| FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A |
CHERK FAMILY TRUST V. COUNTY OF MARIN. THE CHERK FAMILY WANTED TO SUPPLEMENT THEIR MODEST RETIREMENT INCOME BY SPLITTING AND SELLING A RESIDENTIAL LOT THEY OWNED IN MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. THE COUNTY CONDITIONED THEIR PERMIT ON PAYMENT OF A $39,960 "AFFORDABLE HOUSING" FEE. PLF REPRESENTS THE FAMILY IN A CHALLENGE TO THE FEE ORDINANCE AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITION THAT TAKES THEIR PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. AFTER AN ADVERSE DECISION IN THE TRIAL COURT, PLF APPEALED TO THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL ON BEHALF OF THE CHERKS AND COMPLETED BRIEFING AND ORAL ARGUMENT. THE COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION AND A PETITION FOR REVIEW TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT WAS DENIED. PLF FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS ONGOING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. COASTAL RIGHTS COALITION V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION. REPRESENTING COASTAL LANDOWNERS, PLF FILED A COMPLAINT IN THE ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE THE COASTAL COMMISSION'S ILLEGAL "UNDERGROUND" REGULATIONS THAT FORCE COASTAL HOMEOWNERS TO FOREVER WAIVE THEIR RIGHT TO BUILD A SEAWALL, OR OTHER SHORELINE PROTECTIVE DEVICE, AS A CONDITION OF GETTING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO BUILD OR SIGNIFICANTLY REPAIR OR REMODEL AN OCEANFRONT HOME. PLF ARGUED THAT THESE REGULATIONS VIOLATE THE STATE COASTAL ACT. THE TRIAL COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION. BECAUSE THE CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. DABBS V. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND. PLF TOOK OVER THIS CASE TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THE PETITION ASKED THE COURT TO HOLD THAT LEGISLATIVE EXACTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS DOCTRINE THAT HAS INFORMED THE COURT'S OTHER TAKINGS CASES. PETITION-STAGE BRIEFING WAS COMPLETED AND THE PETITION WAS DENIED. THE CASE IS CONCLUDED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. GARRETT V. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA. PLF REPRESENTS HOMEOWNERS IN A FEDERAL TAKINGS/DUE PROCESS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, WHICH DEMOLISHED THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT NOTICE, HEARING, OR COMPENSATION. THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THEIR CASE ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY DOCTRINE REQUIRES THEM TO EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES BEFORE BRINGING A FEDERAL CASE. PLF TOOK OVER THE CASE ON APPEAL TO THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. IN 2018, PLF ARGUED THE CASE ON APPEAL AND RECEIVED A FAVORABLE DECISION. PLF RECEIVED COSTS OF $512.56. BECAUSE THE CASE REMAINS PENDING ON REMAND, PLF HAS NOT SOUGHT OR RECOVERED FEES. GREENE V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMM'N. PLF REPRESENTS THE GREENE FAMILY IN A CHALLENGE TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION'S DECISION TO IMPOSE TWO CONDITIONS ON THE APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THEIR HOME IN LOS ANGELES. THE FIRST CONDITION REQUIRES A FIVE-FOOT SETBACK FROM THEIR SEAWARD PROPERTY LINE, IN CONFLICT WITH CITY ZONING ORDINANCES AND THE CITY-APPROVED PERMIT. THE SECOND CONDITION REQUIRES THE FAMILY TO WAIVE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHTS TO CONSTRUCT NECESSARY PROTECTIVE DEVICES, SUCH AS A SEAWALL. THE TRIAL COURT UPHELD THE CONDITIONS AND THE GREENES APPEALED. PLF FILED BRIEFS IN THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS ONGOING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. KELLEHER V. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION. PLF TOOK OVER THIS CASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILING A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THE CASE ARISES FROM NEW YORK PROPERTY OWNERS' ATTEMPTS TO CHALLENGE LAWS THAT PREVENT THEIR FULL USE OF THEIR PROPERTY. THE STATE COURT REJECTED THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL TAKING CLAIM ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE CHALLENGED LAWS WERE IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME THE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. THIS CONTRADICTS PLF'S EARLIER SUPREME COURT VICTORY IN PALAZZOLO V. RHODE ISLAND, WHICH REJECTS THAT THEORY. PLF COMPLETED PETITION-STAGE BRIEFING. THE PETITION WAS DENIED AND THE CASE CONCLUDED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. KNICK V. SCOTT TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA. A CITY ORDINANCE PERMITS UNRESTRICTED PUBLIC ACCESS TO ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT MIGHT CONTAIN GRAVES AND AUTHORIZES TOWN AGENTS TO SEARCH THE PROPERTY FOR GRAVES WITHOUT ANY PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT GRAVES ARE ON THE LAND. PLF REPRESENTS ROSE MARY KNICK, A SINGLE WOMAN WHO LIVES ALONE ON HER PROPERTY WHICH IS ALLEGED TO CONTAIN OLD GRAVES. PLF SUED TO INVALIDATE THE LAW AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INFRINGEMENT OF PROPERTY OWNERS' RIGHT TO EXCLUDE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FROM THEIR LAND, AND A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION AGAINST WARRANTLESS SEARCHES. AFTER AN ADVERSE DECISION THAT REQUIRED MS. KNICK TO PURSUE HER CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS IN STATE COURT INSTEAD OF FEDERAL COURT, PLF SUCCESSFULLY FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND LITIGATED THE CASE ON THE MERITS, INCLUDING ARGUMENT ON OCTOBER 3, 2018, AND REARGUMENT ON JANUARY 16, 2019. THE COURT ISSUED A FAVORABLE DECISION ON JUNE 21, 2019, OVERRULING WILLIAMSON COUNTY V. HAMILTON BANK. MS. KNICK'S CLAIMS WILL NOW PROCEED ON REMAND IN FEDERAL COURT. BECAUSE THIS CASE REMAINS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. LENT V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION. PLF ATTORNEYS TOOK OVER THIS CASE ON APPEAL TO CHALLENGE A $4.2 MILLION FINE IMPOSED BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION FOR AN ALLEGED ACCESS VIOLATION. WHEN GOVERNMENT DEMANDS THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS ACROSS AND ON THEIR LAND, THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT THE GOVERNMENT PAY FOR IT. PLF FILED BRIEFS IN THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS ONGOING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. MARKLE INTERESTS, LLC V. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. PLF FILED A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF MARKLE INTERESTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES CHALLENGING A CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE DUSKY GOPHER FROG THAT INCLUDED LAND WHERE THE FROG DID NOT LIVE AND COULD NOT LIVE WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE LAND THAT THE SERVICE HAS NO POWER TO DEMAND. THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UPHELD THE DESIGNATION, VASTLY EXPANDING THE AREA THAT MAY BE DESIGNATED AS CRITICAL HABITAT AND REDUCING THE ABILITY OF PROPERTY OWNERS TO MAKE PRODUCTIVE USE OF THEIR LAND. PLF FILED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, WHICH WAS GRANTED AND THE LOWER COURT DECISION VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RECONSIDERATION IN LIGHT OF THE VICTORY IN WEYERHAEUSER V. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, IN WHICH PLF REPRESENTED MARKLE AS A RESPONDENT. THE CASE WAS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT, AND THE PARTIES ARE CONSIDERING SETTLEMENT. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS ONGOING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. MARQUETTE COUNTY ROAD COMM'N V. