upheld the ruling of the Pennsylvaniafederal district court. In December 2010,Hazleton filed a petition for writ of certio-rari, and in February 2011, Hazleton filed

a reply to an opposi-tion to certiorari. TheSupreme Courtreferred the petitionto a conference thatwas conducted onMarch 18, 2011,where it remaineduntil after theSupreme Courtissued its ruling in

Chamber of Commerce ofthe United States v. Whiting, which uphelda similar law enacted by Arizona.

Despite the legal challenges, publicsupport for the right of State and localgovernments to respond to the crime,chaos, and cost of unrestrained illegalimmigration and the refusal of the feder-al government to protect the Nation’ssouthern border, remains high.

Page One

Summer 2011The Litigatoris published quarterly byMountain States Legal Foundation, a nonprofit, public-interest legal foundationdedicated to individual liberty, the right to own and use property, limited and ethical government, and the free enterprise system.

MOUNTAINSTATESLEGALFOUNDATION

Executive Offices:2596 South Lewis WayLakewood, Colorado 80227

303-292-2021Fax 303-292-1980www.mountainstateslegal.org

TheLitigatorschools, hospitalcosts, and thedemand for ser-vices—the CityCouncil, at therequest of MayorLou Barletta,adopted legisla-tion to deal withthese problems.On September 12,2006, Hazleton

adopted two separate ordinances, the“Illegal Immigration Relief Act” and the“Official English Ordinance.” The formerpassed by a vote of 4-1, the latter passedunanimously.

Meanwhile, in April 2006, the ACLUand other similar groups filed a lawsuitagainst Hazleton; subsequently, thegroups amended their complaint. In July2007, after a two-week trial, which beganonly after weeks of discovery and the fil-ing of variousmotions and briefsby the scores ofattorneys repre-senting the groupsand the small bandof lawyers repre-senting Hazleton,and the filing ofpost-trial briefs, theU.S. District Courtfor the MiddleDistrict of Pennsylvania ruled that theHazleton ordinance invaded an area pre-empted by federal law and thus wasunconstitutional.

Hazleton appealed and, after brief-ing, oral arguments took place before theThird Circuit in Philadelphia in lateOctober 2008. In early September 2010, athree-judge panel of the Third Circuit

U.S. Supreme Court Strikes 3rd Circuit Opinion

MSLF’S HAZLETON DEFENSE VINDICATEDHazleton,

Pennsylvania wonfull vindication ofits long legal bat-tle for its right toaddress theimpacts of illegalimmigrants on itscitizens as a resultof a ruling by theSupreme Court ofthe United States.The Court granted Hazleton’s petitionfor writ of certiorari, vacated a rulingagainst Hazleton by the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Third Circuit inPhiladelphia, and ordered the appellatecourt to reconsider its ruling in light ofthe Court’s May 26 decision regarding asimilar law in Arizona.

The Supreme Court’s ruling also vin-dicates the decision of MSLF, at therequest of then-Mayor Lou Barletta, tojoin the City’s small legal team, whichincluded the Immigration Reform LawInstitute. (In November 2010, MayorBarletta was elected to the U.S. House ofRepresentatives from Pennsylvania’sEleventh Congressional District.)

Located 80 miles northwest ofPhiladelphia, near the intersection ofInterstates 80 and 81, Hazleton,Pennsylvania, incorporated in 1857, washome, during the 2000 Census, to fewerthan 23,329 citizens. By the 2010 Census,its population had increased by nearlyten percent. Most of that number com-prises individuals who have entered thecountry illegally.

Frustrated by the failure of the feder-al government to address the issue ofillegal immigration and the problems itposes for the tiny, cash-strapped City—including violent crime, crowded

Photo Courtesy of The Associated Press

Page TwoTheLitigator

PENDLEY’S VIEWShortly after a three-judge panel of

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit ruled 2-1 that S.B. 1070—Arizona’s attempt to address the safety,economic, and social issues caused byillegal immigrants—is contrary to theSupremacy Clause because it conflictswith federal law, Arizona Governor JanBrewer announced she will seekSupreme Court review. The Court willlikely hear her appeal given that thedissenting judge faulted the majorityfor ignoring the mandate of Congress,deferring impermissibly to federalagencies and foreign countries, andstripping Arizona of its ability to pro-tect its citizens.

