For generations, the Morgan family has owned mineral rights on oil-rich land in Santa Barbara County. But in 2024, California banned oil and gas drilling within 3,200 feet of “sensitive receptors,” which includes most places where the public works, lives, and plays. The Morgans can no longer develop their oil reserves. This week, the Morgans filed a federal lawsuit, arguing California’s drilling ban violates the Fifth Amendment.

Earlier today, Fox News Digital covered the story of the Pung family’s fight for justice. The story begins more than a decade ago, when a disputed $1,600 tax bill led to Isabella County, Michigan, seizing their $200,000 family home and auctioning it in a fire sale for just $76,000.  

Although the Pungs eventually recovered the sale proceeds, their fight to recover nearly $120,000 in lost equity is now headed to the Supreme Court. Tune in below to watch Tia Pung discuss what the case means for her and her family.

When Hope Lindstrom found out she was pregnant with her second child, she hoped to have the same birth experience she had with her first—one that was safe, comfortable, and aligned with her values. Fearing the loss of autonomy and unwanted interventions associated with hospital birth settings, Hope delivered her first child at an Oregon birth center alongside a certified nurse midwife (CNM).

But when she began planning for her April 22 due date, Hope learned that Nebraska—her new home—offers no birth centers and prohibits CNMs at home births. Now, she’s partnered with PLF to challenge the constitutionality of Nebraska’s restrictions on birth freedom—and to return birth decisions to where they belong: with mothers.

Historically, New Mexico protected property owners’ right to restrict public access to their private land, including streambeds. But a 2022 New Mexico Supreme Court opinion gutted that right, allowing the New Mexico Game Commission and Department of Game and Fish to instead penalize landowners for posting anti-trespassing signage and fences—private rights that were previously protected.

With PLF’s help, several New Mexico landowners chose to fight back. After their claims were dismissed by the district court, they appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Last Friday, PLF senior attorney Christopher Kieser delivered oral arguments in the ongoing case. The court is expected to issue an opinion in the coming months.

Drawing on centuries of warnings, the Framers included the Excessive Fines Clause in the Bill of Rights to protect individuals from unrestrained governments wielding monetary penalties that are wildly disproportionate to the offense committed. 

The ink on the Bill of Rights has been dry for over 200 years and yet, unlike free speech, due process, or privacy, the Supreme Court has rarely had the opportunity to address the Excessive Fines Clause. However, that all began to change at the end of the 20th century, starting with Austin v. United States.