Latest news with #PacificLegalFoundation
Chicago Tribune
3 days ago
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Federal judge dismisses suit that threatened wetlands on farmland nationwide
A federal judge in Iowa dismissed a lawsuit on Thursday that threatened millions of acres of wetlands, ecosystems that mitigate flooding, reduce water pollution and support biodiversity. While the lawsuit implicated wetlands nationwide, the battleground was a 72-acre farm in Delaware County, Iowa, owned by Chicago-based investor James Conlan. Conlan has over 1,000 acres of farmland in Iowa, which he leases to farmers who work the land. In some cases, he aims to eventually sell the land to developers. Represented by the libertarian Pacific Legal Foundation and Liberty Justice Center, Conlan argued that a federal provision colloquially known as Swampbuster, which discourages farmland owners from converting wetlands into cropland, infringes on property rights. Conlan and his lawyers did not respond to requests for comment following the decision, which detailed how his gripe with Swampbuster originated three years ago when he sought to cut down trees on 9 of his 72 acres federally designated as wetlands. Under the law, this would have made him and the farmer who leases the land ineligible for federal benefits such as subsidies, loans and insurance. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and several environmental and sustainable agriculture groups countered that compliance with Swampbuster was voluntary. Farmers can drain and till wetlands, but if they do, they cannot expect to receive taxpayer dollars. An expectation of land stewardship is central to the partnership between farmers and the public, said Aaron Lehman, a fifth-generation farmer and president of the Iowa Farmers Union, one of the several groups that joined with the federal government in the case. 'Thursday's decision means we can continue to have farm programs that have integrity,' he said Friday afternoon as he planted soybeans on his farm in Polk County, Iowa. Swampbuster protects 78 million acres, or two-thirds of the wetlands remaining in the continental U.S., according to Food and Water Watch, another group that joined the case in support of Swampbuster. In the upper Midwest, 30 million acres of wetlands, including over 640,000 in Iowa and 1 million in Illinois, are at risk of being destroyed by industrial agriculture, according to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Over half the nation's original wetlands have already been destroyed by farming, development and climate change since the 1780s. 'Every day Americans, and especially homeowners — they might not even know about this case — but it was a big win for them. Wetlands in the Midwest and across the country provide billions of dollars in mitigation benefits by preventing people from losing their homes due to floods,' said Katie Garvey, an attorney at the Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center who represented the environmental and sustainable agriculture groups. Wetlands are natural sponges and filters, absorbing excess water to prevent flooding and catching pollutants before they run into local waterways. They are also critical habitats for a variety of plants and animals. Garvey and her colleagues were pleasantly surprised by the Agriculture Department's continued defense of Swampbuster under the Trump administration. The lawsuit was originally filed under the Biden administration. 'We've been very relieved to see that this administration is continuing to support the USDA and defend Swampbuster,' she said. Chief Judge C.J. Williams, who presided over the case, was also appointed to the Northern Iowa District Court by President Donald Trump during his first term. 'I think that part of the reason is that these programs are really popular with farmers and with Trump's base,' said Dani Replogle, a staff attorney with Food and Water Watch. 'I wonder if that is maybe contributing to them being a little bit more cautious with programs that benefit farmers and benefit farming more broadly?' Lehman warned that the alternative to the voluntary Swampbuster program is a total regulatory environment where farmers don't have choice on whether to comply with conservation programs. 'The only other options would be neglecting the environment or a total regulatory environment, which would be difficult,' he said. The fight to over Swampbuster's fate — and the millions of wetlands it protects — isn't over yet, however. Conlan's team plans to appeal the decision to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in St. Louis, according to a statement posted by the Liberty Justice Center on X Thursday evening. 'We're confident that the appellate court will ultimately rule that this federal law is unconstitutional. This law has been taking land from farmers for years, and we look forward to continuing to fight this unconstitutional law,' said the statement, which Conlan's lawyers referred the Tribune to, in lieu of an interview.
