INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE: Form 990, tax year 2019
View the entire original 990 at ProPublica ↗
- Organization
- INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE (EIN 52-1744337)
- Tax period
- 2019-07-01 to 2020-06-30
- Filed
- 2021-02-17
- IRS object ID
- 202130489349300733
- Schema version
- 2019v5.2
- Source
- Download XML · Original 990 at ProPublica
Every field in the e-filed return. Faint text is the IRS element name, for citing.
- Return header
- Form 990
- Schedule A
- Schedule B
- Schedule C
- Schedule D
- Schedule F
- Schedule I
- Schedule J
- Schedule M
- Schedule O
Return header ReturnHeader
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Return | 2021-02-17T16:53:39-06:00 | ReturnTs |
| Tax Period End | 2020-06-30 | TaxPeriodEndDt |
Preparer Firm PreparerFirmGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Preparer Firm EIN | 221478099 | PreparerFirmEIN |
Preparer Firm Name PreparerFirmName
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Business Name Line1 | COHNREZNICK LLP | BusinessNameLine1Txt |
Preparer US Address PreparerUSAddress
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Address Line1 | 7501 WISCONSIN AVENUE SUITE 400E | AddressLine1Txt |
| City | BETHESDA | CityNm |
| State Abbreviation | MD | StateAbbreviationCd |
| ZIP | 20814 | ZIPCd |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Return Type | 990 | ReturnTypeCd |
| Tax Period Begin | 2019-07-01 | TaxPeriodBeginDt |
Filer Filer
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| EIN | 521744337 | EIN |
Business Name BusinessName
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Business Name Line1 | INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE | BusinessNameLine1Txt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Business Name Control | INST | BusinessNameControlTxt |
| Phone | 7036829320 | PhoneNum |
US Address USAddress
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Address Line1 | 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD STE 900 | AddressLine1Txt |
| City | ARLINGTON | CityNm |
| State Abbreviation | VA | StateAbbreviationCd |
| ZIP | 22203 | ZIPCd |
Business Officer BusinessOfficerGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Person | SCOTT G BULLOCK | PersonNm |
| Person Title | PRESIDENT | PersonTitleTxt |
| Phone | 7036829320 | PhoneNum |
| Signature | 2021-02-16 | SignatureDt |
| Discuss With Paid Preparer | Yes (1) | DiscussWithPaidPreparerInd |
Preparer Person PreparerPersonGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Preparer Person | DANIEL O'SHEA | PreparerPersonNm |
| PTIN | P00957510 | PTIN |
| Phone | 3016529100 | PhoneNum |
| Preparation | 2021-01-22 | PreparationDt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Tax | 2019 | TaxYr |
| Build TS | 2022-09-23 18:48:47Z | BuildTS |
Form 990 IRS990
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Principal Officer | SCOTT G BULLOCK | PrincipalOfficerNm |
US Address USAddress
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Address Line1 | 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD STE 900 | AddressLine1Txt |
| City | ARLINGTON | CityNm |
| State Abbreviation | VA | StateAbbreviationCd |
| ZIP | 22203 | ZIPCd |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Gross Receipts | $83,969,192 | GrossReceiptsAmt |
| Group Return For Affiliates | 0 | GroupReturnForAffiliatesInd |
| Organization501c3 | Yes (X) | Organization501c3Ind |
| Website Address | WWW.IJ.ORG | WebsiteAddressTxt |
| Type Of Organization Corp | Yes (X) | TypeOfOrganizationCorpInd |
| Formation | 1991 | FormationYr |
| Legal Domicile State | DC | LegalDomicileStateCd |
| Activity Or Mission | TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERICANS. | ActivityOrMissionDesc |
| Voting Members Governing Body | 9 | VotingMembersGoverningBodyCnt |
| Voting Members Independent | 7 | VotingMembersIndependentCnt |
| Total Employee | 168 | TotalEmployeeCnt |
| Total Volunteers | 30 | TotalVolunteersCnt |
| Total Gross UBI | $0 | TotalGrossUBIAmt |
| Net Unrelated Bus Txbl Incm | $0 | NetUnrelatedBusTxblIncmAmt |
| PY Contributions Grants | $21,267,811 | PYContributionsGrantsAmt |
| CY Contributions Grants | $27,138,233 | CYContributionsGrantsAmt |
| PY Program Service Revenue | $1,059,927 | PYProgramServiceRevenueAmt |
| CY Program Service Revenue | $454,873 | CYProgramServiceRevenueAmt |
| PY Investment Income | $1,784,859 | PYInvestmentIncomeAmt |
| CY Investment Income | $7,579,986 | CYInvestmentIncomeAmt |
| PY Other Revenue | $51,980 | PYOtherRevenueAmt |
| CY Other Revenue | $42,235 | CYOtherRevenueAmt |
| PY Total Revenue | $24,164,577 | PYTotalRevenueAmt |
| CY Total Revenue | $35,215,327 | CYTotalRevenueAmt |
| PY Grants And Similar Paid | $134,695 | PYGrantsAndSimilarPaidAmt |
| CY Grants And Similar Paid | $88,227 | CYGrantsAndSimilarPaidAmt |
| PY Benefits Paid To Members | $0 | PYBenefitsPaidToMembersAmt |
| CY Benefits Paid To Members | $0 | CYBenefitsPaidToMembersAmt |
| PY Salaries Comp Emp Bnft Paid | $16,495,714 | PYSalariesCompEmpBnftPaidAmt |
| CY Salaries Comp Emp Bnft Paid | $19,382,886 | CYSalariesCompEmpBnftPaidAmt |
| PY Total Prof Fndrsng Expns | $0 | PYTotalProfFndrsngExpnsAmt |
| CY Total Prof Fndrsng Expns | $0 | CYTotalProfFndrsngExpnsAmt |
