Jake Molieri is the entrepreneur behind SnakeOut, a small business that removes rattlesnakes from Californians’ private property and offers aversion training—wilderness safety courses that teach dogs to identify and avoid dangerous local wildlife. Jake has worked with pet owners and police departments to train more than 400 dogs in 2025 alone. 

But thanks to arbitrary restrictions from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Jake is prohibited from charging a fee for his aversion training programs—unless he uses non-native or albino rattlesnakes instead of the native rattlesnakes that dogs are far more likely to encounter.  

On Wednesday, PLF attorneys filed a lawsuit on Jake’s behalf, challenging these unconstitutional restrictions and seeking to restore California business owners’ right to free speech—paid or unpaid.

Last week, we filed a petition for writ of certiorari on behalf of PLF client Lathfield Investments—a Michigan-based family of small property companies. The petition asks the Supreme Court to review Lathfield’s challenge to an ordinance imposed by the City of Lathrup Village, Michigan, on the grounds that it violates the Constitution’s Contracts Clause. 

The City of Lathrup Village requires property owners to obtain a landlord license before renting space, and it refuses to issue the license unless the owner first discloses the names and principal businesses of every occupant. But Lathfield’s agreements with its occupants include confidentiality provisions—and complying with the City’s ordinance would mean breaking its contracts. Following the Sixth Circuit’s dismissal of Lathfield’s case, the investment group now seeks review at the Supreme Court with PLF’s representation.

Earlier this week, PLF held our annual Supreme Court Preview, featuring Patrick Jaicomo of the Institute for Justice and Advisory Opinions host and SCOTUSblog editor Sarah Isgur, alongside PLF’s Mark Miller and Anastasia Boden.

You can watch the full hourlong virtual discussion at the link below for a unique insider’s perspective on the upcoming Supreme Court term, including analysis of cases that could reshape America’s legal and political landscape for years to come.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, as PLF attorney Amy Peikoff explains, that protection is hollow if the government can collect personal data simply because it sits on a private company’s servers.

By granting review in Chatrie v. United States—a case involving a “geofence warrant” which let law enforcement sweep up information about everyone near the scene of a robbery—the Supreme Court can clarify that the Fourth Amendment continues to safeguard Americans in the digital age.

As of late 2023, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) spanned more than 190,000 pages, containing nearly 1.1 million regulatory restrictions—words like “shall,” “must,” and “prohibited.” It’s a volume of information that is impossible for anyone to fully comprehend—not regulators, not members of Congress, and, more importantly, not the ordinary Americans subject to those restrictions.

PLF’s new AI-powered Nondelegation Project aims to change that. It consolidates this otherwise-incomprehensible administrative behemoth into a single accessible site, providing activists, advocates, and lawmakers a powerful tool to identify specific targets for regulatory reform.