CBS News
30-04-2025
- Business
- CBS News
St. Paul toy store joins lawsuit against President Trump's tariffs
A family-owned toy store in St. Paul is joining a national legal fight, claiming President Trump's tariffs on Chinese imports could devastate their business. Mischief Toy Store is among several businesses represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation in a lawsuit that argues the 145% tariff on Chinese goods is "unlawful and unconstitutional." The suit specifically challenges the government's justification, stating the fentanyl crisis does not meet the threshold for invoking emergency powers and that only Congress has the authority to impose such tariffs. "We have never sued anyone for any reason," said Abigail Adelsheim-Marshall, co-owner of Mischief. "The president seemed like an interesting place to start." The toy store says it imports about 85% of its products from China. Owners say that under the proposed tariff, an item that used to cost them $10 could soon cost $25. "It's going to have to mostly be passed onto the consumer, there's no way around that," Adelsheim-Marshall said. The store is now stockpiling inventory in an attempt to avoid future price hikes and keep products affordable for customers. "Some people are raising prices across the board in their stores already. Some, like we're doing, are trying to buy in bulk. Some who are on the end of closing are closing their doors," she said. While they support the idea of more American-made toys, Adelsheim-Marshall says the infrastructure simply doesn't exist. "Root is one of our most popular games. It's designed by a company here in Minnesota, but it's made in China because all board games are made in China," she said. The lawsuit also includes a board game company, Stonemaier Games, that says it's facing nearly $1.5 million in upcoming tariff payments. After nearly a decade in business, the owners of Mischief Toy Store say this legal battle is about more than policy, it's about survival. "It's going to be a seismic shift for all of us," Adelsheim-Marshall said.
New York Post
23-04-2025
- Health
- New York Post
I'm a dentist suing Michigan over implicit-bias training — that says only some people can be racist
A former Michigan dentist is suing the state over an implicit-bias-training requirement for health-care professionals Gov. Gretchen Whitmer mandated after George Floyd's 2020 death — that declares only some people can be racist. 'Everybody needs to listen to Martin Luther King from way back in the day. It's who you are, not what color you are,' Dr. Kent Wildern exclusively told The Post. The Grand Rapids dentist of 40 years renounced his license in 2021 rather than take the ideological instruction required to keep it, explains the 14-page complaint, filed last week in the Michigan Court of Claims. Advertisement But he wants to return to the field. 'I like taking care of people,' he told The Post, noting he always provided free dental care to those in need. 8 Dr. Kent Wildern, who's suing Michigan, had to choose between his principles and his profession. Advertisement 'I'm 71. I've worked in the health-care industry since I was a boy. I worked at my dad's pharmacy at 9. I was an Eagle Scout by the time I was 13. I worked three summers as a lifeguard' at a Boy Scott camp. 'I worked at the pharmacy weekends and summers while I was in dental school,' he recalled. 'My wife and I had no money and no house. I drove a Gremlin that you couldn't get into except for the back hatch. I started my practice from scratch. That's just the way it was back then.' 8 Gov. Gretchen Whitmer mandated all health-care professionals take the training after marching for Black Lives Matter. AP Advertisement Wildern is represented by the California-based Pacific Legal Foundation, a public-interest law firm that defends against government overreach. Wildern's lawyers believe the instruction required at every renewal is a classic example. On going to renew his license, 'state officials unleashed a proverbial kick in the teeth: a new implicit bias training mandate that forced Dr. Wildern to choose between his profession or his principles,' the firm said. 'This implicit bias training bothered me from day one, and I called the Michigan Dental Association and said, 'Why do we have to take this?' And they said, 'Because it's required by the governor,'' he told The Post. That wasn't good enough for Wildern: 'One day I said I've had it. I'm losing my license because I don't want to take this class.' Advertisement 8 One training module asks you these questions before — and again after — instruction. NetCE The suit targets Michigan's Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, which handles occupational licensing in the state. David Hoffa, a Pacific Legal Foundation attorney on the case, said the training rule goes beyond LARA's purpose and powers. 'We just don't find that there's any lawful authority granted by the Legislature to LARA to make that type of rule in any of the statutes that either the governor or LARA has cited,' he told The Post. In July 2020 — two months after Floyd died during his arrest in Minneapolis and one month after Whitmer marched with Black Lives Matter — the Democratic governor issued Executive Directive 2020-7, 'Improving equity in the delivery of health care,' to achieve 'racial justice.' It ordered LARA to make rules that 'establish implicit bias training standards' as a requirement for 'licensure, registration, and renewal of licenses and registrations of health professionals.' 8 The same module says only some people are capable of racism. NetCE Garrett Soldano told The Post he's been 'kicking and screaming' against the training requirement ever since. Advertisement The Kalamazoo chiropractor led anti-lockdown protests that year, opposing Whitmer's 'nanny government.' 