A RECENT ARTICLE by The Intercept described, in worried tones, the case of Cherk v. County of Marin. In that case, PLF represents an elderly couple who were forced to pay nearly $40,000 in “affordable housing” fees to their county government as a condition of getting a construction permit. This summer we asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing that the County’s demand violated the Cherks’ property rights.

One person quoted in The Intercept’s article fretted that, “It seems it’s just part of Pacific Legal Foundation’s agenda to be consistently developing a pipeline of potential challenges, bringing them up and bringing them up, and hoping one day they’ll crack through.”

In a different article in The National Law Journal, Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse denigrated our most recent Supreme Court win, Knick v. Township of Scott, by falsely accusing PLF of being a “front group” for unnamed partisan interests. That case made it easier to have property rights lawsuits heard by federal courts.

As a result, our client, Rose Knick, can now sue her local government in federal court over a law that prohibits her from blocking trespassers on her rural Pennsylvania farm. The Senator complained that PLF “handpicked the plaintiff in Knick and shepherd-ed the litigation to the high court.”

While these criticisms aim to paint PLF as sinister Machiavellians, our critics make the mistake of thinking they’re criticizing us when they are really criticizing the entire enterprise of public interest law. Public interest law firms exist to advance the public interest. But this means a firm must have a position on what the public interest is in the first place.

We are front and center about our perspective. At PLF, we believe in individual liberty: When people are free to live peacefully and productively, without interference by government, they improve themselves, their families, and their communities. We believe the public’s interest lies in freedom.

Nearly 100 years ago, the ACLU pioneered this type of modern public interest law in the fight for free speech.

As a consequence, we are dogged advocates for individual rights. We put cases in front of the Supreme Court that will set important precedent for those rights, and we are selective in choosing clients. But these tactics aren’t unique to PLF—they are what every good public interest firm should do because that’s how public interest law works.

The process of public interest law involves litigating cases, appealing them when needed, and fighting until you prevail. There’s nothing ominous about a strategy we discuss openly.

Legal precedent changes slowly, by increments. Good public interest lawyers must therefore be persistent. Or as The Intercept would describe it, “consistently develop a pipeline of potential challenges.” In case after case, PLF works to elevate to the Supreme Court important constitutional questions regarding individual rights.

And yes, we do choose whom we represent, at no charge. We take the clients we can help most effectively, those people whose hardships are real and whose rights are being violated in ways that are shared by many others like them. In doing so, our victories are not only a win for our clients but also set legal precedent that secures liberty and justice for the wider public.

We didn’t invent this model—we have adopted and improved on techniques learned from previous generations of public interest lawyers who did it well. Nearly 100 years ago, the ACLU pioneered this type of modern public interest law in the fight for free speech. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund made America freer and more just by using the courts to battle racial segregation in America.

Organizations across the political spectrum use public interest litigation to establish legal precedent on a wide range of social issues: gun ownership, the death penalty, abortion, religious liberty, immigration, environmentalism, school choice. The list goes on.

The issues PLF fights for are property rights, economic liberty, equality before the law, free speech, and separation of powers. We defend people’s individual liberty by enforcing constitutional limits on government.

Our critics don’t recognize the principles of limited government as being part of the public interest, so they act like they’ve sniffed out something nefarious about our mission.

We unapologetically believe that freedom is in the public interest. And if that worthy mission means we must endure criticism from a U.S. senator or a confused reporter, that’s ok—we can take the heat.