The law was challenged in May2010 by the ACLU, MALDEF, and theNAACP; however, a Supreme Courtappearance was all but guaranteedwhen Attorney General Holder, alleg-ing that S.B. 1070 conflicts with WhiteHouse “foreign relations [] and human-itarian concerns...,” sued on behalf ofthe United States.

Filing the lawsuit was not enough.President Obama lashed out sayingany Hispanic man who takes his “kidout to get ice cream, [is] gonna beharassed.” Then, Assistant Secretary ofState Michael H. Posner reported that,during human rights talks with China,he brought up the Arizona law “earlyand often,” “as a troubling trend in oursociety and an indication that we haveto deal with issues of discrimination . . ..” Finally, Secretary Hillary Clintonincluded a mea culpa on the Arizonalaw in a report to the “U.N. HighCommissioner for Human Rights,”which required that American diplo-mats appear for a public “barbecuing”before U.N. bureaucrats.

The questions presented byGovernor Brewer to the Court willaddress various legal and constitutionalissues; however, the key question iswhether the Constitution continues toprovide for dual sovereignty.

WEB PAGE POLLVisitors to MSLF’s web site at www.mountainstateslegal.org responded to the

following question: “Some States and environmental groups say they may sue toget judges to shut down power plants to save them from global warming. Maythey do so?” One hundred percent (100%) said, “No: The Constitution limits fed-eral suits to ‘cases and controversies’ to thwart political rulings by judges.” Zeropercent (0%) said, “Yes: Global warming is real and if Congress refuses to act thenStates and groups must ask judges to step in.”

Vote on the new question at MSLF’s web site today!Remember, the best way to keep abreast of MSLF’s precedent-setting, national-

ly-significant litigation is to check MSLF’s highly acclaimed web site. MSLF’s website is updated at least every week and often daily. In particular, check for updateson MSLF’s “Legal Cases” and “Press Releases.”

MSLF AT SUPREME COURT OF COLORADOA national group and three of its

Colorado members appeared beforethe ColoradoSupreme Court indefense of theirColorado Court ofAppeals victory overthe University ofColorado (CU) Boardof Regents and its pol-icy barring the use ofconcealed carry per-mits on campus. Students forConcealed Carry on Campus and threeColoradoans had prevailed at theCourt of Appeals in April 2010, when athree-judge panel reversed unanimous-ly an El Paso County state districtcourt’s April 2009 ruling. The appealscourt held that the 2003 ColoradoConcealed Carry Act (CCA) bars localregulations—such as those adopted byCU—that conflict with the Act and thatCU’s ban on firearms in vehicles forself-defense is unconstitutional. InJune 2010, CU’s Regents voted 5-4 toappeal to the Colorado Supreme Court;

they filed their petition later thatmonth. Their petition was granted in

October 2010.SCCC’s lawsuit

charges that CU’sRegents are prohibit-ed by the CCA fromadopting conflictingregulations. In addi-tion, the lawsuitalleges that CU’s banis so broad it violates

the Colorado Constitution, which pro-tects the right to keep and bear armsfor self-defense.

The student plaintiffs, adults whoare trained and licensed to carry ahandgun nearly everywhere inColorado, argue that the CCA givesthem the right to carry a handgun oncampus. Given the Virginia Techtragedy, as well as shootings atNorthern Illinois University and NewLife Church in Colorado Springs, cam-puses are exactly where students whoqualify under Colorado’s CCA believethey need to be able to carry firearms.

