Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of PLF client Geraldine Tyler, holding that the government violates the Constitution when it takes property to pay a tax debt and keeps more than what is owed.  

But, apparently, Washington, DC, officials didn’t get the message—or worse yet, are choosing to ignore it. As PLF senior attorney Christina Martin argues in her latest in The Washington Post, “If the District fails to act soon, Congress should step in.”

Since its passage in 1972, the Clean Water Act (CWA) has given the federal government the authority to regulate “navigable waters.” But for decades, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), along with the Army Corps of Engineers, has broadly interpreted the CWA’s definition of “navigable waters” to classify even semi-soggy parcels of residential land as protected wetlands—creating a regulatory nightmare for property owners. 

Fortunately, the Supreme Court’s landmark 2023 ruling in favor of PLF clients Chantell and Mike Sackett established strict standards for determining federal authority over wetlands, reining in the power of the EPA—and by extension, the Corps. Yet as PLF’s Brittany Hunter explains, little has changed in the Corps’ wetlands enforcement post-Sackett. It’s even brazenly targeting one Idaho family’s property in the very same county as the Sacketts’—using a functionally identical theory of authority that the Supreme Court has already rejected.

On Tuesday, a federal court denied Illinois’ motion to dismiss in our clients’ challenge to the state’s racially discriminatory scholarship program. The court firmly rejected Illinois’ argument that organizations—like our client American Alliance for Equal Rights—can sue on behalf of their members only if they reveal those members’ legal names in court documents.  

This victory doesn’t just advance this one case—it reinforces crucial protections for students and other vulnerable plaintiffs who need to challenge government discrimination without exposing themselves to potential retaliation. With Illinois’ motion to dismiss defeated, the State will now have to defend its racially exclusionary scholarship program on the merits.

As the Supreme Court wraps up its annual flurry of blockbuster rulings, it’s easy to focus on the winners—the parties who prevailed, the doctrines that triumphed, the justices whose views carried the day.  

But as PLF senior attorney Anastasia Boden points out in her latest in RealClearHistory, “The end of the term is also a good time to remember that in the long arc of constitutional history, some of the most important victors began as losers. No one embodies that better than Myra Bradwell.” 

Over the past decade, youth-led climate litigation has surged in the courts, seeking to establish a judicially created regulatory regime that would stifle the freedom needed to harness our resources for human betterment.  

As PLF summer clerk Damien Chafin argues, “This fear-driven approach to climate change highlights the disconnect youth-led climate groups have in confronting the problem, overlooking that liberty, not control, is the path to human flourishing and a better future.”

An eye-opening new PLF report reveals the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) regulatory approach to nursery products often takes safe and useful childcare tools away from parents—while doing little to make kids safer.  
 
On August 19, members of our strategic research team, alongside PLF senior attorney Oliver J. Dunford, are hosting a 30-minute virtual discussion outlining the key findings from our report, paired with first-hand experience navigating the regulatory nightmares experienced by our client, Jamie Leach, after being targeted by CPSC enforcement.  
 
RSVP today to secure your (virtual) seat for this important discussion on the government’s role in child product safety.