| CY Total Fundraising Expense | $1,835,995 | CYTotalFundraisingExpenseAmt |
| PY Other Expenses | $6,841,942 | PYOtherExpensesAmt |
| CY Other Expenses | $6,862,146 | CYOtherExpensesAmt |
| PY Total Expenses | $23,472,351 | PYTotalExpensesAmt |
| CY Total Expenses | $26,333,259 | CYTotalExpensesAmt |
| PY Revenues Less Expenses | $692,226 | PYRevenuesLessExpensesAmt |
| CY Revenues Less Expenses | $8,882,068 | CYRevenuesLessExpensesAmt |
| Total Assets BOY | $96,341,010 | TotalAssetsBOYAmt |
| Total Assets EOY | $104,919,956 | TotalAssetsEOYAmt |
| Total Liabilities BOY | $5,468,203 | TotalLiabilitiesBOYAmt |
| Total Liabilities EOY | $8,720,628 | TotalLiabilitiesEOYAmt |
| Net Assets Or Fund Balances BOY | $90,872,807 | NetAssetsOrFundBalancesBOYAmt |
| Net Assets Or Fund Balances EOY | $96,199,328 | NetAssetsOrFundBalancesEOYAmt |
| Info In Schedule O Part III | Yes (X) | InfoInScheduleOPartIIIInd |
| Mission | THROUGH STRATEGIC LITIGATION, TRAINING, COMMUNICATION, ACTIVISM AND RESEARCH, THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE (IJ) ADVANCES A RULE OF LAW UNDER WHICH INDIVIDUALS CAN CONTROL THEIR DESTINIES AS FREE AND RESPONSIBLE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY. IJ LITIGATES TO SECURE ECONOMIC LIBERTY, EDUCATIONAL CHOICE, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OTHER VITAL INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES, AND TO RESTORE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT. IN ADDITION, IJ TRAINS LAW STUDENTS, LAWYERS AND POLICY ACTIVISTS IN THE TACTICS OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION. THROUGH THESE ACTIVITIES, IJ CHALLENGES THE IDEOLOGY OF THE WELFARE STATE AND ILLUSTRATES AND EXTENDS THE BENEFITS OF FREEDOM TO THOSE WHOSE FULL ENJOYMENT OF LIBERTY IS DENIED BY GOVERNMENT. | MissionDesc |
| Significant New Program Srvc | 0 | SignificantNewProgramSrvcInd |
| Significant Change | 0 | SignificantChangeInd |
| Expense | $21,179,611 | ExpenseAmt |
| Grant | $88,227 | GrantAmt |
| Revenue | $454,873 | RevenueAmt |
| Desc | TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERICANS THROUGH LITIGATION, TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ABOUT ISSUES VITAL TO LIBERTY THROUGH MEDIA, ACTIVISM, AND OUTREACH, TO APPLY SOCIAL SCIENCE AND POLICY RESEARCH METHODS TO THOSE ISSUES THAT THE ORGANIZATION LITIGATES, AND TO TRAIN LAWYERS AND LAW STUDENTS. | Desc |
| Total Program Service Expenses | $21,179,611 | TotalProgramServiceExpensesAmt |
| Described In Section501c3 | Yes (1) | DescribedInSection501c3Ind |
| Schedule B Required | Yes (1) | ScheduleBRequiredInd |
| Political Campaign Acty | 0 | PoliticalCampaignActyInd |
| Lobbying Activities | Yes (1) | LobbyingActivitiesInd |
| Subject To Proxy Tax | 0 | SubjectToProxyTaxInd |
| Donor Advised Fund | 0 | DonorAdvisedFundInd |
| Conservation Easements | 0 | ConservationEasementsInd |
| Collections Of Art | 0 | CollectionsOfArtInd |
| Credit Counseling | 0 | CreditCounselingInd |
| Donor Rstr Or Quasi Endowments | Yes (1) | DonorRstrOrQuasiEndowmentsInd |
| Report Land Building Equipment | Yes (1) | ReportLandBuildingEquipmentInd |
| Report Investments Other Sec | Yes (1) | ReportInvestmentsOtherSecInd |
| Report Program Related Invst | 0 | ReportProgramRelatedInvstInd |
| Report Other Assets | 0 | ReportOtherAssetsInd |
| Report Other Liabilities | Yes (1) | ReportOtherLiabilitiesInd |
| Include FIN48 Footnote | Yes (1) | IncludeFIN48FootnoteInd |
| Independent Audit Fincl Stmt | Yes (1) | IndependentAuditFinclStmtInd |
| Consolidated Audit Fincl Stmt | 0 | ConsolidatedAuditFinclStmtInd |
| School Operating | 0 | SchoolOperatingInd |
| Foreign Office | 0 | ForeignOfficeInd |
| Foreign Activities | Yes (1) | ForeignActivitiesInd |
| More Than5000 K To Org | 0 | MoreThan5000KToOrgInd |
| More Than5000 K To Individuals | 0 | MoreThan5000KToIndividualsInd |
| Professional Fundraising | 0 | ProfessionalFundraisingInd |
| Fundraising Activities | 0 | FundraisingActivitiesInd |
| Gaming Activities | 0 | GamingActivitiesInd |
| Operate Hospital | 0 | OperateHospitalInd |
| Grants To Organizations | Yes (1) | GrantsToOrganizationsInd |
| Grants To Individuals | 0 | GrantsToIndividualsInd |
| Schedule J Required | Yes (1) | ScheduleJRequiredInd |
| Tax Exempt Bonds | 0 | TaxExemptBondsInd |
| Engaged In Excess Benefit Trans | 0 | EngagedInExcessBenefitTransInd |
| PY Excess Benefit Trans | 0 | PYExcessBenefitTransInd |
| Loan Outstanding | 0 | LoanOutstandingInd |
| Grant To Related Person | 0 | GrantToRelatedPersonInd |
| Business Rln With Org Mem | 0 | BusinessRlnWithOrgMemInd |
| Business Rln With Fam Mem | 0 | BusinessRlnWithFamMemInd |
| Business Rln With35 Ctrl Ent | 0 | BusinessRlnWith35CtrlEntInd |
| Deductible Non Cash Contri | Yes (1) | DeductibleNonCashContriInd |
| Deductible Art Contribution | 0 | DeductibleArtContributionInd |
| Terminate Operations | 0 | TerminateOperationsInd |
| Partial Liquidation | 0 | PartialLiquidationInd |
| Disregarded Entity | 0 | DisregardedEntityInd |
| Related Entity | 0 | RelatedEntityInd |
| Related Organization Ctrl Ent | 0 | RelatedOrganizationCtrlEntInd |
| Trnsfr Exmpt Non Chrtbl Rltd Org | 0 | TrnsfrExmptNonChrtblRltdOrgInd |
| Activities Conducted Prtshp | 0 | ActivitiesConductedPrtshpInd |
| Schedule O Required | Yes (1) | ScheduleORequiredInd |
