All News Stories


[ sort articles by tag ]
Monday
Apr242017

Nashville "Affordable Housing" - Lawsuit Filed Challenging Unconstitutional Mandatory Set-Aside: "National Trend to Force Socio-Economic Redistribution at Property Owners' Expense", April 24, 2017

NASHVILLE, TN (April 24, 2017):  The Beacon Center of Tennessee and Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) today filed a critical constitutional lawsuit challenging the City of Nashville's so-called "affordable housing" mandate on all new housing and rental units, part of "a national trend to force socio-economic redistribution at property owners' expense," according to attorneys filing the litigation.  The Beacon Center and SLF represent the Home Builders Association of Middle Tennessee (HBAMT), who brought the case on behalf of its members in the defense of property owners.

"Nashville has been warned, encouraged to address legal takings issues, and offered solutions to change its ordinance that clearly violate fundamental constitutional private property rights under the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions and state law," said Kimberly Hermann, SLF general counsel.  "They refused to do so, and we have joined with The Beacon Center of Tennessee to challenge this illegal government action."

The Nashville ordinance is one of dozens of similar ordinances either enacted or under consideration by local governments across the U.S., following a multi-year push by the Obama administration's U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) to expand low-income housing into "higher opportunity areas" - at property owners' expense.

Founded in 1976, SLF is one of the nation's leading constitutional public interest law firms, appearing more than a dozen times each year before the U.S. Supreme Court on issues ranging from property rights to free speech to individual economic liberties and regulatory overreach.

Click here for important background on the case and the law

Click here for lawsuit as filed

Monday
Apr242017

TRAVEL BAN, 9th CIRCUIT - SLF Supports Trump, Constitution, April 21, 2017

ATLANTA, GA/SAN FRANCISCO, CA (April 21, 2017):   Southeastern Legal Foundation, alongside one of the nation's top appellate litigators, filed an amicus brief defending the Trump administration's Executive Order 13,780, commonly known as the Travel Ban.  As William S. Consovoy, former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and partner with Washington, DC-based Consovoy McCarthy Park, LLC, made clear in the brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, CA, several circuits have essentially denied clear statutory and constitutional authority to the Chief Executive by way of citing to campaign statements made months before the November 2016 election - and months before President Trump took the oath of office.

Earlier in April, SLF and Consovoy filed an amicus supporting the Trump Travel Ban in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, VA.

Click here for the Ninth Circuit Amicus Brief

Tuesday
Apr112017

TRAVEL BAN APPEAL: SLF Weighs in at Fourth Circuit, April 7, 2017

RICHMOND, VA (April 7, 2017):  Southeastern Legal Foundation, alongside one of the nation's top appellate litigators, filed an amicus brief defending the Trump administration's Executive Order 13,780, commonly known as the Travel Ban.  As William S. Consovoy, former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and partner with Washington, DC-based Consovoy McCarthy Park, LLC, made clear in the brief to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, VA, several circuits have essentially denied clear statutory and constitutional authority to the Chief Executive by way of citing to campaign statements made months before the November 2016 election - and months before President Trump took the oath of office.

Key excerpt from the brief:

"Over the past few months, the federal courts have been issuing unprecedented rulings that invoke the Establishment Clause to enjoin an executive order barring aliens from entering the United States. Indeed, Executive Order 13,780 is currently subject to several nationwide injunctions on the ground that is was enacted for the purpose of discriminating against Muslims. That conclusion is untenable. The Order’s text treats all religions the same; the effect of the Order is not discriminatory in any constitutional sense; and there are no official statements from government officers indicating that it was enacted for anti-Muslim reasons. Instead, for the first time in our Nation’s history, courts have enjoined a President’s executive order based almost entirely on things he said on the campaign trail. That is precisely what the district court did here."

Click here for the Fourth Circuit amicus brief defending the Travel Ban, April 7, 2017

Monday
Apr102017

Taking Private Property for Public Roads - Without Just Compensation - Supreme Court Brief, April 7, 2017

WASHINGTON, DC (April 7, 2017):  SLF joined an amicus brief urging the United States Supreme Court to hear a case brought by a group of property owners challenging the constitutionality of a Mississippi law which essentially allows the Mississippi Highway Commission to transform private property into public property without justly compensating the owner.