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. COUNTY ROAD 595 IS A PROPOSED 21-MILE ROUTE THAT WOULD ALLOW TRUCKS TO BYPASS BUSY CITY STREETS IN MARQUETTE COUNTY. AS PLANNED AND APPROVED BY STATE OFFICIALS, IT WOULD CUT AIR POLLUTION, INCREASE SAFETY, AND SAVE OVER 450,000 GALLONS OF FUEL YEARLY. THE FEDERAL EPA CLAIMED THAT CR 595 WOULD ADVERSELY IMPACT WETLANDS. PLF REPRESENTS THE COMMISSION TO ARGUE THAT WHERE THE EPA IS CLEAR THAT IT WON'T APPROVE A ROAD PROJECT NO MATTER WHAT ALTERNATIVES ARE POSED, THE UNRESOLVED EPA OBJECTION UNDER CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 404(J) CONSTITUTES A FINAL AGENCY ACTION SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. AFTER AN ADVERSE TRIAL COURT DECISION, PLF APPEALED, FILING BRIEFS AND CONDUCTING ORAL ARGUMENT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. AFTER AN ADVERSE DECISION, PLF SOUGHT REHEARING EN BANC, WHICH WAS DENIED. PLF THEN FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH WAS DENIED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. NEMHAUSER V. CITY OF MOUNT DORA, FLORIDA. ALTHOUGH RENOWNED AS AN ART COLONY, THE CITY OF MOUNT DORA PROSECUTED RESIDENT NANCY NEMHAUSER FOR PAINTING HER HOUSE AND A SURROUNDING WALL TO RESEMBLE VAN GOGH'S STARRY NIGHT AS A PURPORTED VIOLATION OF THE MUNICIPAL SIGN ORDINANCE AND IMPOSED DAILY FINES. PLF IS DEFENDING NEMHAUSER ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE CITY'S ACTIONS VIOLATE HER CONSTITUTIONAL EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, AND SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PROHIBITING THE CITY FROM CONTINUING TO ASSESS FINES UNTIL THE COURT RULES ON THE MERITS. THE CITY THEN SETTLED, AGREEING THAT THE NEMHAUSERS HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DISPLAY THEIR MURAL AND MAKING A PUBLIC APOLOGY. PLF RECOVERED FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,608.75. THE CASE IS CLOSED. |
| FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A |
NEW MEXICO FARM AND LIVESTOCK BUREAU V. ZINKE. PLF CHALLENGED A CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR JAGUAR IN NEW MEXICO ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS, FARMERS, AND RANCHERS WHOSE PROPERTY WAS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE DESIGNATION. THE DESIGNATION DID NOT COMPLY WITH GOVERNING STATUTES BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE JAGUAR LIVED IN THE DESIGNATED AREAS AT THE TIME OF THE LISTING. IN 2017, PLF CONCLUDED BRIEFING ON A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE TRIAL COURT. AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION, PLF APPEALED. THE CASE WAS STAYED PENDING THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN WEYERHAEUSER V. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. WHEN THE STAY WAS LIFTED, PLF FILED AN OPENING BRIEF IN THE TENTH CIRCUIT. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. NORTHERN NEW MEXICO STOCKMAN'S ASSOCIATION V. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. CHALLENGING THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE'S DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE NEW MEXICO MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE, IN VIOLATION OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE DESIGNATION IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE THE SERVICE FAILED TO PROPERLY CONSIDER THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE DESIGNATION PRIOR TO ADOPTING THE FINAL RULE. THE SERVICE ALSO FAILED TO EXCLUDE ANY AREAS FROM THE DESIGNATION BASED ON THE SUBSET OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS THAT IT DID CONSIDER. PLF FILED A COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL COURT. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. OLYMPIC STEWARDSHIP FOUNDATION V. WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARING BOARD. PLF REPRESENTS SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS IN A CHALLENGE TO JEFFERSON COUNTY'S SHORELINE BUFFERS THAT ARGUES THE BUFFERS VIOLATE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IN VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION'S TAKINGS CLAUSE. PLF ALSO ARGUES THAT, TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL, THE STATE'S "NO NET LOSS" POLICY MUST BE CONSTRUED TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WHERE ADVERSE IMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATED. AFTER ADVERSE DECISIONS IN THE LOWER COURTS, PLF FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THE PETITION WAS DENIED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. PACETTA, LLC V. TOWN OF PONCE INLET, FLORIDA. AT THE TOWN'S URGING, PACETTA, LLC PURCHASED SEVERAL ADJACENT LOTS OF LAND TO BUILD A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT. THE TOWN PROMISED TO AMEND THE LAND USE PLAN TO PERMIT THE PROJECT. ANTI-DEVELOPMENT CANDIDATES WON A MAJORITY AT THE NEXT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING AND THEN REFUSED TO AMEND THE TOWN'S PLAN, RENDERING PACETTA'S HOLDING VALUELESS. PLF SUPPORTED PACETTA AS AMICUS CURIAE THROUGH LOWER COURT PROCEEDINGS AND TOOK OVER DIRECT REPRESENTATION TO PETITION THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT TO HEAR THIS CASE, WHICH PRESENTS IMPORTANT TAKINGS ISSUES UNDER BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DENIED THE PETITION AND PLF FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, WHICH ALSO WAS DENIED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER 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 EXISTING NON-OWNING TENANT A RIGHT TO A LIFETIME LEASE. ON BEHALF OF TWO APARTMENT OWNERS, PLF IS CHALLENGING THE LAW AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING AND A VIOLATION OF PRIVACY INTERESTS PROTECTED BY SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. BRIEFING IS COMPLETED IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF PROPERTY OWNERS V. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. BURDENSOME FEDERAL REGULATIONS PREVENT SOUTHEASTERN UTAHNS FROM BUILDING HOMES, STARTING BUSINESSES, OR OTHERWISE USING THEIR PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE UTAH PRAIRIE DOG. BECAUSE THE PRAIRIE DOG LIVES ONLY IN UTAH AND HAS NO COMMERCIAL VALUE, PLF REPRESENTS PROPERTY OWNERS IN A CHALLENGE TO THE REGULATIONS, ARGUING THAT THEY VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION'S COMMERCE CLAUSE. THE DISTRICT COURT RULED THE REGULATIONS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THE GOVERNMENT APPEALED. THE TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION AND, IN 2017, PLF FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THE PETITION WAS DENIED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. PRESERVE RESPONSIBLE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT V. CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON. PLF TOOK OVER REPRESENTATION OF A COALITION OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND HOMEOWNERS TO CHALLENGE THE CITY'S SHORELINE REGULATIONS AS A VIOLATION OF MULTIPLE STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. BECAUSE THE CASE PRESENTS MANY OF THE ISSUES TO BE HEARD IN OLYMPIC STEWARDSHIP FOUNDATION V. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY IN THE WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS, PLF SOUGHT AND RECEIVED A STAY OF THE LITIGATION. THE STAY WAS LIFTED IN 2017 AFTER THE COURT RULED AGAINST PROPERTY OWNERS IN OLYMPIC STEWARDSHIP FOUNDATION AND LITIGATION IS ONGOING. AFTER THE COURT OF APPEALS DENIED REVIEW, PLF SUCCESSFULLY MOVED TO MODIFY THE RULING AND SUBMITTED BRIEFING. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 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 AGREED TO REVIEW THE CASE AND PLF FILED BRIEFS. