Pacific Legal Foundation
Pacific Legal Foundation
Want to make a donation using Daffy?
Lower your income taxes with a charitable deduction this year when you donate to this non-profit via Daffy.
Do you work for Pacific Legal Foundation? Learn more here.
By donating on this page you are making an irrevocable contribution to Daffy Charitable Fund, a 501(c)(3) public charity, and a subsequent donation recommendation to the charity listed above, subject to our Member Agreement. Contributions are generally eligible for a charitable tax-deduction and a yearly consolidated receipt will be provided by Daffy. Processing fees may be applied and will reduce the value available to send to the end charity. The recipient organizations have not provided permission for this listing and have not reviewed the content.
Donations to organizations are distributed as soon as the donation is approved and the funds are available. In the rare event that Daffy is unable to fulfill the donation request to this charity, you will be notified and given the opportunity to choose another charity. This may occur if the charity is unresponsive or if the charity is no longer in good standing with regulatory authorities.
About this organization
Mission
Pacific Legal Foundation litigates nationwide to secure all Americans’ inalienable rights to live responsibly and productively in their pursuit of happiness. PLF combines strategic and principled litigation, communications, and research to achieve landmark court victories enforcing the Constitution’s guarantee of individual liberty.
About
TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ALL AMERICANS THROUGH LITIGATION; EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ABOUT ISSUES VITAL TO OUR FREEDOM THROUGH COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH; AND TRAIN CURRENT AND ASPIRING LAWYERS HOW TO DEFEND OUR LIBERTIES IN COURT.PLF ATTORNEYS DIRECTLY REPRESENTED CLIENTS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES FURTHERING THE FOUNDATION'S OVERARCHING MISSION TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. THE CASES FALL INTO FIVE MAIN CATEGORIES: PROPERTY RIGHTS; SEPARATION OF POWERS; ECONOMIC LIBERTY; FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION; AND EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW. IN ALL CASES, ACTIONS ATTRIBUTED TO PLF WERE DONE BY PLF ATTORNEYS PROPERLY ADMITTED TO EACH JURISDICTION.SEE SCHEDULE O FOR A LIST OF CASES LITIGATED DURING THE FISCAL PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2019. PROPERTY RIGHTS: A SOCIETY CANNOT FLOURISH AND INDIVIDUALS CANNOT ADVANCE THEIR PRIVATE INTERESTS WITHOUT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TO CREATE AND PRODUCTIVELY USE PROPERTY. PLF LITIGATES TO SECURE THE RIGHT TO THE PRODUCTIVE AND ORDINARY USE OF LAND; PREVENT GOVERNMENTS FROM TAKING PROPERTY WITHOUT COMPENSATION; FIGHT UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR UNLAWFUL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS; PROMOTE BALANCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS; AND STOP UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.BALLINGER V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA. REPRESENTING OAKLAND HOMEOWNERS, PLF FILED A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING RENTAL OWNERS TO MAKE CASH PAYMENTS TO TENANTS WHO MUST RELOCATE WHEN THE OWNER WANTS TO OCCUPY THE PROPERTY. THIS IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT THAT AFFECTS ALL HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE CURRENTLY RENTING UNITS OR CONSIDERING DOING SO. THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN FEDERAL COURT. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS ONGOING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES.BEACH AND BLUFF CONSERVANCY V. CITY OF SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. REPRESENTED BY PLF, LOCAL HOMEOWNERS CHALLENGED THE TOWN'S ADOPTION OF A LOCAL COASTAL PLAN THAT DEPRIVES THE OWNERS OF THE ABILITY TO PROTECT THEIR HOMES BY ERECTING SEAWALLS TO PREVENT EROSION. PLF FILED AN APPELLATE REPLY BRIEF AFTER A PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. THE TRIAL COURT HAD AGREED THAT TWO OF THE CITY'S REGULATIONS VIOLATED THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT AND DEFERRED RULING ON OTHER ISSUES UNTIL PROPERTY OWNERS BROUGHT AN AS-APPLIED CHALLENGE. THE COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMED THE PARTIAL LOSS ON JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. THE CASE IS CONCLUDED. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES.BENEDETTI V. COUNTY OF MARIN, CALIFORNIA. PLF REPRESENTED A FARMER IN A CHALLENGE TO MARIN COUNTY'S RECENTLY ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, WHICH REQUIRES CURRENT AGRICULTURAL USES OF LAND TO REMAIN SUCH IN PERPETUITY. WILLIE BENEDETTI WANTED TO RETIRE FROM THE ACTIVE FARMING OF HIS LAND, BUT THE "FORCED FARMING" AMENDMENT WOULD NOT ALLOW HIM TO DO SO. TRIAL LEVEL LITIGATION WAS STAYED PENDING ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN. MR. BENEDETTI PASSED AWAY WHILE THE CASE WAS PENDING AND PLF NOW REPRESENTS HIS SONS, EXECUTORS OF HIS ESTATE, TO PURSUE THE LITIGATION. ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE, PLF SUBMITTED COMMENTS TO THE COUNTY REGARDING PENDING LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS. BECAUSE THIS CASE IS PENDING, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. BONNER COUNTY V. ZINKE. REPRESENTING BONNER COUNTY, IDAHO, AND THE IDAHO SNOWMOBILE ASSOCIATION, PLF SUBMITTED A 60-DAY LETTER OF INTENT TO SUE TO THE AGENCY REGARDING THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE'S PROPOSAL TO LIST THE SOUTHERN SELKIRK MOUNTAIN POPULATION OF WOODLAND CARIBOU AS A DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT REQUIRING CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION. SUCH DESIGNATIONS PLACE SEVERE RESTRICTIONS ON OTHER LAND USES. THIS LITIGATION IS ON HOLD PENDING GOVERNMENT ACTION.BUILDING INDUSTRY ASS'N OF THE BAY AREA V. CITY OF OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA. REPRESENTING A TRADE ASSOCIATION OF DEVELOPERS, PLF IS CHALLENGING A CITY ORDINANCE THAT CONDITIONS BUILDING PERMITS ON INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC ART OR AN IN-LIEU FEE TIED TO THE COST OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT. BECAUSE THE CITY'S GENERAL DESIRE FOR PUBLIC ART CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE BORNE ONLY BY THOSE WHO SEEK BUILDING PERMITS, WHEN SUCH DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT CREATE ANY NEED FOR PUBLIC ART, PLF FILED A COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL COURT ARGUING THAT THE FEE VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. THE TRIAL COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION AND PLF APPEALED TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT AND BRIEFING WAS COMPLETED. BECAUSE THE CASE IS ONGOING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES.CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN'S ASS'N V. CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMM'N. PLF REPRESENTS RANCHERS AND FARMERS IN A CHALLENGE TO A STATE ENDANGERED SPECIES LISTING FOR THE GRAY WOLF. THE LISTING HAMSTRINGS LANDOWNERS' EFFORTS TO SAFEGUARD THEIR LIVESTOCK AND THEIR LIVELIHOODS AGAINST THE PREDATORY WOLVES. THE CALIFORNIA LISTING VIOLATES STATE AND FEDERAL LAW BY CONSIDERING ONLY THE NUMBER OF WOLVES WITHIN CALIFORNIA RATHER THAN THE SPECIES' OVERALL NUMBERS THROUGHOUT ITS RANGE IN MUCH OF THE WEST AND NORTHERN MIDWEST. PLF FILED A MOTION ON THE WRIT IN DISTRICT COURT AND RECEIVED AN ADVERSE RULING. THERE WAS NO APPEAL. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES.CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN'S ASS'N V. CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF FISH AND WILDLIFE. REPRESENTING THE CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, PLF FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO HAVE DECLARED UNLAWFUL THE DEPARTMENT'S FAILURE TO CONDUCT 5-YEAR STATUS REVIEWS OF 233 SPECIES LISTED AS "ENDANGERED OR "THREATENED" UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. BY ABDICATING THESE MANDATORY REVIEWS, THE STATE UNLAWFULLY FAILED TO DETERMINE WHICH SPECIES COULD BE DOWNLISTED, THUS RESTORING GREATER USE OF PROPERTY TO THE LANDOWNERS. THE TRIAL COURT DECISION WAS ADVERSE AND THERE WAS NO APPEAL. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES.CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN'S ASS'N V. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. PLF REPRESENTS PARTIES CHALLENGING THE DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR TWO SPECIES OF THE YELLOW-LEGGED FROG AND YOSEMITE TOAD. THE DESIGNATION COVERS OVER 1.8 MILLION ACRES IN 16 CALIFORNIA COUNTIES. AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE RULE RESTRICTS THE USE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LANDS FOR GRAZING AND TIMBER HARVESTING IMPERILING THE LIVELIHOOD OF FARMERS, RANCHERS, LANDOWNERS, AND LOCAL ENTERPRISES DEPENDENT ON THESE ACTIVITIES. EVEN SCHOOLS ARE AFFECTED THAT DERIVE INCOME FROM TIMBER PRODUCTION. BUT THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REFUSED TO CONSIDER