DOUBLE YOUR MSLF GIFT! TELL THE BOSSDid you know that you might be

able to double your gift for free?Thousands of companies match theiremployees’ charitable contributions.Matching gifts play a key role in help-ing MSLF fight its court battles. Pleaseask if your employer has a matching

gift program. Contact your humanresources or personnel department tosee if your company will match yourgift to MSLF. Then, each time you mailyour gift, please include a matchinggift form from your employer. MSLFwill do the rest!

CONGRESS DELISTS WOLF; ENVIROS CRY UNCONSTITUTIONALAstonishingly, the authority of

Congress to end abuses of the federalEndangered Species Act (ESA), a lawCongress wrote, is now the issue in litiga-tion involving the northern RockyMountains gray wolf in Idaho andMontana. Shortly after Congress orderedthe wolf to be removed from the ESA listfollowing a ruling from a Montana feder-al district court that the wolf must remainon the ESA list, environmental groupsfiled yet another lawsuit asserting that thecongressional action is “unconstitutional”and the district court’s order must stand.Two western farm bureau groups alongwith MSLF, all three represented byMSLF, quickly responded with a motionto intervene in the new lawsuit because oftheir fear that the Obama Administrationwould not vigorously defend Congress.

The Montana Farm BureauFederation and the Idaho Farm BureauFederation along with their attorney,

MSLF, had intervened in a June 2009 law-suit filed by the environmental groups inwhich the district courtstruck down the April2009 decision of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS) to remove thewolf, which the FWS hadlabeled a distinct popula-tion segment (DPS), fromESA protection in Idahoand Montana. After thedistrict court’s July 2010ruling, which wasappealed to the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,Congress enacted and President Obamasigned a federal law that over-turned thedistrict court’s ruling.

The gray wolf (Canis lupus) onceroamed the northern Rocky Mountainregion; however, due to their predationon livestock, the federal government per-

mitted their killing; by 1930, wolves hadbeen almost eliminated in the region. In

1973, the FWS listed theNorthern RockyMountain Wolf (Canislupus irremotus) as“endangered” and, in1978, listed the gray wolfas “endangered” in thelower 48 States, exceptMinnesota where it waslisted as “threatened.” In1994, the FWS capturedwolves in Canada,imported them into the

United States, and released them inMontana, Idaho, and Wyoming. By 2002,the wolf population had achieved itsnumerical, distributional, and temporalrecovery goals, and the FWS began itsdelisting process.

In April 2009, the FWS issued its ruleto delist the wolf in Montana and Idaho.

Page Three TheLitigator

The U.S. Supreme Court must reviewa recent ruling by the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the NinthCircuit to ensure that it com-plies with the constitutionalrequirements as to who hasthe right to file federal law-suits, MSLF advised theSupreme Court on behalf ofwestern groups. In a friendof the court brief on behalfof itself, the Arizona CattleGrowers Association,Wyoming Stock GrowersAssociation, WyomingCounty CommissionersAssociation, Montana FarmBureau Federation, andIdaho Cattle Association, MSLF urged theCourt to grant a petition for writ of certio-rari filed by the Public Lands Council(PLC) on April 19. The case involves alawsuit filed by several environmentalgroups challenging grazing regulationsadopted by the Bureau of Land Manage-ment (BLM) in 2006. Although the regulations had not become effective anddid not affect any activities, the Ninth

Circuit ruled the environmental groupshad “standing” to maintain their lawsuit.

MSLF argues that the NinthCircuit’s ruling directly con-flicts with a recent ruling bythe Supreme Court.

In 2006, the BLM adopt-ed regulations on cattle andsheep grazing on federal landsin which the BLM restoredregulations rescinded by the1995 regulations. WesternWatersheds Project (WWP)and others sued in Idaho fed-eral district court alleging thatthe regulations violated theNational EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA), the Federal

Land Policy and Management Act(FLPMA), and the Endangered SpeciesAct (ESA). The PLC and the AmericanFarm Bureau Federation (AFBF) inter-vened on the side of the BLM to supportthe 2006 regulations.

