinance that created the Habitat Blocks categorically classifies some of the owner's land as unbuildable, and the city rejected the owner's development proposal. Yet when the owner sued the city for a regulatory taking, the district court dismissed the case on the theory that the case is not ripe because the city retains discretion to approve some development in the future. PLF represents the owner on appeal to the Second Circuit to argue that federal courts should be as receptive to civil rights claims based on property ownership as they are to other civil rights claims. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Arabella Farm v. Naturaland Trust. PLF represents South Carolina landowner Ken Smith and others who comprise Arabella Farm to protect property owners from abusive Clean Water Act "citizen suits." These lawsuits, sometimes called "environmental ambulance chasing," are increasingly used by environmental groups and law firms to exact civil penalties and attorneys' fees from individuals and small businesses. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision to make it easier for these groups to sue property owners-even when the property owners have complied with enforcement orders by state governments-thus exposing them to secondary civil penalties and other liability. PLF filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, seeking reversal of that decision. The petition was denied. PLF did not seek or recover fees. Ariyan v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans. The Ariyans secured a multi-million dollar just compensation award in state court but the government has delayed payment for several years. They sued, arguing that the Fifth Amendment entitles them to certain and timely just compensation. The courts denied them relief. PLF took over the case and filed a petition for rehearing en banc in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied. PLF filed a petition for writ of certiorari, arguing that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause is self-executing and a court ordered judgment is a secondary property interest that cannot be taken without just compensation. The petition was denied and the case is closed. PLF did not seek or recover fees. Benedetti v. County of Marin, California. Before they may build a family home on the rural property they have owned for years, the Benedetti family-brothers Arron and Arthur who inherited the estate of their father, Willie-must first agree that they will be "actively and directly engaged in agriculture and must record a restrictive covenant that they and all future owners of the home will be farmers or ranchers forever. The county's requirement, part of its local land use plan, places an unconstitutional condition on the Benedettis' liberty and property rights. PLF filed a lawsuit on their behalf in state court. Because litigation is ongoing, it is premature to seek fees. Bordelon v. Baldwin County, Alabama. PLF represents Mike Bor”

“Fair v. Continental Resources. Kevin and Terry Fair fell behind on their property taxes after medical problems caused severe financial hardship. When they failed to pay $5,200 in taxes, interest, penalties, and costs by the deadline, Scotts Bluff County extinguished the Fairs' entire interest in their $60,000 home and conveyed it to an investor who paid the tax debt. Unlike other types of debt collection, the Fairs' foreclosed home was not sold after competitive bidding, leaving no opportunity for the Fairs to be paid for their equity from the proceeds remaining after paying the debt. Terry Fair passed away, and PLF represents Kevin Fair in a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the statutes authorizing home equity theft. The Court granted the petition, vacated the Nebraska Supreme Court decision, and remanded for reconsideration in light of PLF's victory in Tyler v. Hennepin County. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Fakhreddine v. Sabree. PLF represents Fadi Abi Fakhreddine and Old Joy Investment Co., Inc., in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging that the government unconstitutionally took surplus equity when it foreclosed on two parcels of property and then gave them to the Detroit Land Bank. The land bank sold the properties for a substantial profit, all of which it kept. The former owners received nothing, losing all their invested equity without compensation. The Sixth Circuit agreed with PLF and on the basis of the decision in Hall v. Meisner (see below) reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. The Sixth Circuit awarded PLF $505 in costs. PLF did not seek or recover fees. This case is closed. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito Abraham Rosa, et al. PLF represents more than two dozen property owners in Puerto Rico who obtained just compensation awards after the government took their property. When Puerto Rico declared bankruptcy in 2016, it sought to discharge the just compensation debts in the bankruptcy proceedings. The federal district court and First Circuit Court of Appeals refused to permit the discharge because the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires just compensation after a taking. The government filed a petition for writ of certiorari and PLF defended the lower court decision on behalf of the just compensation claimants before the U.S. Supreme Court. As PLF advocated, the petition was denied, a victory for the property owners. PLF did not seek or recover fees. This case is closed. Flying Crown Subdivision v. Alaska Railroad Corporation. PLF represents a homeowners' association near Anchorage Alaska ion appeal in a dispute against the state-owned Alaska Railroad. For decades, many homeowners have used a nearby airstrip to fly and some homeowners purchased their homes specifically because of their proximity to the airstrip. The Railroad filed a Quiet Title Act case against the homeowners, alleging that they own an exclusive easement, and because a portion of the airstrip overlaps with a portion of the railroad easement, the homeowners are forbidden to use the airstrip without paying the railroad a fee for a license. PLF took over the case on appeal and filed briefs in the Ninth Circuit and orally argued. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Foss v. City of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Financially struggling senior citizen Deborah Foss used her life savings to buy a home. When she could not pay part of her 2016 tax debt, the city initiated a "tax taking," meaning the debt went on the books and began accruing 16% annual interest, subsequent tax bills, and administrative fees. The city sold its tax lien to a private investment company for $9,626-the amount Deborah owed the city. The company started the foreclosure process in court nine days later. The court foreclosed on the lien in September 2019, and handed absolute title and ownership of Deborah's”