'It's another example of government overreach,' he said, 'hanging our license over our heads.' Soldano felt so strongly about Whitmer's reign that he ran for the right to face her, competing in the 2022 Republican gubernatorial primary but falling short to eventual nominee Tudor Dixon. 8 'It's another example of government overreach,' chiropractor Garrett Soldano said, 'hanging our license over our heads.' Robert Killips | Lansing State Journal / USA TODAY NETWORK Advertisement The trainings themselves — professionals have a few options to choose from, though they essentially stick to a standard script — treat bias as inevitable, only fixable with training. As one instruction module explains: 'Implicit biases can start as early as 3 years of age. As children age, they may begin to become more egalitarian in what they explicitly endorse, but their implicit biases may not necessarily change in accordance to these outward expressions.' But the training asserts only certain groups can be racist. 'Racism is the 'systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power . . . by members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power,' begins an explainer. Advertisement 8 Another offered training module suggests Western medicine has a 'potential for bias.' 'It's freaking garbage,' Soldano said. 'You're basically telling every health-care professional in the state of Michigan that they're racist and accusing us that we base our care schedule on racist bias.' Soldano said he knows others who followed Wildern's path out of their professions rather than take the trainings. 'But people like me who need this for putting food on the table?' Soldano said. Advertisement 'It's hard as hell to just take it, and every two years when I have to take that class, it just brings up the insanity of the pandemic and what she did.' 8 That course demands health-care professionals 'take intersectionality into account.' The requirement on the state's 400,000 health professionals took effect June 1, 2022, and affects a wide range of career fields, from acupuncture to midwifery to social work. Available trainings include 'What Is Systemic Racism?' and 'Impact of Racism on the Health & Well-Being of the Nation.' Hoffa called the requirement an ideologically driven barrier to Wildern's re-entry to the workforce. 'There's a right to earn a living side of this as well,' Hoffa said. 'This type of ideologically driven training is not the proper use of licensing requirements for professionals.' 8 David Hoffa said the Legislature hasn't granted any 'lawful authority' for the state to mandate this training. Pacific Legal Foundation President Trump signed executive orders his first day in office dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion programs. But Wildern's case will be decided in the Michigan court system, not federal court — which at the highest levels is run by Democratic judges and justices. Appeals would go to the Michigan Court of Appeals and finally to the Michigan Supreme Court. The latter ruled most of Whitmer's COVID orders unconstitutional in October 2020 but didn't include the training directive. That was a 4-3 ruling — now Democrat-leaning justices control the top court 6-1. 'This is going to probably go all the way to the state Supreme Court, and I don't have a lot of faith in them, and so that's why I'm hoping that Michigan's next governor overturns this bad boy and gets rid of it,' Soldano said. Michigan has fined noncompliant professionals between $125 and $2,500 and suspended some licenses. LARA did not respond to a request for comment.
USA Today
10-04-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Are you mad Trump started a global trade war? Tell Congress to do its job.
I'll be blunt. As a free-market conservative, I think tariffs are a bad deal. And what has happened to stock markets around the world (and my retirement savings) was completely unnecessary. Yet, even if you agree with President Donald Trump and think tariffs are the best thing ever, should one man have the power to tank stocks and start trade wars that may not end anytime soon? I think not. In issuing such sweeping taxes on imported goods, Trump has clearly tested the limits of his presidential power. The authority to levy and collect taxes and tariffs lies with Congress – at least according to the Constitution. On Wednesday, Trump announced a pause on the tariffs he imposed on most countries, but kept in place extraordinarily high tariffs on China. Stock markets in the United States rallied in response. Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle. Over the years, Congress has delegated much of its tariff power to the president, but no one has tested those bounds to the extent Trump is now. It's time for lawmakers to take back that control, and a few are seeking to do that. More on this shortly. I spent the past four years writing about how former President Joe Biden repeatedly abused his executive authority, in large part because he kept the country in an 'emergency' related to the COVID-19 pandemic so he could bypass Congress. Trump shouldn't follow that same playbook. First Biden, now Trump. There is a 'slippery slope' of presidents going it alone. Trigger warning: Trump's not even 100 days into his second term. And it's hard to keep up with everything that's coming from the White House. He's issued more than 100 executive orders, and it appears that he's just getting started. Many of those presidential actions are fine – even good. Trump, however, must avoid falling into the trap Biden did of relying too much on his unilateral authority as president. We have three branches of government because our Founding Fathers wanted to avoid giving too much power to one individual. The courts thankfully stepped in multiple times during Biden's presidency, halting some of his most outrageous actions, including his $400 billion student loan giveaway. They're likely to have a say with tariffs, too, if Trump keeps these taxes in place for any length of time. There's already been at least one lawsuit filed by a conservative group challenging Trump's tariffs. Oliver Dunford, senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation and an expert in the separation of powers, said there's a 'slippery slope' of presidents pushing the bounds of their office. 