In Praise Of The Pacific Legal Foundation

Pacific Legal FoundationWe deeply appreciate the work of the Pacific Legal Foundation.  The precedents for which it is responsible are not restricted to the adjudicated case in question, but, rather apply to the improved environment in which all natural resource industries operate.

So on this day, we celebrate the PLF heroes whose praises are not enough sung.  Scroll down for the latest PLF report.

Dave Harbour

Publisher, Northern Gas Pipelines


On June 15, PLF D.C. Center Executive Director Todd Gaziano joined Paul J. Larkin Jr. and host Daren Bakst to discuss the Hawkes decision and the concurring opinions of the justices, including whether they might provide insight into the fate of the controversial “waters of the United States” rule that attempts to regulate almost all waters and much land in America. The panelists also discussed some of the fundamental flaws with the CWA, from vagueness to troubling process problems. Finally, the panel discussed what actions Congress should take to address these flaws in the CWA.
                                                                                    WATCH VIDEOSHARE | TWEET
PLF Principal Attorney Reed Hopperprovided some insight on the larger implications of PLF’s recent Supreme Court victories in a Liberty Blog post this week. When PLF wins a big case, like the recent unanimous decisions at the U.S. Supreme Court in Hawkes and Kent Recycling, which held that landowners have the right to challenge Army Corps’ and EPA’s Jurisdictional Determinations in court, it’s natural to ask what effect the decision will have in the “real world.” When we won the 2006 Rapanos case, wherein the High Court limited the scope of the Clean Water Act, the Corps and EPA immediately backed off hundreds of enforcement actions and completely revised their procedures for determining Jurisdictional Determinations. Hawkes and Kent Recycling will also have “real world” impacts for landowners.
On June 15, a divided panel of the Eighth Circuit held that a Minnesota law regulating greenhouse gas emissions is unconstitutional because it regulates activity occurring wholly beyond the state’s borders. This is a welcome result. PLF, joined by NFIB, filed an amicus brief in the case, supporting the challenge on this basis. The opinion gets to the heart of the problem of extraterritorial regulations. If all states can regulate beyond their borders, they could impose overlapping regulatory burdens on out-of-state individuals to whom they are in no way accountable. PLF Attorney Jonathan Wood dives into the implications of this decision in his latest Liberty Blog post.
                                                                     READ JONATHAN’S BLOG | SHARE