“Hall v. Meisner. PLF represents several former Oakland County, Michigan, homeowners who lost their homes to tax foreclosure. Instead of selling the homes at auction, the City of Southfield took title to the properties by paying only the tax debt then gave the properties free of charge to a company that took large windfalls at the expense of the former owners. The company is controlled by key City officials. The owners sued to recover the equity in their homes but the trial court dismissed their claims. PLF took over the case and appealed to the Sixth Circuit, arguing that the City and related companies violated the former owners' constitutional rights and the doctrine of unjust enrichment when they took valuable homes that were worth more than the encumbering property tax debts. The Sixth Circuit agreed, holding that the city's retention of Hall's equity effected an unconstitutional taking, and remanding for just compensation. PLF opposed the county's petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied, and defeated the state Attorney General's motion to intervene. The appellate court awarded $505 in costs. The City petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari on the takings issue, and PLF cross-petitioned on excessive fines. Both petitions were denied. The case is being litigated by private counsel on remand, but PLF retains an interest in future fees. HomeRoom, Inc. v. City of Shawnee, Kansas. PLF represents HomeRoom, Inc. (a property management company) and Val French in a federal lawsuit challenging Shawnee, Kansas's "co-living ban ordinance, which regulates the occupancy of homes on the basis of family relationships by prohibiting four or more unrelated persons from living together. When the ordinance was adopted, Val lived with her husband, their two adult sons, and the girlfriend of one of the sons. Fearing enforcement, the son and girlfriend moved out. Government exceeds its land-use authority when it regulates not only the use of land but the relationships among its users. Homeowners and individuals have a fundamental right to establish a household that meets their personal needs without undue government interference. The ordinance violates the due process and equal protections of the U.S. Constitution as well as state land use statutes. Because the case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Idaho Conservation League v. Poe. PLF represents Shannon Poe in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge a district court decision that, in deferring to EPA regulations, held that Poe's suction dredge mining "added" pollutants to a "water of the United States and thus required a permit under section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Because suction dredge mining does not in fact add pollutants to regulated waters, it does not require a permit under section 402. At most, the discharge of "dredged or fill material" might have required a permit under section 404. PLF commenced briefing. Because this case is ongoing, it is premature to seek fees. Iten v. County of Los Angeles. Howard Iten is a retired auto mechanic who depends on rental income from a single commercial property in Lawndale, California. His current tenant is an auto repair franchisee who has refused to pay much of his rent during the COVID-19 pandemic, even though his business remained open the entire time. He owes Iten thousands of dollars in back rent but Iten cannot evict him under Los Angeles County's commercial eviction moratorium. The franchisee can avoid paying any current or back-rent until a full year after the moratorium expires and need never pay interest or fees. Iten must accept the franchisee's word that he is suffering a pandemic hardship. The moratorium undermines the lease contract without accomplishing anything to curb the emergency that supposedly justified its enactment. PLF represents Iten in a federal lawsuit to assert his rights under the federal Constitution's Contract Clause. The district court dismissed the complaint and PLF appealed”

“Masucci v. Judy's Moody. Judy's Moody LLC is a holding company owned by Keith Dennis that holds title to his coastal home in Maine. For over 400 years, coastal property owners in Maine have held title to the intertidal zone (land between the mean high tide line and the low tide line). On April 21, 2021, activists unhappy with this settled law sued for a judicial declaration that all intertidal zones on Maine's coastline are public property. PLF represents Judy's Moody to argue that the right to control access to private property is an essential property right and that changing hundreds of years of settled private property rights raises serious Takings Clause concerns. The court ruled in favor of Judy's Moody that private property owners, not the state, own the intertidal zone, but allowed one part of the activists' lawsuit to continue. PLF filed a motion for reconsideration on that last issue. Litigation continues on the scope of the public easement and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Because this case is ongoing, it is premature to seek fees. Mendelson v. County of San Mateo, California. PLF represents Felix Mendelson in the Ninth Circuit, challenging the County's prohibition on development in designated sensitive habitat as a taking. Felix filed a coastal development permit to build a single family home on property that all parties know is a designated riparian corridor where all such construction is prohibited. Rather than condemning the land or denying Mendelson's permit so he could file an inverse condemnation claim, the government simply sat on the application and refused to issue a response. PLF will argue that local government cannot avoid rendering a final decision as a means to avoid liability for a taking. Appellate proceedings are stayed until July, 2023. Because the case is ongoing, it is premature to seek fees. New Mexico Cattle Growers Association v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 2015, PLF submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service a petition to delist the Southwestern willow flycatcher as an endangered species because a recent scientific study showed that the flycatcher should not be considered a separate subspecies. The Service denied the petition and refused to define the standards necessary for a population to qualify as a listable entity under the Endangered Species Act. This "we know when we see it" approach to taxonomy is arbitrary and capricious. PLF represents the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, whose members are heavily burdened by critical habitat designations, and filed a complaint challenging the flycatcher listing in the district court for the District of Columbia. After a stay pending rulemaking was lifted, PLF filed a motion for summary judgment. Because this case is ongoing, it is premature to seek fees. Nieveen v. TAX 106. When Sandra Nieveen failed to pay property taxes on her $62,000 home, the county treasurer sold the tax certificate (a lien on the property) to a private firm, TAX 106, that paid approximately $3,500 in taxes on Nieveen's property. Three years later, TAX 106 notified Nieveen that she had three months to pay all accumulated taxes, interest, penalties, and costs, or she would lose her property. Nieveen did not pay. When Nieveen's right to redeem her property expired, the county treasurer issued the tax deed to the property to the private firm, granting it full title to the property. Nieveen lost everything. The Nebraska Supreme Court rejected Nieveen's statutory and constitutional claims, and PLF filed a petition for writ of certiorari on her behalf. The Court granted the petition, vacated the Nebraska Supreme Court decision, and remanded for reconsideration in light of PLF's victory in Tyler v. Hennepin County. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco. A city ordinance requires anyone who converts a tenancy-in-common apartment interest into a condominium interest to give any ex”

“Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County, Michigan. After filing an amicus brief in the appellate court, PLF took over representation of Rafaeli, LLC, and Andre Ohanessian to ask the Michigan Supreme Court to review a lower court decision that permits counties to confiscate entire properties to satisfy tax debts without refunding any of the surplus proceeds of the sale to the former owner. This confiscation violates the federal and state constitutional provisions that prohibit the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. The court unanimously ruled in favor of Rafaeli, eliminating the ability of the state to steal its citizens' home equity. The case proceeded as a class action in trial court, led by local counsel, then settled. PLF recovered $191,000 in fees from the settlement. Ralston v. County of San Mateo. Randy Ralston and Linda Mendiola own vacant property in a residentially-zoned area of San Mateo County. The county's Local Coastal Program flatly forbids any development on the property. Ralston sued in federal court alleging a taking without just compensation but the court dismissed it because he had not filed an application for a building permit and received a final decision whether it would allow the development (an inevitable refusal). PLF represented Ralston on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, filed briefs and orally argued. After an adverse decision, PLF filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied. PLF filed a petition for writ of certiorari. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Ralston v. County of San Mateo. Randy Ralston and Linda Mendiola own vacant property in a residentially-zoned area of San Mateo County. The county's Local Coastal Program flatly forbids any development on the property. Ralston sued in federal court alleging a taking without just compensation but the court dismissed it because he had not filed an application for a building permit and received a final decision whether it would allow the development (an inevitable refusal). PLF represented Ralston on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, filed briefs and orally argued. After an adverse decision, PLF filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied. PLF filed a petition for writ of certiorari. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Sabey v. Massachusetts Department of Children & Families. When married couple Joshua Sabey and Sarah Perkins took their infant son to the hospital for a high fever, the staff x-rayed the infant to rule out pneumonia. Spotting a healed broken rib, the hospital detained Perkins and the baby for three days while they were questioned and ultimately released. At 1:00 a.m. the next night, the police arrived without a warrant, issuing threats, and demanding they turn over the children. After three months, the Sabeys were exonerated of all wrongdoing, the case against them permanently dismissed. PLF represents the family in federal district court in a lawsuit to challenge the agency's warrantless seizure of the children when there was no imminent risk of harm, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. After winning the right for the Sacketts to go to court to challenge the EPA's assertion of jurisdiction over alleged wetlands on their property in the U.S. Supreme Court (2012), PLF continued to represent the Sacketts on remand. PLF filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a ruling that the Sacketts' property does not contain wetlands subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. The trial court issued an adverse decision and PLF appealed. The court issued an adverse opinion. PLF filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which was granted to determine the test for whether "navigable waters of the United States" exist on private property. Victory! The Supreme Court held that waters of the United States must be tied to commerce and that the Sac”

“State of Hawaii v. Williams. Don Williams is an elderly single father, raising a son, Sebastian. Despite his modest means, he purchased property in Maui in 1994 by his own resourcefulness and initiative and then rented it to the State. The income from the property was intended to provide for Sebastian's future, but the Hawaii's Harbors Division exercised its eminent domain power to take Williams' property, a parcel that the State was already leasing from Williams. The state improperly used the "undivided fee" rule when it appraised William's property at $2.67 million and excluded information about the property's income-generating potential. As the result of two trial court rulings, Williams may owe the state more than $1 million for the taking of his own property. PLF filed a notice of appearance to represent Don in the Hawaii Court of Appeals. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Stavrianoudakis v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. PLF represents falconers and a falconry conservancy organization to challenge state and federal rules requiring warrantless inspection of their homes (a Fourth Amendment violation) and prohibiting photography or filming of falcons for commercial purposes (a First Amendment violation). The lawsuit also challenges the promulgation of these rules by a sub-level bureaucrat as a violation of the Constitution's Appointments Clause. PLF filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in federal district court. The state filed motions to dismiss. The court dismissed the Fourth Amendment claims but held that the First Amendment claims are likely to succeed and denied the motion to dismiss on that basis. The parties settled the First Amendment claims, including $178,000 in fees for PLF. PLF continues to litigate the Fourth Amendment claim on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Tyler v. Hennepin County. Geraldine Tyler moved out of her Minneapolis condo in 2010, and rented an apartment in a safer area. While Geraldine and her family focused on her health and safety, she failed to pay property taxes on the condo and by 2015, her $2,300 tax debt (including costs and penalties) ballooned to $15,000. Hennepin County seized her condo and sold it the following year for $40,000. Even though Geraldine owed only $15,000, the county kept the surplus from the sale. PLF took over Geraldine's case in the Eighth Circuit to challenge government-sanctioned home equity theft, arguing that the county's refusal to refund the amount above and beyond what Geraldine owed was an unconstitutional taking or an excessive fine. After adverse rulings in the Eighth Circuit, PLF filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which was granted. Victory! The Supreme Court unanimously held that the County's retention of Tyler's equity beyond the amount of her debt was a taking without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Court awarded PLF $1,391.20 in costs. The case was remanded for further proceedings. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Varela v. City of El Paso, Texas. After fire partially damaged Luis Varela's home, the city declared it a nuisance and ordered Varela to fix his home, warning it could be demolished if he did not. Varela immediately set out to make needed repairs, spending $30,000 for renovations, but while in the process, the city refused to grant him permits and eventually ordered demolition. When Varela sued, claiming demolition would be an unconstitutional taking of his property, Texas courts held his takings claim was barred because he did not judicially challenge the original nuisance determination. PLF petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review and the Court ordered briefing on the merits. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Vondra v. City of Billings, Montana. A Billings ordinance requires all licensed massage therapy business owners, including home-practitioners, to agree to warrantless, unannounced searches and”