'The previous presidents have done this and each president claims frankly as much power as you can,' Dunford told me. 'And the excuse is often Congress won't do anything, and in this case, Trump is claiming an emergency for the tariffs.' Members of Congress could block Trump's tariffs. Will they? Here's an idea: Congress should step up and do its job. Trump declared a national emergency over the trade deficit and is the first president to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify the tariffs. Some lawmakers are pushing back on this new interpretation of the law. This week, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul introduced a bipartisan resolution to terminate Trump's emergency declaration and to force the president to work with Congress. 'Tariffs are taxes, and the power to tax belongs to Congress − not the president,' Paul said in a statement. 'Our Founders were clear: tax policy should never rest in the hands of one person. Abusing emergency powers to impose blanket tariffs not only drives up costs for American families but also tramples on the Constitution. It's time Congress reasserts its authority and restores the balance of power.' Other bipartisan legislation in the Senate, the Trade Review Act of 2025, would require Congress to approve new tariffs within 60 days. So far, it doesn't have enough Republican support. And Trump has said that he'd veto it if it ever reached his desk. Republicans who know better but are afraid to stand up to Trump's tariff dream (and MAGA cheerleaders) should keep in mind the bigger issues at play. If Trump gets away with this trampling of the separation of powers, you can bet the next Democratic president will do the same. Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@ or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Town Secretly Seizes Developers' Property Then Threatens Them With Trespassing Citation
Happy Tuesday and welcome to another edition of Rent Free. This week's newsletter focuses on some shocking updates to a Rhode Island eminent domain case we covered last month. As readers might recall, in the Providence suburb of Johnston, the town government and its very outspoken mayor have been attempting to seize a family of developers' land to prevent their construction of an unsubsidized affordable housing project. Last week the developers sued to stop the seizure in federal court, alleging that the "municipal campus" Johnston was seizing the land for was merely a pretext to stop new affordable housing. Already, Rhode Island law establishes a fairly elaborate process that local governments have to follow when using eminent domain to take land for public buildings. The developers' constitutional challenge to the town's seizure would typically delay things even more. But in a surprise turn of events late last week, the town is claiming to have already seized the developers' plot without providing any advance notice to the owners and without following the processes laid down in Rhode Island law. The owners first learned of the seizure via Johnston's mayor's X post. With the town now alleging that the seizure is complete, it's telling the former owners of the land they have until Friday to get off it or else they'll be cited for trespassing. In response, the developers are now filing for a temporary restraining order to stop what they describe as the town's unprecedented lawlessness in taking the land. "In 40 years, I've seen some pretty outrageous exercises of eminent domain powers. Never anything like this," says Robert Thomas, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a public interest law firm, who is representing the developers. For the past several years, Lucille Santoro, Salvatore Compagnone, Ralph Santoro, and Suzanne Santoro, a family of Rhode Island developers and their various LLCs, had been in talks with Johnston officials about developing a 31-acre site the family owned on the edge of town. Those plans crystalized in December 2024, when the Santoro family participated in a pre-application meeting with city officials, where they discussed their plan to build a 254-unit project. Johnston's local zoning code would not have allowed that many units on the site. However, amendments made to the state's longstanding affordable housing law gave developers a large "density bonus" if they built rent-restricted low- and moderate-income housing. Because the density was generous enough and the rent restrictions high enough, the Santoro family was able to use the law to propose a completely privately funded "affordable housing" project on their land. The Pushback The project did not sit well with Johnston Mayor Joseph Polisena, who wrote an open letter opposing the project shortly after the Santoro family filed their application. In that letter, dated December 3, 2024, the mayor said the town would "roll out the red carpet" for single-family homes on the site. But the traffic, school students, and drainage issues resulting from any large multifamily development would produce an intolerable "trifecta of chaos." "If you insist on moving forward with the currently proposed project, I will use all the powers of government that I have to stop it," wrote Polisena. In his letter, Polisena proposed challenging the constitutionality of the Rhode Island state law the developers were using to bypass local density limits. Soon enough, the mayor had settled on a new tactic: The town would use eminent domain to take the