January 26, 2024

Good morning to the West Coast, afternoon to the East. The Supreme Court has an excellent opportunity to limit agencies’ regulatory power: Oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo went well. Meanwhile, a crucial challenge to race-based admissions remains in limbo at the Court. Pacific Legal Foundation has filed three new cases and celebrated a major district court victory since our last Docket.  

Here’s what’s happening.

 

Victory! Court rules gender quota unconstitutional

Your gender shouldn’t disqualify you from a public position: That’s the key takeaway from Pacific Legal Foundation’s victory in Hurley v. Gast in Iowa. A federal judge agreed with PLF that Iowa’s gender quota for public boards is unconstitutional. It’s a huge victory for our client, grandfather Charles Hurley, and for all Iowans interested in public service.

Read More

Freelancers sue the Department of Labor

More than 2,500 freelancers are suing the Labor Department over a new rule that makes it harder for businesses to classify freelancers as independent contractors. The rule will hurt truck drivers, writers, photographers, and others who are self-employed.

Read More

New York parents sue over race-based education program

If you’re a child of black millionaire parents, you’re eligible for the New York State Science and Technology Entry Program, but if you’re the child of white middle-class parents, you’re not. Parent groups are now suing, arguing the state can’t deny children educational opportunities based on race.

Read More

Farmer sues over Minnesota’s discriminatory grant program

Lance Nistler grows soybeans with his father and uncle. He’d like to buy his own farm and has investigated a Department of Agriculture program that helps “emerging farmers” afford down payments—but Lance’s application was bumped to the back of the line because the program gives special treatment to women and racial minorities.

Read More

Will the Supreme Court end judicial deference?

During January 17 oral arguments in Loper Bright, the Supreme Court weighed ending Chevron deference, the doctrine that says courts should defer to agencies’ interpretation of the law.

PLF attorney Caleb Kruckenberg said that if administrative agencies continue to get deference from the courts, bureaucrats at these agencies will make crucial decisions that drive the law. For example, agencies will decide how the law applies to artificial intelligence.

“And I think what the Supreme Court has finally recognized, and what was really clear this week, is that agencies don’t get to decide that question,” Caleb said. “Judges are really the ones who decide what the law says.”

Read More

Boston doctor blasts telehealth restrictions

“Giving medical advice to an out-of-state patient over the phone can put me at risk of losing my license, and, in states such as California and New Jersey, of criminal charges as well,” oncologist Shannon MacDonald wrote in The Wall Street Journal. She’s fighting in court to be able to treat her out-of-state patients: young children with rare cancers.

Read More

Fox News: California county bills man $23,000 to build house on own property. Now the Supreme Court will decide his case

George Sheetz, whose case is pending at the Supreme Court, spoke to Fox News about why he’s fighting his county after it slapped him with a $23,420 fee for building his home. “I knew what they were doing was wrong,” George said. “You can’t keep taking money from the working class that are supporting this country."

Watch Now

An unconstitutional agency is threatening the future of a family business devoted to child safety

Jamie Leach has dedicated her life to child safety. The motto of her company, Leachco, is: “We didn’t invent motherhood; just the products that make it better.”

But the company’s future is being threatened by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is asserting authority it does not have to blame Leachco for accidents the company did not cause.

Read More

Will a Virginia high school’s anti-Asian policies evade the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court has conferenced several times on PLF’s Coalition for TJ case, in which Virginia parents and alumni are challenging race-based admissions at Thomas Jefferson High School. But the Court still hasn’t decided whether to take the case. The Wall Street Journal’s William McGurn called it “disappointing” but noted “it isn’t the end.”

Read More

Guess who said each legal quote:

  1. “I mean, are you just rearguing the point that the Court rejected?”
  2. “Modern connected humankind is trying to determine its position backwards.”
  3. “There's an agency head out there that thinks he already has the authority to address this uniquely 21st Century problem with a couple of statutes passed in the 1930s.”
  4. “We’re not convicting, just denying."
Speakers:
  • Robert Downey Jr.’s character in the movie Oppenheimer
  • Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in oral arguments
  • Playwright David Mamet in an amicus brief
  • Paul Clement, attorney for Loper Bright Enterprises, in oral arguments

share thoughts on Social Media:

        

Copyright © 2024 Pacific Legal Foundation, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website, at an event, or on Facebook.

Our mailing address is:

Pacific Legal Foundation

555 Capitol Mall Suite 1290
Sacramento, CA 95814

If you'd like to change your email preferences or unsubscribe, visit our email preferences center.