The district court held that the BLMviolated NEPA, FLPMA, and the ESA andpermanently enjoined the regulations.The PLC and AFBF appealed to Ninth

Circuit. The BLM also appealed, but laterwithdrew its appeal.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that WWPhad standing to assert a “proceduralclaim” under NEPAbecause there was a“geographical nexus” between WWPmembers and grazing allotments in whichthey have an interest and that its claimwas ripe for review because it was a “pro-cedural claim” under NEPAand a “proce-dural claim” is ripe whenever there is afailure to comply with NEPA. On themerits, the Ninth Circuit ruled that theBLM violated NEPAand the ESA.

9TH CIRCUIT IGNORES SUPREME COURT; OKAYS ENVIRO SUIT!

KEEP READING!The Litigator, MSLF’s quarterly

newsletter, is the indispensable toolfor staying informed regarding thelatest in MSLF’s precedent-setting,nationally-significant, public-interestlitigation. The Litigator is mailed onthe first of February, May, August,and November. Ensure that youkeep receiving The Litigator by contributing $25 annually.

Page FourTheLitigator

HELP MSLF FIGHT FOR FREEDOM: JOIN THE LEGACY SOCIETYName ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Address _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

City_______________________________________State __________________________Zip ___________________________________

Home Phone ________________________Cell Phone___________________________E-Mail ________________________________

oSend me FREE information on Planned Giving.

oCall me! I have planned giving questions.

oI have added MSLF to my estate plans. Put my name on the plaque.

oSend me the MSLF E–Newsletter.

Mail to: MSLF, 2596 SOUTH LEWIS WAY, LAKEWOOD, CO 80227

!

IRA CHARITABLE ROLLOVER IS NOW LAWGreat news: on December 17, 2010, the IRA Charitable Rollover became the law of

the land again! If you are 70 1/2 years or older, you may give up to $100,000 from yourtraditional or Roth IRA directly to MSLF during 2011!

If you instruct your IRA custodian to make a direct gift to MSLF, your gift will: (a)support MSLF’s courageous courtroom battles for constitutional liberties and the ruleof law; (b) count toward your mandatory IRA withdrawal; and, (c) not be part of yourfederal taxable income for 2011.

You should consult your personal financial advisor to get more specifics.To make a gift from your IRA: (1) Contact your IRA custodian; it may take up to 2

or 3 weeks for your custodian to make a distribution; and (2) Tell your IRA custodianto make a direct gift to MSLF (tax identification number 84-0736725).

Please call MSLF at (303) 292-2021 to tell us your IRA contribution is on its way.Thank you!

Suggest this bequest language to your attorney:

“I [name], of [city, state, ZIP] give, devise and bequeath to Mountain StatesLegal Foundation (MSLF), (tax identification number 84-0736725) 2596 SouthLewis Way, Lakewood, Colorado 80227, [written dollar amount or percentage ofthe estate or description of the property] to continue its mission to protect andpreserve individual liberty, the right to own and use property, limited and ethicalgovernment, and the free enterprise system.”

When you add MSLF to your will, be sure to tell us! We want to thank you byadding your name to MSLF’s Legacy Society wall plaque.

ACT NOW: REMEMBER MSLF IN YOUR WILL

More than 60 percent of adults livingin households with children do NOT havewills. You need one if:

• You are married;• You have minor children or ailing par-

ents;• Your entire estate is valued at more

than $50,000;• You own real estate:• You own a business; or• You support MSLF!

You need to revise your will if therehave been changes in any of the following:

• Marital status;• Desired executor or guardian;• Finances;• Beneficiaries;• Place of residence;• Tax laws;• Children’s financial needs; or• Degree of support for MSLF!

NEED TO DRAFT ORREVISE YOUR WILL?

A great gift to MSLF that does notoften come to mind is the contribution ofa donor’s personal residence or farmwhile retaining a right to live on the prop-erty for the donor’s lifetime; that is, a“retained life estate.”

The donor receives an instant incometax deduction for the value of the remain-der interest in the real property that wascontributed to MSLF; however, the donorcontinues to be responsible for routineexpenses regarding the property.