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. RAMEY V. U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE. ON BEHALF OF A BROAD COALITION OF SOUND SCIENCE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS ADVOCATES, PLF PETITIONED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DELIST THE PREBLE'S MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE FROM THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. THE PREBLE'S MOUSE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED ITS OWN SUBSPECIES SINCE THE 1950S, AND HAS BEEN LISTED AS THREATENED SINCE 1998. BUT FOR ALMOST ITS ENTIRE TENURE UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, THE MOUSE HAS ATTRACTED CONSIDERABLE CONTROVERSY BECAUSE OF THE SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT THAT THE LISTING IMPOSES ON PROPERTY OWNERS IN WYOMING AND COLORADO, ESTIMATED TO BE OVER $200 MILLION OVER TWENTY YEARS. THE LAWSUIT ALSO CHALLENGES THE SLIM SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THE SERVICE'S CONCLUSION THAT THE MOUSE COMPRISES ITS OWN LISTABLE SUBSPECIES. AFTER FILING A DELISTING PETITION IN 2017, WHICH THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT ACT UPON, PLF IN 2018 REPRESENTED LANDOWNERS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES IN A LAWSUIT TO FORCE THE DELISTING. BECAUSE THE CASE IS ONGOING, 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, PLF CONTINUED IN 2017 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 ON BEHALF OF THE SACKETTS. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. SANTA BARBARA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS V. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA. THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA REQUIRES THAT ALL PERSONS WHO TRANSFER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONING INFORMATION REPORT (ZIR). THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE APPROVED UNTIL A CITY ZONING INSPECTOR, WHO IS NEITHER A BUILDING INSPECTOR NOR A LICENSED SURVEYOR, CONDUCTS A WARRANTLESS ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH OF THE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE RESIDENCE AND ANY OTHER STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY. THE CITY USES THIS PROCESS TO DISCOVER ZONING AND PERMITTING VIOLATIONS. PLF REPRESENTS LOCAL REALTORS IN A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THESE REQUIREMENTS AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS ON THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED THE CITY'S DEMURRER AND THE CASE WAS DISMISSED. THERE WAS NO APPEAL. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. SMYTH V. FALMOUTH CONSERVATION COMMISSION. PLF REPRESENTS PROPERTY OWNER JANICE SMYTH IN A TAKINGS CHALLENGE AGAINST THE LOCAL CONSERVATION COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT ON A VACANT RESIDENTIAL LOT IN AN ESTABLISHED SUBDIVISION, DESTROYING 90% OF THE LOT'S VALUE. PLF FILED AN APPLICATION FOR FURTHER REVIEW IN THE MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT. THE PETITION IS DENIED AND PLF WILL FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. BECAUSE THE CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. |
| FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A |
TIN CUP, LLC V. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. REPRESENTING TIN CUP, A FAMILY-OWNED PIPE FABRICATION BUSINESS, PLF FILED A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE "ALASKA SUPPLEMENT" TO THE CORPS' OF ENGINEERS' 1987 WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL, ARGUING THAT IT FAILS TO PROVIDE A LEGALLY ADEQUATE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING THE PRESENCE OF WETLANDS UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT. PLF ARGUES THAT THE CORPS IMPROPERLY ASSERTED JURISDICTION OVER 200 ACRES OF PERMAFROST ON TIN CUP'S PROPERTY BASED ON AGENCY-PROMULGATED REGIONAL "SUPPLEMENTS" THAT PURPORT TO EXPAND THE CORPS' JURISDICTION OVER VAST SWATHS OF ALASKA. THE DISTRICT COURT UPHELD THE GOVERNMENT ACTION AND PLF APPEALED TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT, WHICH AFFIRMED. PLF FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, WHICH WAS DENIED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. UNITED STATES V. ROBERTSON. PLF TOOK OVER THIS CASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILING A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THE MATTER INVOLVES THE DEFINITION OF "WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN ASSERT JURISDICTION TO REGULATE PRIVATE LAND. MR. ROBERTSON WAS PROSECUTED FOR WORKING HIS LAND WITHOUT OBTAINING A FEDERAL PERMIT UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT. PLF FILED THE PETITION IN NOVEMBER 2018. MR. ROBERTSON PASSED AWAY IN MARCH 2019, AND HIS WIDOW SUBSTITUTED AS PETITIONER. IN APRIL, THE COURT GRANTED THE PETITION, VACATED THE NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION, AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER IT IS MOOT. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS ONGOING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. WAYSIDE CHURCH V. COUNTY OF VAN BUREN. IN MICHIGAN, WHEN LANDOWNERS FAIL TO PAY THEIR PROPERTY TAXES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TAKE THE PROPERTY, SELL IT, AND KEEP ALL THE PROFITS-NO MATTER HOW SMALL THE DEBT OR HOW VALUABLE THE PROPERTY. AS A RESULT, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS PROFIT HANDSOMELY OVER THE MISFORTUNE OF THEIR RESIDENTS. FOR EXAMPLE, A FEW YEARS AGO, WAYSIDE CHURCH LOST A PIECE OF LAND WORTH A LITTLE OVER $200,000. EVEN AFTER DEDUCTING OUTSTANDING TAX DEBTS, INTEREST, PENALTIES, AND FEES, VAN BUREN COUNTY MADE $189,250 IN PROFIT BY FORECLOSING AND AUCTIONING THE PROPERTY. HAVING LOST IN THE LOWER COURTS, PLF TOOK OVER REPRESENTATION OF WAYSIDE CHURCH AND OTHERS WHO HAVE LOST THEIR HOMES AND EQUITY TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THE COURT DENIED THE PETITION. PLF SUCCESSFULLY MOVED TO REOPEN THE CASE IN THE TRIAL COURT. THE CASE IS STAYED PENDING RESOLUTION OF RAFAELI AND/OR KNICK. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. WEYERHAEUSER V. U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE. PLF REPRESENTS RESPONDENT MARKLE INTERESTS, LLC, IN THIS SUPREME COURT CASE CHALLENGING THE EPA'S OVERBROAD CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE DUSKY GOPHER FROG IN AN AREA THAT IS BOTH UNSUITABLE FOR THE FROGS AND WHERE NO FROGS RESIDE. (SEE MARKLE INTERESTS V. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE). PLF SUBMITTED A MERITS BRIEF AND PREVAILED IN A UNANIMOUS DECISION ISSUED NOVEMBER 27, 2018. THE CASE IS NOW PENDING ON REMAND. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS ONGOING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. WILDEARTH GUARDIANS V. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. PLF INTERVENED IN THIS LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF THE NEW MEXICO CATTLE GROWERS' ASSOCIATION AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS TO OPPOSE CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTALIST GROUPS WHO ARE SUING TO RADICALLY EXPAND THE CRIMINAL LIABILITY PROVISIONS OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARGUE THAT THE LAWSUIT IS A STARK EXAMPLE OF OVERCRIMINALIZATION - PEOPLE COULD GO TO JAIL IF THEY ACCIDENTALLY KILLED AN UNKNOWN, ENDANGERED INSECT WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY. AFTER AN ADVERSE DECISION FROM THE DISTRICT COURT, PLF APPEALED TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND FILED BRIEFS IN THAT COURT AND ORALLY ARGUED THE CASE. THE NINTH CIRCUIT ISSUED A FAVORABLE DECISION AND, ON REMAND, THE CASE WAS DISMISSED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. WILKINS V. UNITED STATES. PLF REPRESENTS MONTANA RESIDENTS LARRY WILKINS AND JANE STANTON, BOTH OF WHOM OWN PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE BITTERROOT NATIONAL FOREST. THE GOVERNMENT INVADED THEIR PROPERTY INTERESTS BY ADVERTISING A PUBLIC ACCESS ROAD ACROSS THEIR LAND, RESULTING IN TRESPASSING, ILLEGAL HUNTING, AND OTHER INJURIES. THEY SUED IN A QUIET TITLE ACTION TO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF AN EASEMENT HELD BY THE UNITED STATES OVER THEIR PRIVATE LAND. THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE FOR ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS WHOSE PROPERTY ABUTS FEDERAL LAND. LITIGATION IS ONGOING. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. YIM V. CITY OF SEATTLE. PLF REPRESENTS LANDOWNERS OF SMALL RENTAL PROPERTIES IN A CHALLENGE TO SEATTLE'S "FIRST IN TIME" RENTAL ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES THEM TO RENT THEIR PROPERTY TO THE FIRST QUALIFIED APPLICANT. THIS DEPRIVATION OF THE OWNERS' RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR TENANTS TAKES AWAY AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS, IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S PROTECTION AGAINST TAKINGS WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. THE TRIAL COURT INVALIDATED THE ORDINANCE, ADOPTING ALL OF PLF'S ARGUMENTS. THE CITY APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT AND PLF COMPLETED BRIEFING. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. YIM V. CITY OF SEATTLE (YIM II). PLF REPRESENTS OWNERS OF SEVERAL 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 WHEN DECIDING TO WHOM HE OR SHE WILL RENT THE PROPERTY. 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. PLF MOVED TO LIFT THE STAY REGARDING THE FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CERTIFICATION TO THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT. BECAUSE THE CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. ZITO V. NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL RESOURCE COMMISSION. WHEN MICHAEL AND CATHY ZITO'S BEACH HOME BURNED TO THE GROUND, ALL THEY WANTED TO DO WAS REBUILD IT ON THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS THE OLD ONE. THE TOWN AND STATE REFUSED TO GIVE PERMISSION TO REBUILD ANYTHING AT ALL ON THEIR LOT BECAUSE THE HOME WOULD BE TOO CLOSE TO THE OCEAN TO MEET MORE RECENT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, EVEN THOUGH THEIR STREET IS LINED WITH NEIGHBORING HOMES JUST AS CLOSE TO THE WATER. CURRENTLY, THE ZITOS CAN ONLY USE THEIR PROPERTY FOR TENT CAMPING. PLF FILED A COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL COURT, ARGUING THAT THIS VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THE NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION'S PROHIBITIONS ON GOVERNMENT TAKINGS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. SEPARATION OF POWERS: THE CONSTITUTION'S VERY 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. OTHER KEY PROVISIONS SUCH AS THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AND EXPRESS GUARANTEES OF DUE PROCESS ARE MEANT TO ENSURE THAT THOSE WHO GOVERN US DO NOT EXCEED THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED AUTHORITY WHEN ENACTING AND ENFORCING THE LAW. 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. BIKEYAH V. TRUMP. 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 A BRIEF SUPPORTING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. CALIFORNIA SEA URCHIN COMM'N V. JACOBSON. A FEDERAL STATUTE REQUIRES THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TO EXEMPT LAWFUL FISHING ACTIVITIES FROM THE BROAD PROHIBITIONS AGAINST THE INCIDENTAL TAKING OF SEA OTTERS. WHEN THE SERVICE IGNORED THIS CONGRESSIONAL BALANCING OF INTERESTS, PLF SUED ON BEHALF OF SEA URCHIN AND ABALONE DIVERS, LOBSTER TRAPPERS, AND OTHER FISHERMEN WHOSE LIVELIHOOD ARE THREATENED BY SERVICE'S UNILATERAL TERMINATION OF PROTECTION FOR LAWFUL FISHING ACTIVITIES. AFTER LOSING ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLF APPEALED TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT, WHICH ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION. PLF FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, WHICH WAS DENIED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. |
| FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A |
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (CBD) V. ZINKE. CBD SUED THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR BECAUSE CONGRESS USED THE CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT TO RESCIND AN ALASKA WILDLIFE RULE. PLF REPRESENTS ALASKAN SPORTSMEN AND OTHER PARTIES AS INTERVENORS IN SUPPORT OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT AND IN SUPPORT OF THE RULE'S RESCISSION. THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED PLF'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE. CBD APPEALED AND PLF FILED A RESPONDENTS' BRIEF. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. JOOCE V. U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION/HOBAN V. U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION/ RAVE SALON, INC. V. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. REPRESENTING VAPE SHOPS IN WASHINGTON D.C., MINNESOTA, AND TEXAS, RESPECTIVELY, PLF SUED THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION TO INVALIDATE REGULATIONS ENACTED IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT REGULATIONS MUST BE ISSUED ONLY BY "OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES," THAT IS, PEOPLE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE. THESE REGULATIONS, ENACTED BY AN FDA BUREAUCRAT, DEEMS E-CIGARETTES TO BE TOBACCO PRODUCTS EVEN THOUGH THEY CONTAIN NO TOBACCO, AND IMPOSE NEW, SEVERE REGULATIONS. PLF FILED COMPLAINTS IN THREE DIFFERENT FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS TO INVALIDATE THE REGULATIONS AS VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION'S APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE. THE GOVERNMENT SUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT TO CONSOLIDATE THE CASES, A RULING THAT PLF IS CHALLENGING IN THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. BECAUSE THESE CASES ARE PENDING, IN WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. KANSAS NATURAL RESOURCE COMM'N V. U.S. DEPT. OF INTERIOR. IN 2003, THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CREATED THE "POLICY FOR EVALUATING CONSERVATION EFFORTS WHEN MAKING LISTING DECISIONS." THIS VERY HELPFUL RULE ENCOURAGES STATES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, PROPERTY OWNERS, AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS TO COLLABORATE ON INNOVATIVE AND SUCCESSFUL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS. ALTHOUGH THE RULE ENJOYS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, THE SERVICE NEVER SUBMITTED IT TO CONGRESS AS REQUIRED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT. ON BEHALF OF THE KANSAS NATURAL RESOURCE COALITION, WHICH DEVELOPED A CONSERVATION PLAN TO KEEP THE LESSER PRAIRIE CHICKEN OFF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST, PLF SUED THE SERVICE TO REQUIRE IT TO SUBMIT ITS RULE TO CONGRESS SO IT CAN LEGALLY TAKE EFFECT AND ALLOW GOOD CONSERVATION WORK TO CONTINUE. THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE CASE AND PLF APPEALED TO THE TENTH CIRCUIT. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. LIPPMAN V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA. TOM LIPPMAN IS AN OAKLAND PROPERTY OWNER WHO RENTS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. HE WAS CITED BY THE CITY FOR RELATIVELY MINOR BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS AND SOUGHT TO APPEAL. PLF FILED SUIT ON HIS BEHALF TO CHALLENGE THE APPELLATE PROCESS, WHICH ALLOWS ONLY HEARING OFFICERS FROM THE SAME DEPARTMENT THAT ISSUES THE CITATIONS TO CONSIDER APPEALS AND DOES NOT PERMIT PROPERTY OWNERS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. THIS VIOLATES STATE LAW AND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS THAT REQUIRES JUDGES TO BE SEPARATE FROM PROSECUTORS. THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL ISSUED A FAVORABLE DECISION. THE CITY PETITIONED THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW, WHICH PLF OPPOSED, AND THE COURT DENIED THE PETITION. PLF SETTLED WITH THE CITY ON THE MATTER OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS, AND RECOVERED $57,944.79. THE CASE REMAINS OPEN AWAITING RETURN OF THE WRIT AND TO ENSURE CITY COMPLIANCE. MASSACHUSETTS LOBSTERMEN'S ASSOCIATION V. ROSS. REPRESENTING FISHERMAN AND LOBSTERMEN WHO ARE LOCKED OUT OF VALUABLE FISHING GROUNDS, PLF FILED A COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENT OBAMA'S NORTHEAST CANYONS AND SEAMOUNTS MARINE NATIONAL MONUMENT DESIGNATION UNDER THE ANTIQUITIES ACT. AN AREA IN THE OCEAN THE SIZE OF CONNECTICUT CANNOT QUALIFY AS A MONUMENT - WHICH THE ACT DESCRIBES AS BEING THE SMALLEST POSSIBLE AREA OF LAND NECESSARY TO PRESERVE AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE. THE MONUMENT DESIGNATION ALSO THREATENS TO UNDERMINE YEARS' WORTH OF EFFORT BY OUR CLIENTS TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE FISHING IN THE REGION. BY SHUTTING OFF THE AREA TO FISHERMEN, THE PROCLAMATION FORCES THEM TO RELOCATE FROM THIS HEALTHY FISHERY TO OTHER AREAS THAT ARE LESS SUSTAINABLE. THE CASE WAS STAYED IN 2017 AND THE STAY WAS LIFTED IN MARCH, 2018. THE STATE SUCCESSFULLY MOVED TO DISMISS THE CASE. PLF APPEALED TO THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND FILED BRIEFS. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION V. ZINKE/AMERICAN EXPLORATION AND MINING ASSOC. V. ZINKE. REPRESENTING GREGORY YOUNT AS A RESPONDENT IN THIS U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE, PLF DEFENDS THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR'S DECISION TO WITHDRAW ONE MILLION ACRES OF LAND IN NORTHERN ARIZONA FROM OPERATION OF THE FEDERAL MINING LAW. MR. YOUNT IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO SPENT YEARS AND MONEY EXPLORING THE AREA AND LOCATING MINING CLAIMS. THE CASE PRESENTS IMPORTANT ISSUES AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATIVE VETOES AND SEVERABILITY. PLF FILED A BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ON BEHALF OF MR YOUNT, A RESPONDENT IN THE CASE. THE PETITION WAS DENIED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. PEOPLE V. RINEHART. CALIFORNIA BANS SUCTION DREDGE MINING, EVEN ON FEDERAL LANDS, EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS ENCOURAGES MINING ON FEDERAL LANDS, AS IT HAS FOR MORE THAN 150 YEARS. THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT STATES CAN SUPPLEMENT FEDERAL REGULATION OF MINING TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. CALIFORNIA CHOSE TO BAN SUCTION DREDGE MINING ENTIRELY. BY TAKING THAT UNPRECEDENTED STEP, CALIFORNIA CROSSED THE LINE BETWEEN SUPPLEMENTING FEDERAL LAW (PERMITTED) AND FRUSTRATING IT (PREEMPTED). THIS CASE WILL DETERMINE HOW CONFLICTS OVER FEDERAL LAND USE WILL BE RESOLVED, THE FUTURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL FEDERALISM, AND THE INCOMES OF MINERS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. REPRESENTING BRANDON RINEHART, PLF FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ASKING THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DECIDE WHETHER STATES CAN FRUSTRATE FEDERAL LAW BY BANNING FEDERALLY ENCOURAGED ACTIVITIES, LIKE MINING, ON FEDERAL LANDS. THE PETITION WAS DENIED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. COASTAL RIGHTS COALITION V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION. REPRESENTING THE COASTAL RIGHTS COMMISSION, PLF FILED A COMPLAINT IN ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CHALLENGING THE STATE COASTAL COMMISSION'S UNDERGROUND REGULATIONS ENACTED WITHOUT PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE COASTAL ACT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT. THE CHALLENGED POLICY REQUIRES COASTAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO FORFEIT THEIR RIGHT TO BUILD A SHORELINE PROTECTIVE DEVICE (SUCH AS A SEAWALL OR BLUFF STABILIZATION DEVICE) AS A CONDITION TO OBTAINING A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. THE TRIAL COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION THAT WILL NOT BE APPEALED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. TOWN OF COOS BAY V. ROSS. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS MISAPPLYING ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT LAW TO IMPOSE FEDERAL ZONING CONTROL OVER OREGON'S COASTAL REGIONS AND MUCH OF THE REST OF THE STATE. TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE, LOCAL COMMUNITIES WOULD HAVE TO ABSTAIN FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-PURPORTEDLY TO PROTECT CERTAIN ENDANGERED SPECIES, EVEN THOUGH, AS A MATTER OF LAW, FEMA AND ITS FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM HAVE NO IMPACT ON SPECIES WHATSOEVER. PLF REPRESENTED THE TOWN OF COOS BAY IN A LAWSUIT TO TAKE BACK DECISION-MAKING POWER. TRIAL LEVEL LITIGATION WAS STAYED PENDING ACTION IN A RELATED CASE. UPON DECISION IN THAT RELATED CASE, THIS CASE WAS VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. TUGAW RANCHES, LLC V. U.S. DEPT. OF INTERIOR. THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE ISSUED REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE SAGE GROUSE (A BIRD) ACROSS IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA AND UTAH. THESE CONTROVERSIAL SAGE GROUSE RULES IMPOSE STRICT RANGELAND MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS ON BUREAU AND FOREST SERVICE LANDS. THE AGENCIES WERE REQUIRED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT TO SUBMIT THESE RULES TO CONGRESS FOR APPROVAL BUT THEY FAILED TO DO SO. CHALLENGING THIS FAILURE, PLF REPRESENTS TUGAW RANCHES, LLC, WHICH RUNS CATTLE ON SEVERAL BUREAU AND FOREST SERVICE GRAZING ALLOTMENTS COVERED BY THE SAGE GROUSE RULES. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBJECT TO FOREST SERVICE MONITORING PURSUANT TO THE RULE AND, AS THE RULE IS FULLY IMPLEMENTED, WILL SUFFER FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON ITS GRAZING ACTIVITIES, DRIVING UP THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS. THE PARTIES AGREED TO STAY THE LITIGATION PENDING SUBMISSION OF SAGE GROUSE PLAN AMENDMENTS TO CONGRESS. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. |
| FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A |
WASHINGTON CATTLEMEN'S ASS'N V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/OREGON CATTLEMEN'S ASS'N V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/NORTH DAKOTA V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. THE EPA ISSUED AN "INTERNAL GUIDANCE" DOCUMENT REDEFINING JURISDICTIONAL WATERS UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT IN VIOLATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT RULE-MAKING PROCEDURES. 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 WASHINGTON AND OREGON AND INTERVENED IN EXISTING LITIGATION IN NORTH DAKOTA TO OVERTURN IT. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS ONGOING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. ECONOMIC LIBERTY: PLF SEEKS TO ESTABLISH PRECEDENT GIVING MEANINGFUL PROTECTION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING. PLF CONSTRUES THAT RIGHT BROADLY, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO START A BUSINESS, ENGAGE IN AN OCCUPATION, AND FREELY BUY AND SELL GOODS AND SERVICES. RELATEDLY, PLF OPPOSES THE MISUSE OF GOVERNMENT POWER TO FAVOR SOME BUSINESSES AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS, I.E., ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM. FONTENOT V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA. PLF REPRESENTS PEGGY FONTENOT, A NATIVE AMERICAN ARTIST WHO SELLS HER HAND-MADE JEWELRY AND ART AT ART SHOWS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. AT THE BEHEST OF POLITICALLY-POWERFUL TRIBES, OKLAHOMA PASSED A LAW THAT PERMITS ONLY MEMBERS OF FEDERALLY-RECOGNIZED TRIBES TO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES OR THEIR ART AS NATIVE AMERICAN. BECAUSE FONTENOT IS A MEMBER OF A VIRGINIA STATE-RECOGNIZED TRIBE, SHE MAY NOT MARKET HER ART AS "INDIAN MADE." PLF FILED A LAWSUIT ON THE GROUNDS THAT THIS LAW VIOLATES THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS. THE TRIAL COURT ISSUED A FAVORABLE DECISION ON PREEMPTION GROUNDS. OKLAHOMA APPEALED AND PLF CROSS-APPEALED ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND SOUGHT ATTORNEYS' FEES. THE PARTIES SETTLED, WITHDRAWING ALL APPEALS AND THE FEE MOTION. A DISPUTE ON THE AMOUNT OF COSTS REMAINS PENDING. MINERVA DAIRY V. BRANCEL. PLF REPRESENTS MINERVA DAIRY AND ITS PRESIDENT, ADAM MUELLER, IN A CHALLENGE TO A WISCONSIN LAW THAT BANS BUTTER FROM BEING SOLD WITHIN WISCONSIN IF IT HASN'T FIRST BEEN "GRADED." WISCONSIN'S LAW PREVENTS BUTTER MAKERS OUTSIDE OF WISCONSIN FROM SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS IN THAT STATE UNLESS THEY FIRST GO THROUGH THE ARDUOUS AND COST PROHIBITIVE PROCESS OF GETTING THEIR BUTTER GRADED. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGES THAT WISCONSIN'S LAW VIOLATES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AS WELL AS THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. AFTER AN ADVERSE DECISION ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLF APPEALED TO THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT AND SUBMITTED ALL BRIEFS IN 2018. THE COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION. PLF PETITIONED FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND THE PETITION WAS DENIED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. MINNESOTA ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS V. MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT. PLF REPRESENTS A CONSTRUCTION FIELD TRADE ORGANIZATION TO CHALLENGE STATE-MANDATED CONTRACT PROVISIONS THAT REQUIRE PUBLIC EMPLOYERS TO HIRE EMPLOYEES THROUGH UNION HIRING HALLS AND REQUIRE CONTRACTORS TO PAY DUPLICATIVE UNION FRINGE BENEFITS THAT THE CONTRACTORS' EMPLOYEES MAY NEVER SEE. PLF FILED THE COMPLAINT IN DISTRICT COURT AND LITIGATION IS ONGOING. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. SHOCK (KUNATH) V. CITY OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. THE CITY OF SEATTLE ADOPTED AN INCOME TAX THAT TARGETS THE CITY'S "HIGH-INCOME" RESIDENTS BY IMPOSING A 2.25 PERCENT TAX ON ANY INDIVIDUAL EARNING MORE THAN $250,000, AND AN INITIAL RATE OF 0 PERCENT ON EVERYONE ELSE. PLF REPRESENTS SEATTLE RESIDENTS IN A CHALLENGE ARGUING THE TAX VIOLATES THE STATE CONSTITUTION'S PROHIBITION ON INCOME TAXES, AND, WHEN TAXES ARE PERMITTED, REQUIRES UNIFORMITY AMONG CITIZENS. THE TRIAL COURT STRUCK DOWN THE ORDINANCE AND THE CITY FILED A DIRECT APPEAL TO THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT, AND PLF FILED A BRIEF IN THAT COURT. BECAUSE THE CASE IS ONGOING, 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 IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AND LITIGATION IS ONGOING. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. TAYLOR V. POLHILL. REPRESENTING DAN TAYLOR, AN EXPERIENCED BUT UNLICENSED SELLER OF HEARING AIDS, PLF SUED TO CHALLENGE A FLORIDA OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING STATUTE THAT PROHIBITS THE DISPENSING OF HEARING AIDS BY UNLICENSED PERSONS. FLORIDA'S LICENSING SCHEME, DEVELOPED FOR LESS ADVANCED DEVICES COMMON DECADES AGO, INCREASES COST AND REDUCES ACCESS TO MODERN HEARING AIDS. TAYLOR'S LAWSUIT ARGUES THAT THE REGULATIONS ARE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAWS AIMED AT REDUCING UNNECESSARY REGULATION AND A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING. THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE CASE AND PLF APPEALED TO THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FILING BRIEFS IN THAT COURT. BECAUSE THE CASE IS ONGOING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION: PLF PROTECTS THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO SPEAK AND ASSOCIATE AS WELL AS THE RIGHT TO REFRAIN FROM SPEAKING AND ASSOCIATING. LAWS THAT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SPEECH BASED ON ITS CONTENT OR VIEWPOINT, WHETHER ON THEIR FACE, AS-APPLIED, OR WHERE INCAPABLE OF REASONED APPLICATION VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY STRICT SCRUTINY. MOREOVER, PLF BELIEVES THAT THE SPEECH PROTECTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT SHOULD BE CONSISTENTLY APPLIED, REGARDLESS OF THE SPEAKER'S CORPORATE IDENTITY OR THE SPEECH'S COMMERCIAL NATURE. FINALLY, OTHERWISE PROTECTED SPEECH CANNOT BE REGULATED DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE IT IS EXPRESSED FOR COMPENSATION AND CANNOT BE REGULATED AS "CONDUCT" TO PREVENT HONEST PEOPLE FROM EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING. ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS-CALIFORNIA COOPERATION COMMITTEE V. BECERRA. REPRESENTING A BUILDING CONTRACTOR TRADE ASSOCIATION, PLF TOOK OVER DIRECT REPRESENTATION ON APPEAL OF A FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO A CALIFORNIA LAW WHEREBY CONTRACTORS FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS CAN RECEIVE A PREVAILING WAGE CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS MADE ONLY TO SELECTED "INDUSTRY ADVANCEMENT FUNDS" THAT ADVOCATE FOR UNION INTERESTS. BECAUSE THIS STATUTE FAVORS SOME EXPRESSIVE VIEWPOINTS OVER OTHERS, THE LAW VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT. AFTER AN ADVERSE DECISION IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT, PLF FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, WHICH WAS DENIED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. CHEF GEOFF'S V. VIRGINIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL AUTHORITY. THE STATE OF VIRGINIA SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITS THE LANGUAGE THAT RESTAURANTS CAN USE TO ADVERTISE SPECIALS RELATED TO ALCOHOL PURCHASES. FOR EXAMPLE, THEY MAY NOT ADVERTISE THE ACTUAL PRICE OF A BOTTLE OF WINE OR DESIGNATE "WEDNESDAY WINE NIGHT OR "MARGARITA THURSDAY." PLF REPRESENTS AWARD-WINNING CHEF AND RESTAURATEUR GEOFF TRACY IN A FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO THESE STATE LAWS THAT UNLAWFULLY RESTRICT TRUTHFUL SPEECH. WHILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS WERE PENDING, THE LEGISLATURE REPEALED THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW. THE PARTIES THEN STIPULATED TO DISMISS THE CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. COLORADO UNION OF TAXPAYERS FOUNDATION V. CITY OF DENVER. A PLF ATTORNEY IS ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN A GOLDWATER INSTITUTE LAWSUIT TO ALLOW NONPROFIT GROUPS THAT ADVOCATE FOR OR AGAINST BALLOT ISSUES TO SHIELD THE IDENTITY OF THEIR DONORS, CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS WERE FILED IN 2018, FOLLOWED BY A TRIAL IN 2019. THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE CASE FOR LACK OF STANDING AND THE NONPROFIT GROUPS APPEALED. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. ELSTER V. CITY OF SEATTLE. A SEATTLE LAW AUTHORIZES THE CITY TO ISSUE "DEMOCRACY VOUCHERS" EVERY ELECTION CYCLE TO RESIDENTS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. THE RESIDENTS MAY THEN CONTRIBUTE THESE VOUCHERS TO ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES FOR CITY ELECTED OFFICES. PLF REPRESENTS SEATTLE TAXPAYERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS IN A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE VOUCHERS AS VIOLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND EQUAL PROTECTION. THE KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT UPHELD THE LAW AND PLF APPEALED, COMPLETING ALL APPELLATE BRIEFING. THE APPELLATE COURT THEN CERTIFIED THE QUESTION TO THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT, WHERE PLF ARGUED THE CASE. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS ONGOING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. |
| FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A |
