Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (2013).
The U.S. Supreme Court handed a victory to all property owners by ruling in favor of PLF client, Coy Koontz Jr., in his constitutional challenge to the heavy, unjustified demands that his family faced as a condition for a building permit. The 5-4 ruling affirms that the Fifth Amendment protects landowners from government extortion, whether the extortion is for money or any other form of property.
Rapanos v. United States (2006).
This decision narrowed the scope of federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction, so that landowners who are not close to “navigable waters” may not be subjected to federal micromanaging of their property.
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997).
This ruling stopped regulators from demanding that an elderly, wheelchair-bound widow’s attempt to sell her minuscule transferable development rights in a nonexistent market before being able to seek judicial relief for denial of her right to build a home.
Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012).
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that property owners have a right to direct, meaningful judicial review if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency effectively seizes control of their property by declaring it to be “wetlands.” The Court ruled in favor of Mike and Chantell Sackett, of Priest Lake, Idaho, who were told by EPA — and by the Ninth Circuit — that they could not get direct court review of EPA’s claim that their two-thirds of an acre parcel is “wetlands” and that they must obey a detailed and intrusive EPA “compliance” order, or be hit with fines of up to $75,000 per day.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001).
This ruling held that government is not relieved from its Fifth Amendment obligation to provide compensation for excessive regulations on private property merely because the property has changed hands since the regulations first took effect. PLF defended landowner Anthony Palazzolo who challenged the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council.
Keller v. State Bar of California (1990).
A First Amendment case holding that a trade or professional organization to which professionals are legally bound to belong may not use their mandatory dues to fund ideologically based lobbying.