GIVING: LIFE ESTATE

The Wall Street Journal reports that all Series E and Series H bonds, as well assome Series EE and Series HH bonds, have stopped earning interest. You may usethese bonds to fund a Charitable Gift Annuity (CGA), which will yield an incomefor your life.

Call 303-292-2021 and ask for William Perry Pendley.Income tax regulations and estate tax laws are complex and vary state to state.

PLEASE consult a tax advisor before making any decisions.

NON-EARNING ASSETS? CONSIDER A CGA

Page FiveTheLitigator

MSLF receives no government funds (except when it wins in court and thejudge orders the federal government to pay attorneys’ fees and expenses).

MSLF’s sole source of support is the tax-deductible contributions of thosewho support its aggressive litigation program.

MSLF is a nonprofit, public-interest I.R.C. 501(c)(3) corporation, which makesthe contributions it receives tax deductible.

MSLF is committed to the vision of the Founding Fathers: individual liberty,the right to own and use property, limited and ethical government, and thefree enterprise system.

MSLF’s commitment to the Constitution ensures that America remains a nationof laws and not of men and that the rich liberty legacy of this nation continues.

MSLF does only one thing: it goes to court in defense of the Constitution,strict adherence to the laws of the land, and those who cannot afford to hirelegal counsel to protect their rights.

Only YOU can ensure that MSLF may continue its vital work.

Federal, state, and local taxes take an ever-increasing share ofone’s income.

Gift giving decreases taxes while advancing charitable goals.

At a time when many mechanisms for legally lowering taxeshave been eliminated, the opportunities for reducing taxes byplanned charitable giving have been increased!

Income Tax – Each year a person may deduct as much as 50percent of his or her adjusted gross income (AGI) for gifts ofcash to a qualified charity; that limit is only 30 percent for giftsof appreciated property.Estate Tax – A person who died in 2009 is entitled to an exclu-sion of up to $1,000,000; however, estates in excess of thatamount may deduct charitable gifts, by will or trust. Becausefederal estate taxes over $1,000,000 range from 37 percent to 50percent, for every charitable gift of $1,000, the estate saves upto $500 in taxes. Please consult your tax adviser.

Contributions of stock can be made electronically to MSLF's brokerage account DTC 0164. When transferring stock, indicateacct. #7080-3528, Charles Schwab & Co., 518 17th St., Suite 100;Denver, CO 80202. (Derek Tuz 303-260-5916; Fax: 303-260-5911).Please notify MSLF BEFORE making the transfer; there is noway to identify a stock donor without prior notification.

Problemk

SolutionkReasonk

The Meansk

StockkTransfer

Information

MSLF CANNOT REST;ITS ROLE ESSENTIALTO REMAINING FREE

In 2011, MSLF will have been going to court for 34 years, fighting to compelcompliance with the commands of theConstitution and federal law to ensurethat America remains a nation of laws.At no time during these three decadeshas the need for MSLF to go to court onbehalf of those who could not affordlegal representation been lessened. Infact, as the federal bureaucracy hasgrown and as federal laws havebecome more far-reaching and intru-sive, MSLF’s caseload has increaseddramatically. That is obvious from areview of the scores of MSLF cases.

Your Support Is VitalIf there is one lesson MSLF has

learned over the past 34 years, it is that,regardless of which party occupies theWhite House or controls Congress, thethreat to liberty remains and MSLF mustbe ready, willing, and able to go to courtto defend freedom. As Thomas Jeffersononce said, “Eternal vigilance is the priceof liberty.” One of the prices that mustbe paid for MSLF to remain vigilant isthe price that tens of thousands ofAmericans pay annually by makingtheir tax-deductible contributions toMSLF and its litigation.

The support of MSLF by tens ofthousands of Americans committed tofreedom could not be more important.Your support will ensure that MSLFremains IN THE COURTS FOR GOOD!