| IRP Document | 82 | IRPDocumentCnt |
| IRP Document W2 G | 0 | IRPDocumentW2GCnt |
| Backup Wthld Compliance | Yes (1) | BackupWthldComplianceInd |
| Employee | 168 | EmployeeCnt |
| Employment Tax Returns Filed | Yes (1) | EmploymentTaxReturnsFiledInd |
| Unrelated Bus Incm Over Limit | 0 | UnrelatedBusIncmOverLimitInd |
| Foreign Financial Account | Yes (1) | ForeignFinancialAccountInd |
| Foreign Country | CJ | ForeignCountryCd |
| Prohibited Tax Shelter Trans | 0 | ProhibitedTaxShelterTransInd |
| Taxable Party Notification | 0 | TaxablePartyNotificationInd |
| Nondeductible Contributions | 0 | NondeductibleContributionsInd |
| Quid Pro Quo Contributions | 0 | QuidProQuoContributionsInd |
| Form8282 Property Disposed Of | 0 | Form8282PropertyDisposedOfInd |
| Rcv Fnds To Pay Prsnl Bnft Cntrct | 0 | RcvFndsToPayPrsnlBnftCntrctInd |
| Pay Premiums Prsnl Bnft Cntrct | 0 | PayPremiumsPrsnlBnftCntrctInd |
| Indoor Tanning Services | 0 | IndoorTanningServicesInd |
| Subj To Tax Rmnrtn Ex Prcht Pymt | 0 | SubjToTaxRmnrtnExPrchtPymtInd |
| Subject To Excs Tax Net Invst Inc | 0 | SubjectToExcsTaxNetInvstIncInd |
| Info In Schedule O Part VI | Yes (X) | InfoInScheduleOPartVIInd |
| Governing Body Voting Members | 9 | GoverningBodyVotingMembersCnt |
| Independent Voting Member | 7 | IndependentVotingMemberCnt |
| Family Or Business Rln | 0 | FamilyOrBusinessRlnInd |
| Delegation Of Mgmt Duties | 0 | DelegationOfMgmtDutiesInd |
| Change To Org Documents | 0 | ChangeToOrgDocumentsInd |
| Material Diversion Or Misuse | 0 | MaterialDiversionOrMisuseInd |
| Members Or Stockholders | 0 | MembersOrStockholdersInd |
| Election Of Board Members | 0 | ElectionOfBoardMembersInd |
| Decisions Subject To Approva | 0 | DecisionsSubjectToApprovaInd |
| Minutes Of Governing Body | Yes (1) | MinutesOfGoverningBodyInd |
| Minutes Of Committees | Yes (1) | MinutesOfCommitteesInd |
| Officer Mailing Address | 0 | OfficerMailingAddressInd |
| Local Chapters | Yes (1) | LocalChaptersInd |
| Policies Reference Chapters | Yes (1) | PoliciesReferenceChaptersInd |
| Form990 Provided To Gvrn Body | Yes (1) | Form990ProvidedToGvrnBodyInd |
| Conflict Of Interest Policy | Yes (1) | ConflictOfInterestPolicyInd |
| Annual Disclosure Covered Prsn | Yes (1) | AnnualDisclosureCoveredPrsnInd |
| Regular Monitoring Enfrc | Yes (1) | RegularMonitoringEnfrcInd |
| Whistleblower Policy | Yes (1) | WhistleblowerPolicyInd |
| Document Retention Policy | Yes (1) | DocumentRetentionPolicyInd |
| Compensation Process CEO | Yes (1) | CompensationProcessCEOInd |
| Compensation Process Other | Yes (1) | CompensationProcessOtherInd |
| Investment In Joint Venture | 0 | InvestmentInJointVentureInd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | AL | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | AK | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | AZ | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | AR | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | CA | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | CO | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | CT | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | DC | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | FL | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | GA | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | HI | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | IL | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | KS | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | KY | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | ME | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | MD | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | MA | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | MI | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | MN | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | MS | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | NH | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | NJ | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | NM | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | NY | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | NC | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | ND | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | OH | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | OK | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | OR | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | PA | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | RI | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | SC | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | TN | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | UT | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | VA | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | WA | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | WV | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| States Where Copy Of Return Is Fld | WI | StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFldCd |
| Own Website | Yes (X) | OwnWebsiteInd |
| Upon Request | Yes (X) | UponRequestInd |
Books In Care Of Detail BooksInCareOfDetail
Business Name BusinessName
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Business Name Line1 | DANIEL KNEPPER | BusinessNameLine1Txt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Phone | 7036829320 | PhoneNum |