In 1952, the Highway Commission invoked eminent domain and took an easement across private property which it used for a highway from 1953 to 2005.  In 2005, the Highway Commission stopped using the easement land for a highway, relocating the highway after Hurricane Katrina destroyed a related bridge.  Despite the easement terminating when the government stopped using the land as a highway, the Highway Commission “repurposed” the land and built a public park.  The property owners sued seeking just compensation for the property unilaterally taken by the government to build the park.

In response the Highway Commission hid behind a state law passed more than a decade after the original 1952 easement, claiming that it could use the land subject to the easement however it wanted.  The case went to a jury, which found that the Highway Commission’s use was beyond the scope of the easement and that the government owed the property owners just compensation.  In a twist, the state court limited damages to $500, claiming that the property would forever remain encumbered by the 1952 easement.  The property owners are now asking the Supreme Court hear its case and, among other things, find that the state court erred in allowing the legislature to redefine an owner’s property without just compensation.

Click here for Supreme Court amicus brief, April 7, 2017

 

Wednesday
Mar222017

Children's Crusade Climate Change Lawsuit "Most Dangerous Litigation in America," Newsmax, March 22, 2017

SLF's Todd Young unmasks the constitutional dangers involved in a current Ninth Circuit climate change lawsuit filed by 21 children and young adults, represented by ultra-left Our Children's Trust - as published in Newsmax, March 22, 2017

Click here for the article

Wednesday
Mar152017

DAILY BEAST MISSES THE MARK: Gov. Perdue and 2,200 companies represented in SLF's WOTUS challenge, March 15, 2017

SLF STATEMENT ON GOV. SONNY PERDUE AND WOTUS LITIGATION

March 15, 2017

 

Todd G. Young

Executive Director

“Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) represents a coalition of plaintiffs challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers for its broadly overreaching “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) Rule – a Rule that has been challenged by dozens of states, industry groups, professional and trade associations, and companies as an unprecedented executive overreach well beyond the limits of the Clean Water Act.  Southeastern Legal Foundation, et al. v. EPA, et al.

SLF’s coalition of plaintiffs includes AGrowStar; the Georgia Agribusiness Council, which represents more than 1,000 agribusiness member companies; and Greater Atlanta Homebuilders Association, which represents 1,200 builder companies.  U.S. Secretary of Agriculture-nominee, former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, has served on the Georgia Agribusiness Council Board and is a beneficiary of trusts which own AGrowStar’s parent company.  The WOTUS litigation timeline is important:  the plaintiffs filed suit in U.S. District Court in the Northern and Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 13, 2015, and AGrowStar joined in the suit on September 30, 2015.

Contrary to assertions by The Daily Beast (“Trump Signs Rule Making His Agriculture Nominee Rich,” March 14, 2017), it bends credulity and utterly mischaracterizes the facts of the litigation to suggest that Gov. Perdue, by and through AGrowStar, joined the WOTUS litigation in order to gain financial benefit, particularly because the litigation began in 2015.  In order to have standing to sue, plaintiffs must show that they have been or will be harmed by the WOTUS Rule.  AGrowStar, along with the other plaintiffs, have standing to sue precisely because they are able to show harm by the WOTUS Rule.  AGrowStar is certainly not unique nor alone in this challenge - more than 2,200 companies are represented by SLF in this litigation.  The plaintiffs have demonstrated courage to challenge the full might of the EPA on behalf of millions of Americans who are directly and negatively affected by the overreaching and arguably unconstitutional WOTUS Rule.

The current posture of the case is that the WOTUS Rule has been stayed by the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, where the cases have been consolidated.  The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on jurisdiction questions in the WOTUS litigation, and SLF is preparing arguments for that hearing, which is expected this Fall.  Based on President Trump’s Feb. 28, 2017 Executive Order, the EPA and Army Corps have been directed to review the WOTUS Rule based on Supreme Court precedent and the letter of law under the Clean Water Act and to begin the process of recommending a modified Rule for administrative review.”

