Professors Haar and Wolf reiterate their endorsement of Progressive jurisprudence, as embodied in the Supreme Court's opinion in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., despite Professor Eric Claeys's effort to expose the political theory underlying Progressive legal thought. They highlight problems with Professor Claeys's portrayal of the actual practice of zoning and with his use of history, problems that seriously undercut Professor Claeys's findings regarding the political beliefs of early zoning and planning advocates, the evolution of zoning law in the courts, and the role natural law played in American legal history.