Pacific Legal Foundation
The Pacific Legal Foundation is an American conservative nonprofit public interest law firm established for the purpose of defending and promoting individual freedom. PLF attorneys provide pro bono legal representation, file amicus curiae briefs, advocate for legislation, create model policy, and commission original research with the stated goal of supporting property rights, equality and opportunity, and the separation of powers. The organization is the first and oldest libertarian public interest law firm, having been founded in 1973.
Pacific Legal Foundation is primarily funded by donations from individuals, foundations, associations, and small businesses. Except for court-awarded attorney fees for case victories, the organization receives no government funding. The foundation is generally described as supporting libertarian causes.
, PLF has won 18 cases before the United States Supreme Court, with the most recent being Sheetz v. County of El Dorado.
History
Incorporated in Sacramento, California, on March 5, 1973, PLF's original staff was composed mainly of individuals who had been a part of then-Governor Ronald Reagan's welfare reform team. Operating on a proposed budget of $117,000 for the first 10 months of operation, PLF attorneys began litigation activities in June 1973 under the direction of Ronald A. Zumbrun, PLF's first president.PLF was the first organization in a movement of freedom-based public interest law firms in the early 1970s. In describing the reasons for starting PLF, Raymond Momboisse, one of the founders, asserted that PLF represented "the free enterprise system and the little guy."
PLF won its first Supreme Court case in 1987 and has since argued 20 cases, with three having been litigated in the 2023 term. Currently, PLF has a staff of over 100 employees and three offices across the United States: Sacramento, CA; Arlington, VA; and Palm Beach Gardens, FL.
Current legal areas
Property rights
PLF has litigated property rights cases since its founding in 1973. The organization argues that property rights have been treated as "second class" constitutional rights since the New Deal and argues that courts should give private property greater protection.PLF property rights cases such as Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District and Sheetz v. County of El Dorado defined the concept of regulatory takings, establishing the doctrine of “unconstitutional conditions.” These cases helped to delineate what constitutes a “regulatory taking” and established the “essential nexus test” used in unconstitutional conditions analyses.
The Foundation's attorneys have successfully argued seven takings cases at the United States Supreme Court: Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, and Sheetz v. County of El Dorado.
PLF has litigated housing and zoning issues in lower courts. PLF successfully challenged San Francisco's "Relocation Assistance Payment Ordinance", which required landlords to pay tenants to regain personal use of their property. Palazzolo v. Rhode Island established that home builders have a right to challenge oppressive land-use laws under the Takings Clause—even if the laws predate ownership. Knick v. Township of Scott established that a property owner has an immediate right to seek redress in the federal courts when a state or local government takes an action that impairs her property rights. Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency established that a home builder's takings claim is ripe for judicial review when the impact of a law on property use is known to a “reasonable degree of certainty” or where the government has no meaningful discretion to reduce a land use law's impact. Shands v. City of Marathon established the precedent that the government can be found to have taken an owner's property without just compensation when it denies their right to build a house due to environmental restrictions.
Additionally, PLF's property rights cases have focused on environmental regulations. PLF's environmental law litigation has frequently involved challenges to federal regulation of private property under the Clean Water Act or the Endangered Species Act, including five victories at the U.S. Supreme Court. PLF attorneys represented a Minnesota property owner who was denied the right to build on his property in Contoski v. Scarlett, a case that resulted in the removal of the bald eagle from the endangered species list. PLF argued that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to delist the species after it concluded that the bald eagle population had recovered.
PLF represented Andy Johnson in a dispute with the Environmental Protection Agency. Johnson built a stock pond on his property in Wyoming to provide water for his cattle. EPA found that he had violated the Clean Water Act, demanded that he remove the pond, and fined him $37,500 per day, eventually resulting in $16 million in fines. Wyoming's senators called the agency's action "heavy-handed bureaucracy." The case was settled in 2016, with EPA dropping the fines and demands, and Johnson agreeing to plant willow trees to protect the ground from erosion. Johnson's case was highlighted by President Trump when he signed an Executive Order to reduce regulatory agencies' ability to rely on administrative guidance to justify enforcement actions against citizens.
PLF has been at the forefront of the campaign to eradicate home equity theft nationwide, culminating in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Tyler v. Hennepin County, which declared the practice unconstitutional. PLF represented Uri Rafaeli, a Michigan resident whose property was foreclosed and sold at auction for a property tax debt of $8.41. The county kept the entire proceeds from the auction, over $24,000, based on a state law which was aimed at preventing blight but allows counties to keep the entire proceeds from property auctions, even if the amount raised at auction is greater than the amount owed in back taxes. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rafaeli and found the practice illegal under the Michigan Constitution. The practice, which PLF refers to as "home equity theft", is also legal in other states such as Arizona, Illinois as well as Washington D.C. PLF has helped pass legislation in Wisconsin, Montana, and North Dakota to end home equity theft.
