PLF Unveils “Top Five Cases to Watch: Supreme Court 2012”

PLF is representing itself and other organizations as amicus curiae in support of the State of Florida, et al.
Contact: Timothy Sandefur

In the Florida case, arguably the most critical issue deals with the Individual Mandate, that portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that requires most individuals who are not covered by an employer to purchase a government-prescribed health care plan, at the risk of significant fines imposed by the IRS. The key question is whether the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power “to regulate commerce . . . among the several states,” encompasses the power to require individuals to buy a good or service from a private company.

PLF attorneys represent the petitioners, Mike and Chantell Sackett.
Contact: Damien M. Schiff

Acknowledged by Bloomberg News as one of the most important cases this term, the Sackett case asks whether a property owner has a right to meaningful judicial review of an EPA Compliance Order that designates the property as “wetlands” subject to federal jurisdiction. Compliance Orders are very onerous, and mandate specific activities that a landowner must carry out at great cost, and at the risk of significant fines or even criminal prosecution should the order be ignored. For several decades, EPA has used Compliance Orders to coerce landowners into submitting to its demands, because landowners have no opportunity to challenge the underlying “wetlands” designation, and EPA is not required to offer proof. Oral argument is scheduled for January 9.

PLF is representing itself and other organizations as amicus curiae in support of the petition asking the Supreme Court to hear this case.

Credit: BlazeMan

Contact: Sharon L. Browne

In Fisher, an applicant denied admission to the University of Texas is challenging the university’s policy of counting applicants’ race as a factor in admissions. At issue in this case is whether the Court will continue to validate the pursuit of “diversity” as a justification for the use of race in making admissions decisions at public universities. The Court has announced that it will consider whether to take this case at its conference on January 13.

PLF is representing other organizations as amicus curiae, asking the Supreme Court to hear this case.
Contact: Daniel A. Himebaugh

For over 35 years, the EPA has specifically exempted roadside ditches and culverts in forests from Clean Water Act permitting requirements, contending that rainwater running off of forest roads is not a “discharge of a pollutant” and that ditches and culverts do not constitute “point sources” of pollution, comparable to industrial waste pipes. Nevertheless, an environmental group sued Oregon officials and timber property owners, alleging that they need to apply for costly and time-consuming “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System” (NPDES) permits for rainwater runoff that results from the building of forest roads. Despite the EPA’s long­standing position, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held for the plaintiffs. Oregon officials and timber operators are now asking the Supreme Court to overturn this decision. On December 12, the Court asked the U.S. Solicitor General to file a brief stating the position of the United States on this question of federal law.

Representing the California Grocers Association, PLF has filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to take this case.
Contact: Timothy Sandefur

In the negotiations between labor unions and management, federal law requires that the bargaining must be carried out on a level playing field, without government “placing its thumb on the scale” to tilt the bargaining advantage to one side or the other. In this case, the City of Los Angeles enacted an ordinance that requires purchasers of any existing grocery store larger than 15,000-square feet to retain current employees for 90 days. The owner is not permitted to replace these workers with his own employees, and may discharge an employee only for cause. However, the owner may “opt-out” of this retention requirement by entering into a collective bargaining agreement with a union. While California’s lower courts overturned the ordinance as violating federal labor law, the California Supreme Court upheld it. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether it will review PLF’s case in early 2012.

National Litigation Center
930 G Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 419-7111 (phone)
(916) 419-7747(fax)
© 2008-2012 Pacific Legal Foundation
Privacy Policy  |  Contact