“Yim v. City of Seattle. PLF represents owners of small rental properties to challenge the constitutionality of Seattle's "Fair Chance Housing Ordinance," which restricts a residential landlord from considering a tenant applicant's criminal history. PLF filed the complaint in Washington state court and Seattle removed it to federal court. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. While these were pending, Seattle successfully moved to certify the question of what standard of review is appropriate to the Washington Supreme Court and the federal litigation was subsequently stayed. After the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the state due process clause is equivalent to its federal counterpart, litigation continued on the owners' due process and First Amendment claims. The federal district court granted the city's motion for summary judgment and PLF appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit struck down one aspect of the law as violating the First Amendment and upheld another aspect against the due process challenge. The Court ordered each side to bear its own costs. The city petitioned for rehearing en banc, and PLF filed a conditional cross-petition. Both petitions were denied. PLF plans to file a cert petition on the due process issue. Because the case is pending, it is premature to seek fees.”

“Separation of Powers: The Constitution's structure was designed to protect liberty. It is a charter of enumerated powers, limiting the scope of federal authority and establishing a separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers. PLF fights to end the modern administrative state, including limiting judicial deference to legislative and administrative judgments; restore separation of powers against improper delegation of authority to bureaucrats and accountability when those bureaucrats exceed their authority; defining the limited scope of federal power under the Commerce Clause; reviving the doctrine of enumerated powers; and ensuring due process of law. Bell v. Raimundo. PLF represents Karen Bell and Steven Rash in a federal lawsuit challenging an amendment to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management plan on the grounds that Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council controlling the issuance of the plan is unconstitutionally structured with members appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause. Bell is a fish-seller and Rash a fisherman. The challenged plan amendment significantly reduces the commercial Greater Amberjack fishing quota, harming Bell's and Rash's businesses. Because this case is pending, it is premature to see fees. Bikeyah v. Biden. Representing landowners, hunters, outdoor sportsmen, and ranchers, PLF attorneys successfully moved to intervene in this case brought by environmentalists to challenge the President's authority to rescind or reduce previously designated national monuments and filed briefs in the case. Litigation is ongoing. Because this case is pending, it would be premature to seek fees. Bradford v. Walsh. Duke Bradford owns and operates opened Arkansas Valley Adventures (AVA), a Colorado company employing 250 people who provide a full slate of outdoor experiences, including guided, multi-day river rafting wilderness trips. Because Colorado's rivers flow through federal land, rafting businesses must obtain special use permits permitted by federal law, for which they pay a fixed percentage of service fees. The U.S. Department of Labor has ordered all federal contractors to pay a $15-per-hour minimum wage, plus overtime, starting January 30, 2022. The rule's absurdly broad definition of "contractors" includes 45,000 private firms that provide concessions or recreational services-like rafting outfitters-whose only ties to the federal government are special land use permits or licenses. Representing Duke, and the nonprofit Colorado River Outfitters Association, PLF filed a federal lawsuit challenging the executive order mandating workers' pay structure and sought a preliminary injunction. The court denied the preliminary injunction and PLF appealed. Meanwhile, PLF filed a motion for summary judgment in trial court. The Tenth Circuit stayed the order and the trial court proceedings pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Clementine Co. v. Adams/Clementine Co. v. De Blasio. PLF represents small venue theatres and comedy clubs in Manhattan that seat fewer than 200 customers. They are challenging a law that forbids these venues from admitting customers without requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination. However, if the venues were to host a church service, the city requires no proof of vaccination. This differential and restrictive treatment violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The unequal mandate burdens and stigmatizes businesses that already are struggling to rebound from the city's lockdown policies. PLF filed a complaint in federal district court and sought a preliminary injunction to vindicate the venues' constitutional rights. The preliminary injunction was denied and PLF appealed to the Second Circuit, which dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the lower court decision. Litigation continued in the trial court and the district court ruled against Clementine on standing and mootness grounds. The case is closed. P”