US Address USAddress
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Address Line1 | 901 NORTH GLEBE RD STE 900 | AddressLine1Txt |
| City | ARLINGTON | CityNm |
| State Abbreviation | VA | StateAbbreviationCd |
| ZIP | 22203 | ZIPCd |
Form990 Part VII Section A Form990PartVIISectionAGrp (20 entries)
| TitleTitleTxt | Average Hours Per WeekAverageHoursPerWeekRt | Individual Trustee Or DirectorIndividualTrusteeOrDirectorInd | OfficerOfficerInd | Reportable Comp From OrgReportableCompFromOrgAmt | Reportable Comp From Rltd OrgReportableCompFromRltdOrgAmt | Other CompensationOtherCompensationAmt | Key EmployeeKeyEmployeeInd | Highest Compensated EmployeeHighestCompensatedEmployeeInd |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCOTT G BULLOCK | ||||||||
| PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL | 40.00 | Yes (X) | Yes (X) | $469,475 | $0 | $47,505 | ||
| WILLIAM MELLOR | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN & FOUNDING GENERAL COUNSEL | 40.00 | Yes (X) | Yes (X) | $356,453 | $0 | $22,011 | ||
| ARTHUR DANTCHIK | ||||||||
| DIRECTOR | 1.00 | Yes (X) | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| BOB GELFOND | ||||||||
| DIRECTOR | 1.00 | Yes (X) | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| KENNETH N LEVY | ||||||||
| DIRECTOR | 1.00 | Yes (X) | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| ROBERT A LEVY | ||||||||
| DIRECTOR | 1.00 | Yes (X) | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| JIM LINTOTT | ||||||||
| DIRECTOR | 1.00 | Yes (X) | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| STEPHEN MODZELEWSKI | ||||||||
| DIRECTOR | 1.00 | Yes (X) | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| MARY E STIEFEL | ||||||||
| DIRECTOR | 1.00 | Yes (X) | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| ABIGAIL THERNSTROM | ||||||||
| DIRECTOR (UNTIL APRIL 2020) | 1.00 | Yes (X) | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| DANIEL KNEPPER | ||||||||
| MANAGING VP-CFO/SECRETARY & TREAS. | 40.00 | Yes (X) | $373,648 | $0 | $44,035 | |||
| DANA BERLINER | ||||||||
| SENIOR VP AND LITIGATION DIRECTOR | 40.00 | $441,045 | $0 | $50,904 | Yes (X) | |||
| JOHN KRAMER | ||||||||
| VP FOR COMMUNICATIONS | 40.00 | $372,208 | $0 | $69,536 | Yes (X) | |||
| DEBORAH SIMPSON | ||||||||
| CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER | 40.00 | $332,961 | $0 | $68,224 | Yes (X) | |||
| BETH STEVENS | ||||||||
| VP FOR DEVELOPMENT | 40.00 | $277,475 | $0 | $48,431 | Yes (X) | |||
| ROBERT MCNAMARA | ||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | 40.00 | $293,629 | $0 | $50,624 | Yes (X) | |||
| JEFFREY ROWES | ||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | 40.00 | $234,793 | $0 | $65,725 | Yes (X) | |||
| ROBERT GALL | ||||||||
| MANAGING VP AND SENIOR ATTORNEY | 40.00 | $233,719 | $0 | $62,829 | Yes (X) | |||
| MELANIE HILDRETH | ||||||||
| VP FOR EXTERNAL RELATIONS | 40.00 | $219,939 | $0 | $50,411 | Yes (X) | |||
| MICHAEL BINDAS | ||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | 40.00 | $205,347 | $0 | $50,162 | Yes (X) | |||
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Reportable Comp From Org | $3,810,692 | TotalReportableCompFromOrgAmt |
| Tot Reportable Comp Rltd Org | $0 | TotReportableCompRltdOrgAmt |
| Total Other Compensation | $630,397 | TotalOtherCompensationAmt |
| Indiv Rcvd Greater Than100 K | 54 | IndivRcvdGreaterThan100KCnt |
| Former Ofcr Employees Listed | 0 | FormerOfcrEmployeesListedInd |
| Total Comp Greater Than150 K | Yes (1) | TotalCompGreaterThan150KInd |
| Compensation From Other Srcs | 0 | CompensationFromOtherSrcsInd |
Contractor Compensation ContractorCompensationGrp (5 entries)
| Address Line1ContractorAddress/USAddress/AddressLine1Txt | CityContractorAddress/USAddress/CityNm | State AbbreviationContractorAddress/USAddress/StateAbbreviationCd | ZIPContractorAddress/USAddress/ZIPCd | ServicesServicesDesc | CompensationCompensationAmt |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DOYLE PRINTING & OFFSET CO | |||||
| 5206 46TH AVENUE | HYATTSVILLE | MD | 20781 | PRINTING AND MAILING SHOP | $175,055 |
| HBW CONSTRUCTION | |||||
| 1055 FIRST STREET SUITE 200 | ROCKVILLE | MD | 20850 | CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS | $132,693 |
| ENDGAME STRATEGIES | |||||
| 1717 K ST NW SUITE 900 | WASHINGTON | DC | 20006 | POLICY CONSULTANT | $120,000 |
| ANSWERWARE | |||||
| 200 N GLEBE RD SUITE 1050 | ARLINGTON | VA | 22203 | IT CONTRACTORS | $117,088 |
| THE RESORT AT PELICAN HILL | |||||
| 22701 PELICAN HILL ROAD SOUTH | NEWPORT COAST | CA | 92657 | EVENT SERVICES | $110,000 |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Cntrct Rcvd Greater Than100 K | 5 | CntrctRcvdGreaterThan100KCnt |
| All Other Contributions | $27,138,233 | AllOtherContributionsAmt |
| Noncash Contributions | $1,485,115 | NoncashContributionsAmt |
| Total Contributions | $27,138,233 | TotalContributionsAmt |
Program Service Revenue ProgramServiceRevenueGrp (2 entries)
| DescDesc | BusinessBusinessCd | Total Revenue ColumnTotalRevenueColumnAmt | Related Or Exempt Func IncomeRelatedOrExemptFuncIncomeAmt |
|---|---|---|---|
| ATTORNEY FEES | 541100 | $453,435 | $453,435 |
| HONORARIA | 900099 | $1,438 | $1,438 |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Program Service Revenue | $454,873 | TotalProgramServiceRevenueAmt |