Yes! I want to help MSLF in its brave fight to ensure the guarantees of theU.S. Constitution and to preserve the rule of law throughout the land!

o Enclosed is a tax-deductible contribution of $25. Please keep sending me The Litigator!

o Enclosed is a tax-deductible contribution of $ _______to help MSLF in its courtroom battles.

o Enclosed is a tax-deductible contribution of $_______ for MSLF’s Endowment Fund.

o PLEASE send me information on planned giving.

Name ____________________________________________________________________________

Street ____________________________________________________________________________

City ___________________________State ________________________Zip _________________

Day Phone ( ______) ________________E-mail Address _________________________________

Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) Is A Nonprofit, Public-Interest Legal Foundation, That Is A 501(c)(3) Organization,Since Its 1977 Founding.

Therefore, Your GenerousContributions to MSLF Are Tax Deductible!

Page SixTheLitigator

The constitutional challenge to theindividual mandate set forth in the“Patient Protection and Affordable CareAct,” often called ObamaCare, has beenargued, with hard-hitting legalbriefs by MSLF in the court-rooms, at the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the FourthCircuit (in Richmond,Virginia), the SixthCircuit (inCincinnati, Ohio),and the EleventhCircuit (in Atlanta,Georgia). MSLFurged each court torule that the individ-ual mandate, whichrequires allAmericans topurchase healthcare insurance or pay a fine, is unconstitu-tional. In September, the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia willhold oral arguments in another challengeto ObamaCare: MSLF’s brief is alreadybefore that court.

Since ObamaCare became law inMarch 2010, several lawsuits have beenfiled to challenge its constitutionality;most notable among them are the lawsuitsfiled by twenty seven States, as well asother plaintiffs, led by Florida, and a sepa-rate lawsuit filed by Virginia. All chal-lenge the individual mandate as conflict-ing with the Constitution.

Over the last year, a bill that theAmerican people thought was bad (54%opposed its passage) has become the lawthat is worse than they had imagined(67% of “mainstream voters” todaydemand that it be repealed).

MSLF argues that America’s embraceof limited government of specific enumer-ated powers began in the pre-Revolution-ary Days, continued through theDeclaration of Independence, theConstitution, and the Bill of Rights, andhas been upheld by the federal judiciary,including the U.S. Supreme Court. MSLFargues that, if the Commerce Clause per-mits Congress to enact the individualmandate, then that constitutional provi-sion has no meaning.

OBAMACARE ARGUED

All briefs have been filed in a lawsuitby the National Park Service (NPS) and itsattorneys in their attempt to seize a privateroad that crossesthe property of ayoung NewJersey family.The family, re-presented byMSLF, must nowawait the rulingof a New Jerseyfederal districtcourt as towhether the fam-ily still owns theroad that bisects their rural property.

Matthew and Aaron Hull andMatthew’s wife, Michelle, of Layton, NewJersey, were sued by the NPS after thefamily erected gates across Old MineRoad, which bisects the Hulls’ propertyfor 300 yards and passes within 20 feet oftheir house, to keep trespassers off their

land. In a lawsuit filed in March 2009,seeking damages and injunctive relief, theNPS alleged that the road, which lies with-

in the Delaware WaterGap NationalRecreation Area(NRA), is property ofthe United States. TheHulls contend that theUnited States hasnever owned or main-tained the road andthat it reverted tothem after it was

abandoned by thelocal township. In a

filing by MSLF, the Hulls counterclaimthat they, not the NPS, own the road andthe court should vest permanent title inthem.

In September 2007, the Hulls boughtthe property, which is abutted on threesides by the NRA and on one side by theDelaware River.

U.S.A. v. HULL LAWSUIT IS NOW BRIEFED

ARIZONA VOTING CASE HEARD EN BANCThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc,heard oral arguments regard-ing an October 2010 deci-sion by a three-judge panelof the Ninth Circuit thatstruck down an Arizonavoter-approved ballot ini-tiative requiring proofpositive of citizenship tovote. MSLF, which wasrepresented in the courtroomduring the arguments, had filed abrief with the court earlier advising theNinth Circuit’s en banc panel that theArizona law is constitutional and thatArizona has a duty to protect the ballotbox from voter fraud.