“Garrison v. U.S. Dept. of Education. PLF represents Frank Garrison in a putative class action in federal court to challenge student loan cancelation implemented by the U.S. Department of Education. As directed by President Biden, the Department intends to cancel federal student loan debt on or about October 1, 2022. However, the putative statutory basis for this action, the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act (HEROES Act), 20 U.S.C. 1098aa et seq., does not allow this unilateral action. This case seeks to enforce basic limits on the Executive Branch's ability to use an inapplicable statute as a pretext for a transformational, massive, and highly political economic action. The district court dismissed the case on standing grounds. PLF submitted an amended complaint and request for preliminary injunction. The complaint was dismissed and injunction denied. The Seventh Circuit refused to enjoin the cancelation and PLF applied to the Supreme Court for an injunction, which was denied. The case remains at the Seventh Circuit in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's decision in Biden v. Nebraska. The Supreme Court agreed with PLF that the HEROES Act did not authorize the loan cancellation. Because the case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Ghost Golf v. Newsom. At Ghost Golf in Fresno, California, the weeks leading up to Halloween mark the peak season for the haunted house-themed miniature golf center, earning enough money for owner Daryn Coleman and his family to weather the springtime slowdown. However, Ghost Golf was by Governor Gavin Newsom's COVID-related business shutdown orders, leaving the owners with no income while still facing rental obligations and other business expenses. Worse, Newsom implemented his complex, arbitrary scheme with neither legislative authority nor an expiration date. With their livelihoods-and life savings-on the line, PLF represents Ghost Golf and another California small business owner in a lawsuit filed in California state court. The court denied a motion for preliminary injunction and PLF appealed. The appellate court affirmed. Proceedings on the merits continue in the trial court, where PLF defeated a motion to dismiss and filed a motion for summary judgment. The court ruled for the government and PLF appealed. As litigation is ongoing, it is premature to seek fees. Goodwood Brewing Company, LLC v. Beshear. Since the pandemic began, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear used his emergency powers to unilaterally enact COVID-19-related policies. In February 2021, the legislature passed three bills to limit the governor's use of pandemic-related emergency orders. Gov. Beshear immediately sued, claiming these new laws unconstitutionally interfere with his broad emergency authority. Representing Goodwood Brewing Company and other breweries and restaurants, PLF filed a lawsuit in state court challenging the governor's enforcement of COVID-related orders which expired under the new legislation. Even during a pandemic, each branch of government must adhere to the constitutional provision of separation of powers, which are the main protection of individual liberty. PLF prevailed and obtained a temporary injunction and the governor appealed. The appellate court transferred the case to the Kentucky Supreme Court, where PLF presented oral argument. The decision (along with a consolidated case) was largely favorable and the court remanded for further proceedings. PLF filed a petition for rehearing in the Kentucky Supreme Court, which was denied. In the trial court, a joint dismissal is pending. PLF will not seek or recover fees. Humbyrd v. Raimondo. Wes Humbyrd has been a part of Alaska's commercial Goodwood Brewing Company, LLC v. Beshear. Since the pandemic began, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear used his emergency powers to unilaterally enact COVID-19-related policies. In February 2021, the legislature passed three bills to limit the governor's use of pandemic-related emergency orders. Gov. B”

“Michigan Association of Public Schools Academies, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Education. PLF represents a coalition of charter schools in Michigan and Ohio in a federal lawsuit challenging the Department of Education's illegal rule that punishes successful charter schools nationwide. The federal Charter Schools Program makes grants of hundreds of millions of dollars to increase the number of high-quality charter schools. Congress gave clear instructions and criteria for distributing these funds; however, the DOE issued a new rule requiring applicants (1) to prove that traditional public schools are over-enrolled, not just failing to serve the needs of their students; (2) to seek approval from existing public schools; and (3) to show that they are not serving too many students who are racial minorities. The DOE has no authority to issue these new rules, and cannot advance a policy agenda contrary to Congress' clear instructions. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Murphy v. Raimondo. PLF represents Maureen Murphy and John Huddleston in a federal lawsuit challenging the Census Bureau's authority to compel individuals under threat of criminal prosecution to provide private information through two sampling surveys. PLF argues that the open-ended statutes authorizing the Census Bureau to collect information through the American Community Survey and American Housing Survey violate the nondelegation doctrine, invade the right to privacy, and compel speech in violation of the First Amendment. PLF also argues that the Bureau's interpretations of the statutes and regulations should receive to deference from the court. PLF sought to certify a class action. The trial court ruled in favor of the government on grounds of ripeness. PLF appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Peters Brothers, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection. PLF represents Peters Brothers and other small trucking companies and trade associations in a state court lawsuit challenging a Pennsylvania regulation that automatically incorporates any changes to California's regulations governing heavy diesel vehicles. The incorporation of California's regulations makes it more costly for trucking and busing companies to update their fleets, causing customers to respond by buying and registering trucks in other states. Only Pennsylvania's elected representatives can make laws for Pennsylvania residents; a state that outsources its lawmaking authority to another state violates both statutory law and the nondelegation doctrine. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Phillip B. v. Mike Faust, and Arizona Department of Child Safety. A troubled teen housed at a group home accused Mr. B of abusing another teen because Mr. B. placed his hand on the teen's shoulder to calm him down. An administrative law judge, after trial, exonerated Mr. B., a group home manager for troubled teens, of the child-abuse charge after DCS failed to prove the elements of the charge. DCS, a single-director agency, appealed the judge's decision to its director. The director deleted the judge's factual and credibility findings, and rejected the judge's conclusions of law. As a result, Mr. B.'s name was placed on the child-abuse registry for 25 years. The state trial court deferred to the director's (as opposed to the judge's) findings of fact. PLF represents Mr. B. to challenge the administrative adjudication scheme under the Due Process Clauses of the state and federal constitutions, and the Separation-of-Powers Clause of the Arizona Constitution. Victory! The court issued a favorable decision and DCS appealed, then withdrew its appeal. The case is closed. PLF did not seek or recover fees. Sarra L. v. Faust. PLF represents Sarra L. in Arizona state court to reverse the Department of Child Safety's decision that (1) labeled her a neglectful parent for buying groceries while her seven-year-old son played”