Investment Income InvestmentIncomeGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Revenue Column | $1,622,922 | TotalRevenueColumnAmt |
| Exclusion | $1,622,922 | ExclusionAmt |
Gross Amount Sales Assets GrossAmountSalesAssetsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Securities | $54,710,929 | SecuritiesAmt |
Less Cost Oth Basis Sales Expnss LessCostOthBasisSalesExpnssGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Securities | $48,753,845 | SecuritiesAmt |
| Other | $20 | OtherAmt |
Gain Or Loss GainOrLossGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Securities | $5,957,084 | SecuritiesAmt |
| Other | -$20 | OtherAmt |
Net Gain Or Loss Investments NetGainOrLossInvestmentsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Revenue Column | $5,957,064 | TotalRevenueColumnAmt |
| Exclusion | $5,957,064 | ExclusionAmt |
Other Revenue Misc OtherRevenueMiscGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Desc | OTHER INCOME | Desc |
| Business | 541110 | BusinessCd |
| Total Revenue Column | $42,235 | TotalRevenueColumnAmt |
| Exclusion | $42,235 | ExclusionAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Other Revenue Total | $42,235 | OtherRevenueTotalAmt |
Total Revenue TotalRevenueGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Revenue Column | $35,215,327 | TotalRevenueColumnAmt |
| Related Or Exempt Func Income | $454,873 | RelatedOrExemptFuncIncomeAmt |
| Unrelated Business Revenue | $0 | UnrelatedBusinessRevenueAmt |
| Exclusion | $7,622,221 | ExclusionAmt |
Grants To Domestic Orgs GrantsToDomesticOrgsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $88,227 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $88,227 | ProgramServicesAmt |
Comp Current Ofcr Directors CompCurrentOfcrDirectorsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $2,753,261 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $2,295,835 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $276,803 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $180,623 | FundraisingAmt |
Other Salaries And Wages OtherSalariesAndWagesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $13,325,845 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $11,111,892 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $1,339,734 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $874,219 | FundraisingAmt |
Pension Plan Contributions PensionPlanContributionsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $1,149,625 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $958,627 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $115,579 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $75,419 | FundraisingAmt |
Other Employee Benefits OtherEmployeeBenefitsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $1,169,383 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $975,102 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $117,566 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $76,715 | FundraisingAmt |
Payroll Taxes PayrollTaxesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $984,772 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $821,162 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $99,006 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $64,604 | FundraisingAmt |
Fees For Services Legal FeesForServicesLegalGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $115,361 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $66,135 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $46,373 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $2,853 | FundraisingAmt |
Fees For Services Accounting FeesForServicesAccountingGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $42,600 | TotalAmt |
| Management And General | $42,600 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
Fees For Services Lobbying FeesForServicesLobbyingGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $147,529 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $147,529 | ProgramServicesAmt |
Fees For Srvc Invst Mgmnt Fees FeesForSrvcInvstMgmntFeesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $7,173 | TotalAmt |
| Fundraising | $7,173 | FundraisingAmt |
Fees For Services Other FeesForServicesOtherGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $966,215 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $758,903 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $164,439 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $42,873 | FundraisingAmt |
Advertising AdvertisingGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $124,123 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $104,738 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $220 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $19,165 | FundraisingAmt |
Office Expenses OfficeExpensesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $833,169 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $475,876 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $77,719 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $279,574 | FundraisingAmt |
Information Technology InformationTechnologyGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $571,475 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $86,008 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $464,198 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $21,269 | FundraisingAmt |