THESE IMPACTS OR PROVIDE THE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS THE RFA REQUIRES ASSERTING ITS CRITICAL HABITAT REGULATIONS ONLY AFFECT OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES AND NOT SMALL ENTITIES. THE TRIAL COURT CONSIDERED CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLF SUBMITTED SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. THE COURT ISSUED AN ADVERSE DECISION ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS. THERE WAS NO APPEAL. PLF DID NOT SEEK OR RECOVER FEES. CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. OREGON DEPT. OF FISH AND WILDLIFE. PLF INTERVENED ON BEHALF OF THE OREGON CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION AND THE OREGON FARM BUREAU FEDERATION IN DEFENSE OF THE STATE'S DELISTING OF THE GRAY WOLF UNDER THE OREGON ENDANGERED SPECIES LAW. THE LEGISLATURE RATIFIED THE DELISTING, AND THE DEFENDANTS AND INTERVENORS FILED A SUGGESTION OF MOOTNESS, AFTER WHICH THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE LAWSUIT. THE APPELLATE COURT GRANTED THE PLAINTIFFS' PERMISSION TO REINSTATE THEIR APPEAL AND LITIGATION CONTINUES IN THE APPELLATE COURT. BECAUSE THE CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES.CEDAR POINT NURSERY V. GOULD. REPRESENTING A CALIFORNIA NURSERY, PLF FILED A COMPLAINT CHALLENGING A STATE REGULATION ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THAT ALLOWS UNION ORGANIZERS TO ACCESS AN EMPLOYER'S PREMISES TO SOLICIT EMPLOYEES TO JOIN THE UNION. PLF ARGUES THAT THIS IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING AND ALSO VIOLATES THE FOURTH AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION ON UNREASONABLE SEIZURES. AFTER A LOSS IN THE TRIAL COURT, PLF APPEALED TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT, FILED BRIEFS, AND CONDUCTED ORAL ARGUMENT. AFTER AN ADVERSE DECISION, PLF FILED A PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC. BECAUSE THE CASE IS ONGOING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES.CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, ACCURACY AND RELIABILITY V. U.S. DEPT. OF INTERIOR. ON BEHALF OF A BROAD COALITION OF HOME BUILDERS, SOUND SCIENCE, AND PROPERTY RIGHTS ADVOCATES, PLF SUED THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR IN FEDERAL COURT OVER THE AGENCY'S REFUSAL TO DELIST THE COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER FROM THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. THE SERVICE'S DENIAL VIOLATES THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT BECAUSE IT FAILS TO ARTICULATE ANY DEFINITION OR STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHY THE GNATCATCHER PURPORTEDLY CONSTITUTES ITS OWN SUBSPECIES. IT ALSO VIOLATES THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT BECAUSE THE PUBLIC RECEIVED NO NOTICE OR OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PRIVATELY CONVENED PEER REVIEW PANEL, THE FINAL REPORT OF WHICH HEAVILY INFLUENCED THE AGENCY'S DECISION TO REJECT THE DELISTING PETITION. TRIAL COURT LITIGATION IS ONGOING. BECAUSE THE CASE IS PENDING, IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES.
Interesting data from their 2020 990 filing
The filing outlines the non-profit's goal as “Pacific legal foundation litigates nationwide to secure all americans' inalienable rights to live responsibly and productively in their pursuit of happiness. plf combines strategic and principled litigation, communications, and research to achieve landmark court victories enforcing the constitution's guarantee of individual liberty.”.
When explaining its purpose, the activities were outlined as: “Pacific legal foundation litigates nationwide to secure all americans' inalienable rights to live responsibly and productively in their pursuit of happiness. plf combines strategic and principled litigation, communications, and research to achieve landmark court victories enforcing the constitution's guarantee of individual liberty.”.
- As per legal reporting requirements, the state of operation for the non-profit is CA.
- The non-profit's address for 2020 is listed as 930 G STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA, 95814 in the filing.
- As per the non-profit's form, they have 94 employees as of 2020.
- Is not a private foundation.
- Expenses are greater than $1,000,000.
- Revenue is greater than $1,000,000.
- Revenue less expenses is $2,985,784.
- The organization has 20 independent voting members.
- The organization was formed in 1973.
- The organization pays $10,595,852 in salary, compensation, and benefits to its employees.
- The organization pays $2,096,705 in fundraising expenses.