“Villegas v. Environmental Protection Agency. PLF represents Thomas and Amy Villegas, who own undeveloped property in Nebraska that they intend to use for hunting and other recreational activities. They cleared the land of dead trees and invasive vegetation and created an access road. A neighbor reported their activity to the EPA, which is prosecuting them for violating the Clean Water Act and seeking $300,000 in penalties in an agency procedure run under its own rules, and using its own employees as judges. The Constitution guarantees basic principles of fairness, including the right to a fair trial before an impartial judge and jury. This means a real court of law, not court-like procedures set by executive agencies. PLF filed a complaint in federal district court and moved for a preliminary injunction. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Walmsley v. Federal Trade Commission. PLF represents Bill Walmsley, John Moss, and the Iowa Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association, who are subject to the federal Horse Integrity and Safety Act of 2020, which created the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority to regulate racetrack safety and horse doping nationwide. The Authority requires anyone in the horse industry to register and pay yearly fees. The burdensome rules and regulations from the Horse Act and the accompanying regulations make it difficult for independent horse owners like Walmsley to continue in the horse business. The Authority suffers from multiple constitutional violations because it is a private nonprofit corporation making nationwide rules with no accountability to Congress or the people. The President cannot appoint or remove Authority members. And the Authority adjudicates all disputes. PLF filed a lawsuit challenging the Act and the Authority in federal court, and sought a preliminary injunction. Because the case is ongoing, it is premature to seek fees. Washington Cattlemen's Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency/Oregon Cattlemen's Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency/North Dakota v. Environmental Protection Agency/ New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association v. EPA/Pasqua Yaqui Tribe v. EPA. The EPA issued an "internal guidance" document redefining jurisdictional waters under the Clean Water Act in violation of Administrative Procedure Act rule-making procedures and the U.S. Constitution. Representing cattlemen's associations whose members are adversely affected by the overly-expansive reach of the EPA's "Navigable Waters Rule," PLF filed complaints in multiple states to overturn it. Pasqua Yaqui was voluntarily dismissed and is closed. All other cases were stayed pending resolution of Sackett v. EPA by the Supreme Court. Because litigation is ongoing in all these cases, it is premature to seek fees. Williams v. California Department of Fish & Wildlife. Chris Williams wants to obtain a gill and trammel net permit from an existing permit holder. The Department says that he is not qualified because he does not have any experience using gill or trammel nets. Yet such experience is only legal if one has a permit. PLF filed a federal lawsuit because the agency no longer issues gillnet permits, so a transfer application is the only way to legally fish. The law allows permits to transfer to qualified fishermen, but the agency's reinterpretation requires applicants to demonstrate skills that only permit holders can legally perform. The agency's refusal to carry out its nondiscretionary duty to transfer his permit violated the state fish and game code. PLF filed a petition for writ of mandate in Ventura County Superior Court. Victory! The court ordered the agency to transfer the permit. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Wille v. Raimondo. PLF represents Hawaii residents involved in the local swim-with-dolphins industry as boat captains, dolphin guides, or therapists to challenge a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that prohibits swimm”

“Barilla v. City of Houston. Tony Barilla is an accomplished accordionist who wishes to busk-that is, play in public for tips-in the streets of Houston. But Houston bans busking in most places and where it is allowed, performers must obtain a permit and permission from abutting property owners of the performance site, establishing a "heckler's veto" over the busker's speech. The First Amendment protects Tony's right to earn extra money while engaging in free expression. Representing Barilla, PLF sued in federal district court to vindicate his First Amendment rights and establish the principle that speech that is motivated by money is just as protected by the Constitution as any other kind of speech. The court granted the city's motion to dismiss. PLF appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed with PLF, reversed the district court and remanded for proceedings on the merits. PLF was awarded $561 in court costs for the appeal. Back in the trial court, both parties moved for summary judgment. Victory! The district court ruled that the city had no evidence whatsoever to justify the busking ordinance and it therefore violated the First Amendment. PLF seeks $208,821.50 in fees and awaits the court's order. Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence v. School Committee of Boston. PLF represents a group of students, parents, alumni, and future applicants to Boston's Exam Schools. The group's mission is to promote excellent and merit-based admissions while supporting diversity by improving the K-6 pipeline in Boston public schools. They sued in federal court to challenge Boston's decision to overhaul admissions to pursue racial balance by imposing quotas based on applicants' postal zip codes. The parent coalition lost in district court and PLF took over representation on appeal to the First Circuit and filed briefs to argue that it violates the constitution to manipulate admissions processes to obtain desired racial outcomes. PLF orally argued. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Californians for Equal Rights Foundation v. County of Alameda, California. Alameda County requires prime contractors to subcontract 15% of applicable government construction contracts to minority-owned businesses or show "good faith efforts" that they attempted to do so. The set-asides force general contractors to discriminate against subcontractors, and in many cases, they work to exclude subcontractors in certain fields from obtaining jobs just because they are not minority-owned. PLF represents the Californians for Equal Rights Foundations and several individuals, including a longtime California contractor, to challenge these set-asides in federal court as violating the federal and state constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law. The county moved for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted, on the grounds that the lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations. PLF appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Chinese American Citizens Alliance of Greater New York v. Adams. New York City operates eight specialized high schools that are among the best in the city, public or private. State law offers a path to admission for low-income students who score below the Admissions Test cutoff, up to 5% of the available ninth-grade seats. The City of New York changed the admissions criteria to reserve 20% of the ninth-grade seats for low-income students, explicitly for the purpose of increasing the percentage of black and Hispanic students while decreasing the percentage of Asian-American students. PLF represents parents of Asian-American students in a federal lawsuit challenging this change as violating the Equal Protection Clause. The district court granted the City's motion for summary judgment and PLF appealed to the Second Circuit, filed briefs, and argued. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Chubb v. Boyd. PLF represents Kat”