Occupancy OccupancyGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $1,948,188 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $1,624,029 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $196,435 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $127,724 | FundraisingAmt |
Travel TravelGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $719,708 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $709,279 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $7,117 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $3,312 | FundraisingAmt |
Conferences Meetings ConferencesMeetingsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $177,633 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $171,569 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $6,064 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
Interest InterestGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $5,455 | TotalAmt |
| Management And General | $5,455 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
Depreciation Depletion DepreciationDepletionGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $368,483 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $307,263 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $37,046 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $24,174 | FundraisingAmt |
Insurance InsuranceGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $124,150 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $56,406 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $67,744 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
Other Expenses OtherExpensesGrp (2 entries)
| DescDesc | TotalTotalAmt | Program ServicesProgramServicesAmt | Management And GeneralManagementAndGeneralAmt | FundraisingFundraisingAmt |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RESEARCH TOOLS | $339,715 | $297,465 | $17,062 | $25,188 |
| FILING AND COURT FEES | $61,503 | $61,503 |
All Other Expenses AllOtherExpensesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $309,666 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $62,063 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $236,493 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $11,110 | FundraisingAmt |
Total Functional Expenses TotalFunctionalExpensesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $26,333,259 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $21,179,611 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $3,317,653 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $1,835,995 | FundraisingAmt |
Cash Non Interest Bearing CashNonInterestBearingGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $4,699,784 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $5,558,922 | EOYAmt |
Savings And Temp Cash Invst SavingsAndTempCashInvstGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $1,027,429 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $1,254 | EOYAmt |
Pledges And Grants Receivable PledgesAndGrantsReceivableGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $990,119 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $2,504,592 | EOYAmt |
Accounts Receivable AccountsReceivableGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $65,100 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $101,630 | EOYAmt |
Prepaid Expenses Defrd Charges PrepaidExpensesDefrdChargesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $352,256 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $347,034 | EOYAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Land Bldg Equip Cost Or Other Bss | $5,718,505 | LandBldgEquipCostOrOtherBssAmt |
| Land Bldg Equip Accum Deprec | $3,993,505 | LandBldgEquipAccumDeprecAmt |
Land Bldg Equip Basis Net LandBldgEquipBasisNetGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $919,242 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $1,725,000 | EOYAmt |
Investments Pub Traded Sec InvestmentsPubTradedSecGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $81,118,030 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $87,143,465 | EOYAmt |
Investments Other Securities InvestmentsOtherSecuritiesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $7,011,229 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $7,247,238 | EOYAmt |
Other Assets Total OtherAssetsTotalGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $157,821 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $290,821 | EOYAmt |
Total Assets TotalAssetsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $96,341,010 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $104,919,956 | EOYAmt |
Accounts Payable Accr Expnss AccountsPayableAccrExpnssGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $1,925,496 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $2,118,412 | EOYAmt |
Deferred Revenue DeferredRevenueGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $1,112,227 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $3,723,353 | EOYAmt |
Other Liabilities OtherLiabilitiesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $2,430,480 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $2,878,863 | EOYAmt |