land for a new "municipal campus," including a new town hall and police and fire station, on the site. The eminent domain move came as a surprise to the developers. In what would become a pattern, the mayor posted on social media that the town would consider a resolution on the seizure on the Santoro family property the following day. Kelley Morris Salvatore, a Rhode Island attorney representing the project, told The Providence Journal that she only found out about the eminent domain plans after a reporter contacted her about them. In comments to Reason a few days after the eminent domain resolution was approved, Salvatore said "[the mayor's] primary purpose is clearly to block this project," noting that plans for a municipal campus had "literally never been discussed publicly ever before." At the time, Salvatore said the resolution would be the first step in a long eminent domain process. She said her clients would likely accept an offer from the town to buy the land, provided it was a fair offer. The Lawsuit As it turned out, things escalated pretty quickly. Last Monday, the town approved another resolution authorizing the seizure of the property and laying out a bespoke process for taking the property. The next day, the Santoro family, with the assistance of the PLF, filed a challenge to the seizure in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The U.S. Constitution gives governments wide eminent domain authority to take property for a "public use" and a new municipal campus would certainly seem to qualify as a public use. But the Santoro family argues in their lawsuit that the lack of any public discussion, let alone approved plans or funding, for a municipal campus shows that said campus is a convenient fiction. "The town's stated uses, purposes, and necessity for the taking are false and a sham and a pretense," reads the complaint. Such a sham taking violates the Fifth Amendment's Public Use Clause as well as the Due Process protections of the 14th Amendment. Their lawsuit also argues that the town resolution creating its own process for eminent domaining the land violates a Rhode Island state law that lays out the necessary procedures for taking private property for municipal buildings. The Seizure After the Santoro family filed that lawsuit last Tuesday, things escalated very quickly. On Wednesday, the town filed documents with Johnston's land evidence record office citing the eminent domain resolution and transferring the property's title to the town. The town did not inform the Santoro family or its lawyers that it'd taken the property. The same day, the town filed its own petition in Rhode Island state court asking to deposit the payment of $775,000 for the Santoro family's plot with the court. Here too, the town did not notify the Santoro family or their lawyers of that petition. Nor did they inform them of a hearing held this past Friday where the state court (without the Santoro family or their lawyers present) accepted the town's deposit petition. Only after that hearing on Friday did the town provide any notice of the completed seizure. Polisena posted on X that the town had officially acquired the Santoro family land via eminent domain. A few hours later, the town's lawyer, William Conley, sent Salvatore, the Santoro family's lawyer, a letter saying that the title for the property had been transferred and the funds for it had been paid. Conley's letter gave the Santoro family until this Friday to remove any vehicles or personal belongings they had on the site. If they left anything behind, they'd be served a "no trespass" notice. "They literally [made] up this process," says Thomas, the PLF lawyer who is also representing the Santoro family. "And the process is 'we go to court, we tell the court what we think the property is worth, we put that money into an account in the court, and by that, we own your property, and we can go down and change the registration and title on your property.'" "They purposefully withheld telling us. It really looks to us like they're trying to change the ground rules and the factual situation as fast as they can" with an eye toward undermining the Santoro family's federal lawsuit, he tells Reason. Yesterday, the Santoro family's lawyers filed for a temporary restraining order to stop the town from taking over the property. "This isn't a typical taking, but 'municipal thuggery,'" reads the request for the restraining order. "Indeed, it is among the most unusual and aberrant abuses of a sovereign power imaginable." A hearing on the temporary restraining order is scheduled for later this afternoon. Works in Progress has a fantastic new essay on Britain's disastrous attempt to implement a land value tax in the early 20th century. To make a long story short, the implementation was so complex, and the tax so burdensome, that new home construction fell off a cliff, and the Liberal government that tried to implement the tax ended up repealing it. Doug Burgum and Scott Turner, respectively the secretaries for the Departments of the Interior and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), announced a new partnership to build housing on currently underutilized federal lands. It's a good idea, although details on the new initiative are sparse. A new survey from the Institute for Family Studies finds that young families are willing to tolerate longer commutes and smaller yards in exchange for more spacious, affordable single-family homes. American Enterprise Institute scholar Howard Husock suggests HUD should condition federal housing aid on localities repealing their rent control policies. Fair housing groups are suing the Trump administration over its termination of some $30 million in federal grants to fair housing nonprofits. The post Town Secretly Seizes Developers' Property Then Threatens Them With Trespassing Citation appeared first on