Founded in 1976, SLF is a national constitutional public interest law firm that appears regularly before the U.S. Supreme Court.  Landmark Supreme Court victories include the 2014 Utility Air Regulatory Group, et al. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014), the so-called “climate change” case, which struck down the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations as unconstitutional executive overreach beyond the Clean Air Act and without Congressional approval.

###

Click here for full statement on WOTUS litigation, Gov. Sonny Perdue, March 15, 2017

Tuesday
Mar142017

Profitable Private Property in Jeopardy: Government Taking in Louisiana, March 13, 2017

Atlanta, GA/Louisiana (March 14, 2017):  Southeastern Legal Foundation, along with National Federation of Small Business Legal Center, filed an amicus brief supporting a private company fighting to keep the industrial port facility that its owners spent decades building and growing into a successful business from government takeover and expropriation.  Violet Dock Port’s owners started with just a 1-mile of waterfront property.  Continuous reinvestment and hard work grew the port facility into a 75-acre port that includes five industrial docks, at least two of which are used by the U.S. Navy to keep two ships docket and ready for takeoff at a moment’s notice.

St. Bernard Parish recognized how profitable the privately-owned port facility had become and wanting those profits and government contracts for itself, took the 75 acres.  It was able to do so because under Louisiana law, a government can take property by simply depositing what it believes is “just compensation” in an account with the court and filing a petition to expropriate. The court will then hold a trial on the taking and compensation.  The backwards procedure provides the state and local governments with vast power. 

Violet Dock Port fought the unconstitutional takings, but to no avail.  The trial court and court of appeals ignored the strong evidence in the record supporting the company’s argument that the government took the property solely to limit competition and takeover not only the land, but the business – clients, contracts, and all.  In its amicus brief, Southeastern Legal Foundation urges the Louisiana Supreme Court grant Violet Dock Port’s request to hear the case and return the property – land and company – back to Violet Dock Port.

Click here for SLF amicus brief, March 14, 2017

Wednesday
Mar012017

DECONSTRUCTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE, TRUMP-STYLE, Newsmax, March 1, 2017

The latest Newsmax article by SLF's Todd Young outlining the importance of, and actual orders by, President Trump's 30-day efforts to start the process of rolling back the permanent bureaucracy - "deconstructing the administrative state" -

Click here for Newsmax article, March 1, 2017

Monday
Feb272017

CALIFORNIA STOPS LEGAL LAND USE ON FEDERAL LAND: SLF Files U.S. Supreme Court Brief in Support of Miner, Constitutional Rights, Feb. 27, 2017

ATLANTA, GA/WASHINGTON, DC (Feb. 27, 2017):  Southeastern Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court urging the court to take the case of Rinehart v. California and stop overzealous states from violating the Constitution and our country’s core principles of federalism.

As the Trump administration seeks to lift burdensome regulations, left-leaning states are digging in their heels for a fight.  Yet even before President Trump took office, California asserted excessive control over federal lands within its borders when prosecutors convicted gold miner Brandon Rinehart of misdemeanors for mining his federally recognized mining claims on federal land in California.  His offense?  Use of a suction dredge, a small-scale, commonplace mining tool used to mine gold in rivers and streams. 

As SLF points out in its amicus brief, the General Mining Law of 1872, a federal law which states that mining for valuable minerals on federal land is an allowed and even encouraged activity, preempts any contradictory state laws.  Not only is federal preemption a critical issue to the system of federalism set in place by the Founders, but it also allows the federal government to operate freely within its limited areas of control.  Even though our Constitution leaves most powers to the states, Mr. Rinehart’s case is an opportunity for the Court to stop rogue states from circumventing valid federal laws in areas over which the federal government has clear authority and control. 

Click here for U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief, Rinehart v. California, Feb. 27, 2017

Friday
Feb102017

Milo Yiannopoulus and the College Rioters: Time to Challenge College Campus 'Coerced Silence' - Feb. 10, 2017

The Founding Fathers and firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos share the most important trait - embrace of protected First Amendment free speech as a means to keep power accountable - Newsmax brings this important piece today, and SLF is preparing a broad strategy to break the 'coerced silence' on America's college campuses - click HERE for link to Newsmax story.