Total Liabilities TotalLiabilitiesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $5,468,203 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $8,720,628 | EOYAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Organization Follows FASB117 | Yes (X) | OrganizationFollowsFASB117Ind |
No Donor Restriction Net Assets NoDonorRestrictionNetAssetsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $87,530,816 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $91,445,951 | EOYAmt |
Donor Restriction Net Assets DonorRestrictionNetAssetsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $3,341,991 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $4,753,377 | EOYAmt |
Total Net Assets Fund Balance TotalNetAssetsFundBalanceGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $90,872,807 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $96,199,328 | EOYAmt |
Tot Liab Net Assets Fund Balance TotLiabNetAssetsFundBalanceGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $96,341,010 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $104,919,956 | EOYAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Reconcilation Revenue Expnss | $8,882,068 | ReconcilationRevenueExpnssAmt |
| Net Unrlzd Gains Losses Invst | -$3,555,547 | NetUnrlzdGainsLossesInvstAmt |
| Other Changes In Net Assets | $0 | OtherChangesInNetAssetsAmt |
| Info In Schedule O Part XII | Yes (X) | InfoInScheduleOPartXIIInd |
| Method Of Accounting Accrual | Yes (X) | MethodOfAccountingAccrualInd |
| Accountant Compile Or Review | 0 | AccountantCompileOrReviewInd |
| FS Audited | Yes (1) | FSAuditedInd |
FS Audited Basis FSAuditedBasisGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Separate Basis Fincl Stmt | Yes (X) | SeparateBasisFinclStmtInd |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Audit Committee | Yes (1) | AuditCommitteeInd |
| Federal Grant Audit Required | 0 | FederalGrantAuditRequiredInd |
Schedule A IRS990ScheduleA
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Public Organization170 | Yes (X) | PublicOrganization170Ind |
Gifts Grants Contri Rcvd170 GiftsGrantsContriRcvd170Grp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Current Tax Year Minus4 Years | $26,553,699 | CurrentTaxYearMinus4YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus3 Years | $23,931,523 | CurrentTaxYearMinus3YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus2 Years | $23,793,166 | CurrentTaxYearMinus2YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus1 Year | $21,267,811 | CurrentTaxYearMinus1YearAmt |
| Current Tax Year | $27,138,233 | CurrentTaxYearAmt |
| Total | $122,684,432 | TotalAmt |
Total Calendar Year170 TotalCalendarYear170Grp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Current Tax Year Minus4 Years | $26,553,699 | CurrentTaxYearMinus4YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus3 Years | $23,931,523 | CurrentTaxYearMinus3YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus2 Years | $23,793,166 | CurrentTaxYearMinus2YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus1 Year | $21,267,811 | CurrentTaxYearMinus1YearAmt |
| Current Tax Year | $27,138,233 | CurrentTaxYearAmt |
| Total | $122,684,432 | TotalAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Substantial Contributors Tot | $16,806,890 | SubstantialContributorsTotAmt |
| Public Support Total170 | $105,877,542 | PublicSupportTotal170Amt |
Gross Investment Income170 GrossInvestmentIncome170Grp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Current Tax Year Minus4 Years | $626,413 | CurrentTaxYearMinus4YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus3 Years | $823,607 | CurrentTaxYearMinus3YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus2 Years | $1,103,004 | CurrentTaxYearMinus2YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus1 Year | $1,577,636 | CurrentTaxYearMinus1YearAmt |
| Current Tax Year | $1,622,922 | CurrentTaxYearAmt |
| Total | $5,753,582 | TotalAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Support | $128,438,014 | TotalSupportAmt |
| Gross Receipts Rltd Activities | $3,607,250 | GrossReceiptsRltdActivitiesAmt |
| Public Support CY170 | 0.82430 | PublicSupportCY170Pct |
| Public Support PY170 | 0.84350 | PublicSupportPY170Pct |
| Thirty Thr Pct Suprt Tests CY170 | Yes (X) | ThirtyThrPctSuprtTestsCY170Ind |
Schedule B IRS990ScheduleB
Contributor Information ContributorInformationGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Contributor | RESTRICTED | ContributorNum |
Contributor Business Name ContributorBusinessName
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Business Name Line1 | RESTRICTED | BusinessNameLine1 |
Contributor US Address ContributorUSAddress
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Address Line1 | RESTRICTED | AddressLine1 |
| Address Line2 | RESTRICTED | AddressLine2 |
| City | RESTRICTED | City |
| State | RESTRICTED | State |
| ZIP Code | RESTRICTED | ZIPCode |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Contributions | RESTRICTED | TotalContributionsAmt |
Schedule C IRS990ScheduleC
Total Grassroots Lobbying TotalGrassrootsLobbyingGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Filing Organizations Total | $42,160 | FilingOrganizationsTotalAmt |
Total Direct Lobbying TotalDirectLobbyingGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Filing Organizations Total | $267,609 | FilingOrganizationsTotalAmt |
