One of our public service sponsors continues to be especially active in defending the frontier of freedom against federal overreach.  Many of Pacific Legal Foundation’s precedents apply to the energy industries indirectly while only appearing to directly affect the freedom and rights of a single landowner.  Accordingly, we urge our readers to support PLF along with its faithful — and highly successful — efforts to preserve constitutional protections for both corporate and individual citizens.  -dh


The owners of a beachfront home sued Walton County for banning signs on private beach property — including the signs against trespassing that the homeowners have installed on their privately owned beach property to safeguard their privacy, personal safety, and property rights. The county’s new blanket ban of signs on private beach property violates landowners’ First Amendment free-speech rights, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court by Edward and DeLanie Goodwin.

DeLanie and Edward Goodwin
“The Goodwins have a First Amendment right to speak — and to use signs as a means of speech, a way to convey the message that their beach is not public, and that they value and insist on their property rights,” said PLF Principal Attorney
J. David Breemer. “The county is robbing them of that fundamental right of free speech. Denying them the use of signs denies them the ability to let the public and the county itself know that their land is private and trespassing will not be allowed.”
                                                            READ PRESS RELEASESHARE | TWEET
PLF Director of Communications Harold Johnson speaks with PLF Principal AttorneyJ. David Breemer and his client Edward Goodwin about how the County of Walton in Florida is denying Goodwin’s right to free-speech by banning beach-signs on his property.

To safeguard their privacy, personal security, and property rights, they put up two small “Private Property” signs, and a third small sign that says, “If the County Wants My Private Beach for Public Use, It Must Pay Me For It — U.S. Constitution.”

 LISTEN | SHARE | TWEET
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service formally removed the lesser prairie chicken — a species widely distributed across Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, including key areas for energy development — from the Endangered Species Act’s threatened list. The delisting was the result of a lawsuit against the agency, challenging its decision to give short shrift to voluntary conservation programs developed by states and private landowners. After losing in the district court, the Service decided to forego its appeal.
                                                    READ JONATHAN WOOD’S BLOGSHARE | TWEET

This week the California Supreme Court granted our application and accepted our brief in Scher v. Burke. In the brief, we argue that the California Supreme Court should reject arguments that the court should resuscitate California’s short-sighted doctrine of implied-in-law public dedication. Under California’s now-defunct doctrine of implied-in-law public dedication, courts held, essentially, that if the general public uses private property for five years, the public gets a right to keep on using that property, forever. The problem with the doctrine is that it disregards whether the owner actually intends to permanently give up — or dedicate — his or her property to the public or, rather, merely intends to allow the public to use it with permission.

The 4th District Court in California in a recent court case may have created a loophole to get around Proposition 218. Now the state Supreme Court has agreed to review it. Proposition 218 was approved by voters in 1996 to close a special taxes and assessment loophole. “The loophole will give local entities a way to avoid a taxpayer vote in some instances,” PLF Principal Attorney Meriem Hubbard told theNorthern California Record.
“The case should concern all Californians who pay taxes, fees, assessments, levies, charges, or extractions. Californians have worked hard to obtain the right to vote on new taxes and tax increases, adopting several initiatives which are now included in our state constitution.”
                                                                                          READ MORESHARE | TWEET