Previously MSLF had urged theNinth Circuit to rehear the 2-1 ruling by aNinth Circuit three-judge panel—whichincluded former Justice O’Connor—thatreversed an August 2008 ruling by anArizona district court. The Arizona dis-trict court, after a year and a half of dis-covery, a six-day bench trial, and post-trial briefing, found the law constitution-

al. In April 2011, the Ninth Circuit agreedto rehear the case in late June 2011.

In November 2004, by a marginof 56 percent to 44 percent,Arizona voters approvedProposition 200 to address theburden imposed on Arizona citi-zens by the payment of public ben-efits to illegal aliens. It strengthensenforcement of existing laws relat-ed to illegal immigration by requir-ing all who register to vote or applyfor “state” public benefits to prove

citizenship.In November 2004, the ACLU and

the Mexican American Legal Defenseand Educational Fund (MALDEF) con-tested Proposition 200’s constitutionalityin a lawsuit that was dismissed by theNinth Circuit, consistent with assertionsmade by MSLF during oral arguments inAugust 2005. In May 2006, MALDEFand others challenged Proposition 200’sregistration and identification provisions.In October 2006, the Ninth Circuitenjoined those provisions; however, theU.S. Supreme Court reversed.

©2010 by National Review, Inc. Reprinted by permission.

Photo Courtesy of Mitsu Yasukawa/–The Star-Ledger.

Page SevenTheLitigator

“Keep up the good work. Semper Fi.”Ray SimpsonLongmont, CO

“God bless you and the people whohelp in this work.”Travis J. ComptonIndependence, MO

“Your work is essential and very muchappreciated.”Mike & Betty MorganBurns, OR

“You are the best.”Suzanne KissackHomewood, IL

NOTABLE

QUOTES

“Thank you for helping to pry loosegovernment’s stranglehold on our constitu-tionally protected unalienable rights. . . .”Anne B. McClellandKingsport, TN

“Thanks especially for defending theHulls (average citizens like myself) fromgovernment bullying . . .”Stephen J. BoudreauHamburg, PA

“Thank you … for taking up the battlefor all of us in the fight for property rights.”Carole JarvisWickenburg, AZ

“God help us all and save us from trai-tors and tyrants.”Harold WatsonMarysville, WA

“Continue the good fight . . . to pre-serve individual liberties and the States’ability to protect them.”James D. Santini, Esq.Alexandria, VA

“I am so glad we have great people likeyou. . . .”Des ArgiewiczSebastopol, CA

“Keep up the good legal work as best asyou can.”Richard V. WinderPolk City, FL

“I am so impressed by your work!”Judith CaseDenver, CO

“Please never stop fighting for ourfreedoms.”Tammy & Bill BennettWooster, OH

“Thank you for taking up [the] caseagainst ObamaCare.”Brad RebarsDenver, CO

“We appreciate all your hard work.”Janet R. HarshfieldEmmett, ID

n MSLF objected to the attempt by theObama Administration to obtain anorder from a Colorado federal districtcourt invalidating the Fish & WildlifeService’s (FWS’s) earlier delisting ofthe Preble’s meadow jumping mouse(PMJM) in Wyoming. Obama officialswithdrew the legal opinion uponwhich the delisting was based.

n MSLF advised the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Tenth Circuit that a rul-ing by a New Mexico federal districtcourt regarding the right of a landown-er to sue the U.S. Forest Service fordenying her the right to maintain agate on her property was in error.

n Arural Colorado family continues itsbattle against the U.S. Postal Service’sban on firearms on Postal Service prop-erty; an attempt by federal lawyers todismiss the family’s lawsuit failed.

n The U.S. Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit refused, despite a brief by MSLF,to reverse an earlier ruling that anyonewho owns, operates, or uses forestroads for transporting timber amongthe nine states in the Ninth Circuit’sjurisdiction is exposed to potential civilliability via citizen lawsuits under theClean Water Act, even though no pro-gram exists under which anyone couldapply for, much less obtain, the permitsthe Ninth Circuit demands.