“Diemart v. City of Seattle. Joshua Diemert worked for the City of Seattle for 8 years, receiving good reviews and awards. Recently, however, he has been subjected to racially-motivated harassment under the city's "Race and Social Justice Initiative" (RSJI) that is sufficiently severe and pervasive to create a racially-hostile work environment. PLF filed a complaint on behalf of Joshua with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), arguing that the city violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by requiring him to complete RSJI training, segregating staff meetings by race, offering and requiring race-based programming, promoting race-based affinity groups, and maintaining a commitment to making racial distinctions among City staff. The EEOC granted Joshua the right to sue. PLF filed a complaint in federal district court to vindicate Joshua's right to workplace equality and to protect everyone's right to be judged by the content of their individual character and work product, rather than being labeled and classified through the lens of discriminatory workplace equity initiatives. Because this matter is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Flores v. Bennett. PLF is providing local counsel to coordinate with attorneys from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression to challenge Clovis Community College's refusal to allow a conservative student group to post anti-communist flyers on a campus bulletin board. Public universities cannot censor the speech of disfavored student groups because it finds the groups' message to be offensive. The lawsuit, which seeks a preliminary injunction, is filed in federal court in California. Because this matter is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Haile v. Hutchinson. PLF represents Stephen Haile, a longtime foster parent who housed and raised more than 300 foster children. Stephen has worked with social workers and served on a foster parent board and wishes to use this knowledge and leadership experience to serve on the Arkansas Social Work Licensing Board. However, the governor's ability to appoint members to the board is limited based on the race of the applicants. State law requires that no fewer than two African-Americans be appointed to the Board. Because Stephen is not African-American, and the only open seat was previously filled by an African-American member (one of two), Stephen's application will not be considered. PLF filed a lawsuit in federal court to challenge this blatantly unconstitutional race quota and sought a preliminary injunction. Victory! In response to the lawsuit, the state repealed the race quota. PLF dismissed the case without prejudice and did not seek or recover fees. Haltigan v. University of Santa Cruz. A growing number of universities employ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) statement requirements as job screening tools. The University of California system uses these statements to screen for applicants from minority backgrounds and those committed to a certain view of racial justice. PLF represents J.D. Haltigan in a federal court challenge to a Diversity Statement Requirement in a job posting at the University of Santa Cruz. The requirement forces prospective professors to agree or at least pretend to agree to particular beliefs about race, fairness, and other subjects, as a condition of employment. Haltigan wants to be assessed on merit and qualifications, not an ideological litmus test. The case challenges the constitutionality of the diversity statements under the Equal Protection Clause and First Amendment. Because this case is pending, it is premature to seek fees. Hierholzer v. Guzman. PLF represents Marty Hierholzer and his business, MJL Enterprises, a small business with 20 employees that contracts with federal agencies to provide maintenance products and equipment to VA hospitals and military facilities. On behalf of MJL Enterprises, PLF filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the Small Business Act's set-aside program for disa”