PLF has frequently litigated property disputes along the coast and other shorelines, including several cases challenging actions by the California Coastal Commission. The organization argues there is no conflict between private ownership of shoreline and the public good, because development can increase opportunities to experience the beach and to protect it.
Equality and opportunity
PLF's equality and opportunity litigation seeks to dismantle government barriers to opportunity, including discrimination based on race or sex.PLF argues that certain licensing laws and similar regulations violate the individual right to earn a living and result in a loss of jobs and a lower standard of living for Americans. PLF has battled against Certificate of Need laws in multiple states that require new entrants to a job market to receive a "certificate of need" from the government to which businesses currently engaged in the occupation may object to the competition. PLF represented Arty Vogt from Lloyd's Transfer & Storage in a challenge to West Virginia's CON law regulating interstate movers, which required new moving companies in the state to be approved by incumbents. The case concluded in 2017 when the state passed a law effectively repealing the regulation. In 2023, PLF won a lawsuit in Kentucky, first filed in 2019, challenging the state's CON law regulating non-emergency medical transportation. PLF has challenged and succeeded in ending CON laws for other movers operating in Oregon, Missouri, and Pennsylvania. Additionally, PLF has also filed cases challenging CON laws that limit new birth centers in Georgia and Iowa.
In 2008, PLF won Merrifield v. Lockyer, a challenge to California licensing of pest control. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "economic protectionism for its own sake, regardless of its relation to the common good, cannot be said to be in the furtherance of a legitimate governmental interest."
PLF has participated in cases challenging affirmative action policies, both under the federal Constitution's Equal Protection Clause and state constitutional provisions such as California's Proposition 209 and Washington's Initiative 200. At the California Supreme Court, PLF principal attorney Sharon L. Browne won two significant victories upholding the constitutionality of Proposition 209. In the case of Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc. v. City of San Jose, the California Supreme Court made the decision to invalidate a racially discriminatory public contracting program, citing it as a violation of Proposition 209. This case has been hailed as a significant legal precedent in the realm of public contracting and anti-discrimination laws.
In its efforts to eradicate racial discrimination, PLF has been involved in litigation such as Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board. The case was about Thomas Jefferson High School in Fairfax, Virginia, changing its standardized testing procedures to favor certain racial groups at the expense of others. Although PLF initially won this case in the district court, the decision was reversed by the Fourth Circuit Court. The Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the coalition's petition by denying certiorari.
In the case of magnet-school admissions in Hartford, Connecticut, a statewide law previously endorsed race-based discrimination by mandating that at least 25 percent of the student body be white or Asian. Consequently, if the white or Asian population fell below this threshold, vacant seats were not allocated to black or Hispanic students, resulting in seats being left unfilled rather than being offered to black or Hispanic students. PLF challenged this policy in a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut, leading to the court barring enforcement of the challenged law. As a result, the limitations based on racial percentages are no longer in effect.
In Chu v. Rosa, Asian-American parents challenged the New York State Science and Technology Entry Program, an educational enrichment statute. This program provided opportunities for students who met specific eligibility criteria, which included being part of minority groups in the United States or being economically disadvantaged. However, STEP defined minority status to include individuals from only specific racial or ethnic backgrounds, such as black, Hispanic, Native American, or Alaskan Native. PLF in conjunction with the Legal Insurrection Foundation represented the plaintiffs.
In 2018, PLF filed a number of lawsuits on behalf of boys seeking to compete on high school dance teams. In South Dakota, the South Dakota High School Activities Association changed their regulations to allow boys to compete in competitive dance following PLF's lawsuit. Additionally, the Minnesota State High School League also amended their rules to allow boys in competitive dance following lawsuits filed by PLF on behalf of two male students.
In Hurley v. Gast PLF challenged the state of Iowa's law requiring a fixed "gender balance" on the State Judicial Nominating Commission. This law mandated that each district's two elected commissioners must consist of one male and one female. As a result of staggered elections, only one vacant seat appeared on the ballot in each district, and candidates were only eligible to run if they matched the departing commissioner's gender. In January 2024, the district court ruled in favor of Hurley, finding that Iowa had failed to demonstrate how its sex-based classification “a presumptively invalid state action,” could withstand heightened scrutiny. The court concluded that Iowa Code § 46.2 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court further ordered the State Court Administrator to cease the enforcement of Iowa Code § 46.2, removing gender balancing from future elections.
In 2018, PLF sued New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, challenging his proposed changes to the admissions policies of New York City's specialized high schools. De Blasio proposed expanding the Discovery program, which admits students just under the cutoff for the admissions test, from 6% to 20% of all students accepted, a move which he claimed would increase black and Hispanic diversity in those schools. PLF represents Asian-American parents and advocacy groups who claim that the mayor's plans discriminate against Asian-American students and amounts to unconstitutional racial balancing.