n On behalf of two Wyoming groups,MSLF urged an Idaho federal districtcourt to hold that the Bureau of LandManagement complied with federallaw in preparing land use documents,notwithstanding allegations that theagency ignored the needs of the sage

grouse; MSLF also demanded thatdocuments filed by the environmentalgroup that filed the lawsuit be stricken.

n On behalf of a Montana family thatlives near an area likely to suffer cata-strophic fires, MSLF urged a Montanafederal district court to approve a foresthealth project; environmental groupshave prevented implementation of theproject for nearly three years.

n MSLF urged the Ninth Circuit to dis-miss a lawsuit challenging the consti-tutionality of Proposition 209 (theCalifornia Civil Rights Initiative), aninitiative approved overwhelmingly inNovember 1996, which ends the use ofracial preferences and quotas inCalifornia. Pacific Legal Foundationrepresents the proponents of the chal-lenged initiative.

n MSLF’s lawsuit on behalf of an Alaskafamily to overturn a ruling that theirvaluable mining claims are null andvoid has been briefed fully.

LEGAL

ACTION

In a stunning setback for radical environ-mental groups and officials who demand theright to use federal courts to address politicalquestions, the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates ruled unanimously that, once federal legis-lation had been enacted and an administrativeagency addresses the issue, the right to seek toenforce the federal common law in federal courtis at an end. The ruling kills a lawsuit underwhich States and environmental groups hadsought to use the federal court to regulate utilitiesand their contribution, via greenhouse gases(GHG), to “climate change.”

MSLF, which has challenged the right ofenvironmental groups to file federal lawsuits,had asked the Court in a friend of the court briefto reverse a ruling by a federal appeals court thatallowed States and groups to file nuisance lawsuits based onalleged harms from GHG, which the Court did 8-0. The Court,however, split 4-4 and thus left standing the ruling of the appealscourt that those suing had standing, under Article III of theConstitution, to file their lawsuit; MSLF had urged that the Courtresolve the tension between the Court’s 1992 ruling as to when aparty may file a federal lawsuit and the Court’s 2007 rulingregarding GHG, which relaxed standing.

MSLF maintained in the friend of the courtbrief that, in 2007, the Court weakened the “causa-tion” and “redressability” elements of standinganalysis and with its ruling below, the SecondCircuit eviscerated what remained of those ele-ments after the Court’s 2007 ruling.

Meanwhile, MSLF advised the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia, in a friend ofthe court brief, that the attempt by theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regu-late greenhouse gases to ameliorate so-called cli-mate change is illegal, unscientific, and unwise.MSLF argues that a rule issued by the EPA in late2009 must be vacated and remanded to theagency because it violates a host of interrelated,statutory provisions and because it is based on aselective, unreasonable reading of the administra-

tive record. MSLF argues that the EPA’s December 2009 rule washastily promulgated to honor prior political pacts and to coincidewith a highly publicized international conference on climatechange and that it violates numerous statutory requirements,makes findings that are not the product of reasoned decision-making; and reaches alarmist assessments of the risks posed byclimate change that are inconsistent with, and contradicted by,the evidentiary record used by the agency.

MOUNTAINSTATESLEGALFOUNDATION

2596 South Lewis WayLakewood, Colorado 80227

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

Non Profit OrganizationU.S. Postage

PAIDDenver, CO

Permit No. 847

U.S. SUPREME COURT DEALS “HYSTERICS” A MAJOR SETBACK

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICERWilliam Perry Pendley

VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF LEGAL OFFICERSteven J. Lechner

VICE PRESIDENT–ADMINISTRATIONJanice K. Alvarado

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Stephen M. Brophy, AZ: ChairmanJohn R. Gibson, UT: Vice ChairmanPeter K. Ellison, UT; TreasurerJohn J. Blomstrom, WYKaren Kennedy, WYRon Krump, NVL. Jerald Sheffels, WADon Sparks, TX

Edvard Munch The Scream