“Ng v. Board of Regents of University of Minnesota. PLF represents Evan Ng, a competitive gymnast since childhood. He chose to attend the University of Minnesota to compete on its century-old gymnastics team. His hopes were dashed when the university cut men's gymnastics after the 2020-21 school year under the mistaken belief that federal Title IX law requires the proportion of male athletes to match the proportion of males in the student body. Evan can no longer compete in his chosen sport and will lose out on valuable opportunities enjoyed by varsity athletes solely because the university believes it has too many men participating in sports. Because schools cannot make decisions that deny student-athletes' opportunities based on sex, PLF filed a complaint and sought a preliminary injunction in federal district court. The court denied the preliminary injunction and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. PLF filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied. The case was subsequently voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. PLF did not seek or recover fees. Noland v. Montana Public Service Commission. After Noland Parker was medically discharged from the U.S. Army, he bought a few small dumpsters and a specialized truck and set out to become a hauler of construction debris. The Montana Public Service Commission issued a cease-and-desist order, saying he needed a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CON) before opening for business. After Parker filed for his certificate, the two largest waste companies protested his application. After a lengthy and costly legal battle, Parker withdrew his application. PLF represents Noland in a state court constitutional challenge to Montana's CON law for "junk haulers"-or Class D motor carriers-that allows entrenched companies to stop his business. He seeks to vindicate his right under both the Montana and U.S. Constitutions to earn an honest living without undue government interference. Because the case is pending, it is premature to seek fees Ostrewich v. Scott. PLF represents Jillian Ostrewich, a Texas voter who went to her polling place wearing a firefighter union shirt. Election officials forced her to remove the shirt before being allowed to vote because the union supported an initiative measure on the ballot. In this follow-up case to PLF's Supreme Court victory in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF filed a complaint in federal district court arguing that a statute forbidding voters from wearing apparel related to any candidate, political party, or issue violates the First Amendment freedom of speech. After discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment, filed multiple briefs and presented oral argument. The district court struck down two of the electioneering statutes because they violate the First Amendment but upheld a narrower statute related to name badges. Both parties appealed and completed briefing in the Fifth Circuit. The appellate court upheld all three statutes. PLF will file a petition for rehearing en banc. Because litigation is ongoing, it would be premature to seek fees. Palmer v. Bonta. PLF represents nursing practitioners, each with a Doctorate in Nursing Practice, in a federal lawsuit challenging a California law that forbids them from using the title, "Dr." Their federal lawsuit seeks to vindicate their First Amendment right to truthfully use the title "Dr." so long as they clarify that they are not physicians. Plaintiffs face the threat of fines and loss of their licenses and livelihoods if the state enforces the law against them. The state cannot appropriate a commonly used term and reserve it for a narrow range of practitioners. Many professionals commonly use the title "Dr."-beyond physicians-and should be able to truthfully do so in describing their profession or accomplishments. Government censorship of professional titles is a thinly veiled attempt to protect well-connected industry insiders. PLF sought preliminary injunctive relief. Because”

“Weiss v. Perez. Dr. Elizabeth Weiss, a highly decorated, fully tenured professor of anthropology at San Jose State University (SJSU), specializes in osteology-the study of human skeletal remains. She is an expert on the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and similar laws that require laboratories and museums to hand over certain Native American remains to the tribes for reburial. Dr. Weiss' scholarship criticizes these laws as stunting scientific research and possibly unconstitutional. After she published a book in 2020, critics launched a campaign to label Prof. Weiss as anti-Indigenous and racist. SJSU joined the criticism, sponsoring a speaker series that called for shutting down views such as hers. The First Amendment protects Dr. Weiss' right to research, write about, and teach her views to her students. The university cannot silence her because it disagrees with her views. PLF represents Dr. Weiss in federal court, to defend her right to research, write, and teach differing perspectives, free of viewpoint discrimination and threats of retaliation. PLF defeated the university's motion to dismiss and proceeded to the merits. The case then settled. PLF did not seek or recover fees. Wynn v. Vilsack/Morton v. Vilsack/McKinney v. Vilsack/Dunlap v. Vilsack/Tiegs v. Vilsack/Morton v. Vilsack. PLF represents individual farmers in federal court in a series of cases challenging a provision of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 that allows loan forgiveness of up to 120%, but only for minority farmers and ranchers, whom the law automatically treats as "socially disadvantaged," regardless of their individual circumstances. Because government cannot use racial classifications to decide who gets government benefits and burdens, PLF filed cases in federal district courts in Florida, Illinois, Texas, Oregon, and North Dakota and sought to enjoin the government's enforcement of the discriminatory statute. The President signed legislation in August 2022, repealing the challenged provisions. Wynn v. Vilsack: Scott Wynn is a lifelong farmer who has run Wynn Farms in Jennings, Florida, producing sweet potatoes, corn, and cattle since 2006. COVID-19, however, hit the family's finances hard. Steep drops in beef prices and too little help and supplies to grow sweet potatoes meant less income, nearly all of which went toward federal farm loan repayment. Wynn is not eligible for farm loan forgiveness under the American Rescue Plan because he is white and therefore deemed not "socially disadvantaged." PLF successfully obtained a preliminary injunction and filed a motion for $127,709.05 in attorneys' fees, which is pending. PLF also sought $421.40 in costs. Morton v. Vilsack: Matthew and Joshua Morton are brothers and full-time farmers in Kell, Illinois. They have federal farm loans with an outstanding balance. At first encouraged about a farm loan forgiveness provision in Congress' COVID-19 legislation, Matthew and Joshua were surprised to learn they're not eligible-because they're white. The case was dismissed after the program's repeal and is now closed. PLF did not seek or recover fees. McKinney v. Vilsack: Jarrod McKinney began raising cattle in the Texarkana region eight years ago with help from a federal loan for beginning farmers. Like many farmers facing economic hardship in the pandemic's aftermath, Jarrod would apply for farm loan forgiveness but he is not eligible for the federal program-because he is white. The case was dismissed after the program's repeal and is now closed. PLF did not seek or recover fees. Dunlap v. Vilsack: Katie and James Dunlap are farmers in Oregon who both work two jobs in addition to raising their toddler. The couple rent land from his parents where they raise cattle and hay-an endeavor that required two farm loans to buy cattle and equipment. Like many other farmers, the Dunlaps were negatively affected by COVID and were relieved when they heard about a farm loan forgiveness provision in Co”

“Change in value of split-interest agreements 226,818.”

“The Foundation's Audit Committee assumes responsibility for oversight of the audit of the consolidated financial statements and selection of an independent accountant. The process is consistent with previous years.”