FREEDOM FOUNDATION V. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY. PLF REPRESENTS A NON-PROFIT FOUNDATION THAT SOUGHT TO ENGAGE IN LEAFLETTING IN THE LOBBY OF A BUILDING HOUSING A STATE AGENCY TO INFORM PUBLIC EMPLOYEES OF THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO REFRAIN FROM SUBSIDIZING PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS. THE AGENCY PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED OTHER ORGANIZATIONS TO ENGAGE IN EXPRESSIVE ACTIVITIES ON THE PREMISES AND ITS SELECTIVE, CONTENT-BASED REFUSAL TO ALLOW THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION TO DO SO VIOLATES THE SPEAKERS' FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. PLF FILED A COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL COURT AND LITIGATION IS ONGOING. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. KOTLER V. SHIOMOTO. PLF REPRESENTS A CALIFORNIA MOTORIST CHALLENGING THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES' REFUSAL TO PERMIT A PERSONALIZED LICENSE PLATE BECAUSE THE CONFIGURATION (COYW), WHICH REFERS TO A SOCCER TEAM, MAY BE MISINTERPRETED TO HAVE RACIAL CONNOTATIONS. THIS VIOLATES KOTLER'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. PLF FILED A COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AND LITIGATION IS ONGOING. BECAUSE THE CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. MINNESOTA VOTERS ALLIANCE V. MANSKY. PLF REPRESENTS MINNESOTA VOTERS IN A CHALLENGE TO A STATE STATUTE THAT PROHIBITS WEARING "POLITICAL" APPAREL IN OR NEAR A POLLING PLACE. THIS OVERBROAD LAW, WHICH PROHIBITS A T-SHIRT WITH A TEA PARTY OR AFL-CIO LOGO, OR A BUTTON THAT SAYS "PLEASE I.D. ME", VIOLATES THE VOTERS' FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH. AFTER THE VOTERS LOST IN THE LOWER COURTS, PLF TOOK OVER THE CASE TO PETITION THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW THE APPELLATE COURT DECISION. THE SUPREME COURT AGREED TO HEAR THE CASE. IN 2018, PLF ATTORNEYS FILED BRIEFS ON THE MERITS, ORALLY ARGUED THE CASE, AND PREVAILED IN A 7-2 DECISION. PLF FILED A MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES IN THE 8TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ULTIMATELY RECEIVING $575,180.45 IN FEES AND $1,770.99 IN COSTS. OSTREWICH V. STANART. PLF REPRESENTS TWO TEXAS VOTERS WHO WENT TO THEIR POLLING PLACES WEARING APPAREL RELATED TO MATTERS BEING DECIDED AT THE ELECTION. ELECTION OFFICIALS FORCED THEM TO REMOVE THE APPAREL BEFORE BEING ALLOWED TO VOTE. IN THIS FOLLOW-UP CASE TO MINNESOTA VOTERS ALLIANCE V. MANSKY, PLF FILED A COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ARGUING THAT A STATUTE FORBIDDING ALL APPAREL RELATED TO ANY CANDIDATE OR ISSUE ON THE BALLOT VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF SPEECH. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS ONGOING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. RENTBERRY V. CITY OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. SEATTLE ENACTED A LAW FORBIDDING LANDLORDS AND POTENTIAL TENANTS FROM USING ONLINE RENT-BIDDING PLATFORMS WHILE THE CITY STUDIES WHETHER THE PLATFORMS RUN AFOUL OF ANY MUNICIPAL RENTAL HOUSING ORDINANCES. REPRESENTING DELANEY WYSINGLE, A LANDLORD WHO RENTS ONE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IN THE CITY WHO WOULD LIKE TO USE RENT-BIDDING PLATFORMS AS A MEANS TO IDENTIFY AND RENT TO POTENTIAL TENANTS, AND RENTBERRY, A PLATFORM COMPANY, PLF SUED TO INVALIDATE THE MORATORIUM AS A VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S PROTECTION FOR FREE SPEECH. THE TRIAL COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION AND PLF APPEALED. BECAUSE THE CASE IS ONGOING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW: PLF'S OBJECTIVE IS TO END GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE AND ETHNICITY. COURTS SHOULD VIEW RACIAL CLASSIFICATIONS WITH EXTREME SKEPTICISM WITH THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF ABOLISHING RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION BY GOVERNMENTS. ARMSTRONG V. KADAS, PLF REPRESENTS PARENTS OF A CHILD IN A FAITH-BASED SCHOOL AND AN ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS IN A CHALLENGE TO A REGULATION IMPLEMENTING MONTANA'S SCHOLARSHIP TAX CREDIT LAW. THE REGULATION FORBIDS RELIGIOUSLY AFFILIATED SCHOOLS FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE TAX CREDIT PROGRAM. PLF CHALLENGED THE REGULATION AS VIOLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S PROTECTION FOR FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT'S GUARANTEE OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. THE FEDERAL COURT DISMISSED THE CASE PENDING A STATE COURT'S DECISION IN A RELATED CASE. PLF APPEALED THE ABSTENTION TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT, WHICH AFFIRMED IN PART AND REQUESTED SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AS TO THE ASSOCIATION'S STANDING. PLF FILED THE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN 2018. THE FINAL DECISION WAS ADVERSE. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. CHRISTA MCAULIFFE INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL PTO, INC. V. DE BLASIO. PLF REPRESENTS ASIAN-AMERICAN FAMILIES IN A CHALLENGE TO THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY DECISION TO ALTER THE ADMISSIONS CRITERIA TO THE CITY'S SPECIALIZED HIGH SCHOOLS. PLF FILED A COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS DENIED. PLF APPEALED THE DENIAL TO SECOND CIRCUIT WHILE LITIGATION CONTINUES IN THE TRIAL. BECAUSE THE CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. CONNECTICUT PARENTS UNION V. WENTZELL. PLF REPRESENTS A PARENT ORGANIZATION TO CHALLENGE A STATE STATUTE THAT REQUIRES ALL MAGNET SCHOOLS IN CONNECTICUT TO MAINTAIN A RACIAL BALANCE OF AT LEAST 25% WHITE STUDENTS. THIS MEANS THAT IN SCHOOLS THAT DO NOT MEET THIS QUOTA, MINORITY STUDENTS ARE TURNED AWAY FROM EMPTY SEATS. PLF FILED A COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL COURT AND ARGUED AGAINST THE STATE'S MOTION TO DISMISS. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. D.M. & Z.G. V. MINNESOTA STATE HIGH SCHOOL LEAGUE. PLF BROUGHT THIS FEDERAL EQUAL PROTECTION CHALLENGE TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF A DISCRIMINATORY SEX-BASED CLASSIFICATION IN A MINNESOTA PUBLIC SCHOOL ATHLETICS STATUTE THAT PROHIBITS A BOY FROM COMPETING ALONGSIDE FEMALE CLASSMATES ON HIS SCHOOL'S DANCE TEAM. ON BEHALF OF TWO MALE DANCERS, PLF FILED A COMPLAINT AND SOUGHT A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS DENIED AND PLF FILED AN EXPEDITED APPEAL. THE APPELLATE COURT ISSUED A FAVORABLE DECISION ENJOINING THE LAW. PLF FILED A MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES. THE PARTIES SUBSEQUENTLY SETTLED, WITH THE SCHOOLS AGREEING TO ELIMINATE THE RULE PROHIBITING BOYS FROM DANCING AND PAYING $50,000 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES. IN THE MATTER OF C.J., JR. REPRESENTING FOSTER PARENTS IN AN EQUAL PROTECTION CHALLENGE TO THE FEDERAL INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT, WHICH COMPELS STATE COURTS TO FAVOR THE PLACEMENT OF INDIAN CHILDREN WITH INDIAN PARENTS, SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE CHILD'S RACE, AND REGARDLESS OF THE USUAL "BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD" STANDARD USED IN CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS. C.J. IS A BOY WHOSE BIOLOGICAL FATHER WAS PARTLY NATIVE AMERICAN. WITH HIS MOTHER DEAD AND HIS FATHER UNABLE TO CARE FOR HIM, HE WAS FORTUNATE TO BE PLACED IN A LOVING FAMILY HEADED BY STAN AND NICOLE BRAXTON IN OHIO, THE ONLY STATE WHERE HE HAS EVER LIVED. BUT AN ARIZONA-BASED TRIBE IS TRYING TO TAKE C.J. AWAY FROM THE BRAXTON'S TO LIVE ON THE RESERVATION. PLF IS SEEKING C.J.'S PERMANENT PLACEMENT WITH THE BRAXTONS WHILE CHALLENGING THE FEDERAL LAW THAT HAS UPENDED HIS LIFE, JUST BECAUSE HE HAS SOME NATIVE AMERICAN BLOOD. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. JOHNSON V. CASSELLIUS. PLF REPRESENTS HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT KAIDEN JOHNSON AND HIS MOTHER IN A FEDERAL EQUAL PROTECTION CHALLENGE TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF A DISCRIMINATORY SEX-BASED CLASSIFICATION IN A MINNESOTA STATUTE THAT PROHIBITS BOYS FROM COMPETING ALONGSIDE FEMALE CLASSMATES ON HIS SCHOOL'S DANCE TEAM. IN 2017, PLF SENT A NOTICE LETTER TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SEEKING TO END THIS DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE AND, WHEN THE DISTRICT FAILED TO RESCIND THE REGULATION, PLF PETITIONED THE FEDERAL OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS TO COMMENCE AN INVESTIGATION, WHICH AGREED TO DO SO. THE INVESTIGATION FOUND INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION. THE CASE IS CONCLUDED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. LINDEN V. SOUTH DAKOTA HIGH SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION. THE SOUTH DAKOTA HIGH SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION GOVERNS PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETICS AND ACTIVITIES IN THE STATE. ITS REGULATIONS PROHIBIT MALE STUDENTS FROM PARTICIPATING IN ACTIVITIES DESIGNATED AS FEMALE-ONLY, SUCH AS COMPETITIVE DANCE. REPRESENTING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT AND DANCER FREDERICK LINDEN, PLF SUED TO INVALIDATE THIS DISCRIMINATORY REGULATION AS VIOLATING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT'S EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. THE DISTRICT VOTED TO SUSPEND THE DISCRIMINATORY RULE PERMANENTLY AND THE CASE CONCLUDED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. |
| FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A |
QUAD KNOPF, INC. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. PLF REPRESENTS QUAD KNOPF, AN ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND CONSULTING FIRM IN CALIFORNIA THAT CONTRACTS TO PERFORM SERVICES WITH CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. BECAUSE OF THE COMMISSION'S REGULATIONS REQUIRING THAT CONTRACTORS UTILIZE A SET PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN- AND MINORITY-OWNED SUBCONTRACTORS, QUAD KNOPF IS REQUIRED TO SUBCONTRACT WORK THAT COULD BE PERFORMED BY ITS OWN EMPLOYEES. THESE REGULATIONS VIOLATE THE STATE CONSTITUTION'S COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC CONTRACTING WITHOUT REGARD TO THE RACE OR SEX OF CONTRACTORS, ENACTED AS PROPOSITION 209 IN 1996. PLF PETITIONED THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION TO RESCIND ITS REGULATIONS TO THE EXTENT THEY OFFER PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BASED ON RACE AND SEX. THE PETITION WAS DENIED AND PLF APPLIED FOR REHEARING. BECAUSE THE CASE IS ONGOING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. ROBINSON V. WENTZELL. THE CITY OF HARTFORD RUNS A NUMBER OF WORLD-CLASS MAGNET SCHOOLS. THESE SCHOOLS ARE SO SUCCESSFUL THAT DEMAND OUTSTRIPS THE SCHOOLS' CAPACITY, AND A LOTTERY IS USED TO DECIDE WHO CAN ATTEND. BUT BECAUSE STATE LAW IMPOSES RACIAL QUOTAS ON THESE SCHOOLS-ENROLLMENT MUST BE AT LEAST 25% WHITE OR ASIAN-BLACK AND HISPANIC STUDENTS ARE DENIED ADMISSION IF THEIR ENROLLMENT AT A SCHOOL WOULD RAISE MINORITY ENROLLMENT ABOVE 75%-EVEN IF IT MEANS SEATS REMAIN EMPTY. REPRESENTING SEVEN FAMILIES, PLF SUED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION'S EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE TO ENSURE THAT BLACK AND HISPANIC STUDENTS HAVE THE SAME EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AS ALL CHILDREN IN CONNECTICUT. THE CITY FILED A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, WHICH PLF BRIEFED. THE COURT DENIED THE CITY'S MOTION. BECAUSE THE CASE IS ONGOING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. AMICUS CASES: PLF FILED AMICUS BRIEFS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES, FURTHERING ALL OF THE OBJECTIVES DESCRIBED ABOVE. 1A AUTO INC. & 126 SELF STORAGE, INC. V. SULLIVAN (U.S. SUPREME COURT) AMERICAN FUEL & PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS V. O'KEEFE (U.S. SUPREME COURT) AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION V. BECERRA (NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) BIERMAN V. DAYTON (U.S. SUPREME COURT) BOHMKER V. OREGON (U.S. SUPREME COURT) BRANCH V. COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD (MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT) CHURCH OF THE DIVINE EARTH V. CITY OF TACOMA (WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT) CITY OF SAN DIEGO V. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELATIONS BOARD (U.S. SUPREME COURT) COLONY COVE PROPERTIES, LLC V. CITY OF CARSON (U.S. SUPREME COURT) CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU V. ALL AMERICAN CHECK CASHING, INC. (FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) COUNTY OF MAUI V. HAWAII WILDLIFE FUND (U.S. SUPREME COURT) CROW INDIAN TRIBE V. UNITED STATES (NINTH CIRCUIT) DELANO FARMS V. CALIFORNIA TABLE GRAPE COMMISSION (U.S. SUPREME COURT) ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FOUNDATION V. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT) ESPINOZA V. WALBORN (U.S. SUPREME COURT) FLECK V. WETCH (EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) FREED V. THOMAS (SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) (BRIEFED AND ORALLY ARGUED) GALARZA V. CITY OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION) HUMANE SOCIETY V. KIENZLE (TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) IANCU V. BRUNETTI (U.S. SUPREME COURT) ILLINOIS LIBERTY PAC V. MADIGAN (U.S. SUPREME COURT) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS DISTRICT 10 AND LOCAL LODGE 873 V. ALLEN (SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS; U.S. SUPREME COURT) KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS, LP V. UPSTATE FOREVER (U.S. SUPREME COURT) KISOR V. WILKIE (U.S. SUPREME COURT) KLEIN V. OREGON BUREAU OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES (U.S. SUPREME COURT) LEONE V. COUNTY OF MAUI (U.S. SUPREME COURT) LMP SERVICES, INC. V. CITY OF CHICAGO (ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT) LOVE TERMINAL PARTNERS V. UNITED STATES (U.S. SUPREME COURT) MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (U.S. SUPREME COURT) MILLER V. INSLEE (U.S. SUPREME COURT) MINERAL COUNTY V. LYON COUNTY (NEVADA SUPREME COURT) MINNESOTA SANDS, LLC V. CITY OF WINONA, MINNESOTA (MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT) NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS V. WILLIAMS (COLORADO SUPREME COURT) RIFFEY V. PRITZKER (U.S. SUPREME COURT) ROZENBLIT V. LYLES (PLF ORALLY ARGUED AS AMICUS IN THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT) SHURTLEFF V. CITY OF BOSTON (FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) ST. BERNARD PARISH GOVERNMENT V. UNITED STATES (U.S. SUPREME COURT) ST. BERNARD PORT V. VIOLET DOCK PORT (U.S. SUPREME COURT) STANFORD VINA RANCH IRRIGATION CO. V. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL) STATE NATIONAL BANK OF BIG SPRING V. MNUCHIN (U.S. SUPREME COURT) STAHL YORK AVE. V. CITY OF NEW YORK (U.S. SUPREME COURT) STURGEON V. FROST (U.S. SUPREME COURT) TENNESSEE WINE & SPIRITS RETAILERS ASS'N V. BYRD (U.S. SUPREME COURT) TIMBS V. INDIANA (U.S. SUPREME COURT) URADNIK V. INTER FACULTY ORGANIZATION (U.S. SUPREME COURT) UTAH REPUBLICAN PARTY V. COX (U.S. SUPREME COURT) WAL-MART V. TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION (FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) WAPLES MOBILE HOME PARK V. GIRON DE REYES (U.S. SUPREME COURT) |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11B |
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 TIMELY FILING OF THE TAX RETURN. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C |
EACH TIME A NEW CASE COMES UP, PLF CHECKS FOR CONFLICTS. EACH DECISION MADE BY THE BOARD, IF SOMEONE HAS A CONFLICT, THE BOARD MEMBER WILL ABSTAIN FROM THE VOTE AND/OR DISCUSSION. ON AN ANNUAL BASIS THE TRUSTEES REVIEW THE POLICY PROVIDING WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. ANY CONFLICTS OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS ARE RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15 |
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD MEETS ANNUALLY AND USES COMPARABILITY DATA PROVIDED BY DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES TO DETERMINE THAT THE COMPENSATION DOES NOT EXCEED THE LEVEL OF THE BENEFITS PROVIDED. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 |
COPIES ARE AVAILABLE ON THE ORGANIZATIONS WEBSITE OR UPON REQUEST. |
| FORM 990, PART XI, LINE 9: |
SFAS NO.247 ADJUSTMENT FOR SPLIT INTEREST AGREEMENTS 11,485. |
| FORM 990, PART XII, LINE 2C: |
NO CHANGE FROM PRIOR YEAR |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.