Total Lobbying Expend TotalLobbyingExpendGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Filing Organizations Total | $309,769 | FilingOrganizationsTotalAmt |
Other Exempt Purpose Expend OtherExemptPurposeExpendGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Filing Organizations Total | $26,023,490 | FilingOrganizationsTotalAmt |
Total Exempt Purpose Expend TotalExemptPurposeExpendGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Filing Organizations Total | $26,333,259 | FilingOrganizationsTotalAmt |
Lobbying Nontaxable Amount LobbyingNontaxableAmountGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Filing Organizations Total | $1,000,000 | FilingOrganizationsTotalAmt |
Grassroots Nontaxable GrassrootsNontaxableGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Filing Organizations Total | $250,000 | FilingOrganizationsTotalAmt |
Tot Lbbyng Grassroot Mns Non Tx TotLbbyngGrassrootMnsNonTxGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Filing Organizations Total | $0 | FilingOrganizationsTotalAmt |
Tot Lbby Expend Mns Lbbyng Non Tx TotLbbyExpendMnsLbbyngNonTxGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Filing Organizations Total | $0 | FilingOrganizationsTotalAmt |
Avg Lobbying Nontaxable Amount AvgLobbyingNontaxableAmountGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Current Year Minus3 | $1,000,000 | CurrentYearMinus3Amt |
| Current Year Minus2 | $1,000,000 | CurrentYearMinus2Amt |
| Current Year Minus1 | $1,000,000 | CurrentYearMinus1Amt |
| Current Year | $1,000,000 | CurrentYearAmt |
| Total | $4,000,000 | TotalAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Lobbying Ceiling | $6,000,000 | LobbyingCeilingAmt |
Avg Total Lobbying Expend AvgTotalLobbyingExpendGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Current Year Minus3 | $221,964 | CurrentYearMinus3Amt |
| Current Year Minus2 | $306,469 | CurrentYearMinus2Amt |
| Current Year Minus1 | $323,049 | CurrentYearMinus1Amt |
| Current Year | $309,769 | CurrentYearAmt |
| Total | $1,161,251 | TotalAmt |
Avg Grassroots Nontaxable AvgGrassrootsNontaxableGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Current Year Minus3 | $250,000 | CurrentYearMinus3Amt |
| Current Year Minus2 | $250,000 | CurrentYearMinus2Amt |
| Current Year Minus1 | $250,000 | CurrentYearMinus1Amt |
| Current Year | $250,000 | CurrentYearAmt |
| Total | $1,000,000 | TotalAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Grassroots Ceiling | $1,500,000 | GrassrootsCeilingAmt |
Avg Grassroots Lobbying Expend AvgGrassrootsLobbyingExpendGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Current Year Minus3 | $47,395 | CurrentYearMinus3Amt |
| Current Year Minus2 | $35,565 | CurrentYearMinus2Amt |
| Current Year Minus1 | $33,382 | CurrentYearMinus1Amt |
| Current Year | $42,160 | CurrentYearAmt |
| Total | $158,502 | TotalAmt |
Schedule D IRS990ScheduleD
CY Endwmt Fund CYEndwmtFundGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Beginning Year Balance | $115,680 | BeginningYearBalanceAmt |
| Investment Earnings Or Losses | $3,484 | InvestmentEarningsOrLossesAmt |
| Other Expenditures | $2,472 | OtherExpendituresAmt |
| End Year Balance | $116,692 | EndYearBalanceAmt |
CY Minus1 Yr Endwmt Fund CYMinus1YrEndwmtFundGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Beginning Year Balance | $111,025 | BeginningYearBalanceAmt |
| Investment Earnings Or Losses | $7,282 | InvestmentEarningsOrLossesAmt |
| Other Expenditures | $2,627 | OtherExpendituresAmt |
| End Year Balance | $115,680 | EndYearBalanceAmt |
CY Minus2 Yr Endwmt Fund CYMinus2YrEndwmtFundGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Beginning Year Balance | $105,874 | BeginningYearBalanceAmt |
| Investment Earnings Or Losses | $7,496 | InvestmentEarningsOrLossesAmt |
| Other Expenditures | $2,345 | OtherExpendituresAmt |
| End Year Balance | $111,025 | EndYearBalanceAmt |
CY Minus3 Yr Endwmt Fund CYMinus3YrEndwmtFundGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Beginning Year Balance | $99,259 | BeginningYearBalanceAmt |
| Investment Earnings Or Losses | $6,615 | InvestmentEarningsOrLossesAmt |
| End Year Balance | $105,874 | EndYearBalanceAmt |
CY Minus4 Yr Endwmt Fund CYMinus4YrEndwmtFundGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Beginning Year Balance | $99,417 | BeginningYearBalanceAmt |
| Investment Earnings Or Losses | -$158 | InvestmentEarningsOrLossesAmt |
| End Year Balance | $99,259 | EndYearBalanceAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Board Designated Balance EOY | 0.00000 | BoardDesignatedBalanceEOYPct |
| Prmnnt Endowment Balance EOY | 1.00000 | PrmnntEndowmentBalanceEOYPct |
| Term Endowment Balance EOY | 0.00000 | TermEndowmentBalanceEOYPct |
| Endowments Held Unrelated Org | Yes (1) | EndowmentsHeldUnrelatedOrgInd |
| Endowments Held Related Org | 0 | EndowmentsHeldRelatedOrgInd |
Leasehold Improvements LeaseholdImprovementsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Other Cost Or Other Basis | $2,724,282 | OtherCostOrOtherBasisAmt |
| Depreciation | $1,977,973 | DepreciationAmt |
| Book Value | $746,309 | BookValueAmt |
Equipment EquipmentGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Other Cost Or Other Basis | $2,416,871 | OtherCostOrOtherBasisAmt |
| Depreciation | $2,015,532 | DepreciationAmt |
| Book Value | $401,339 | BookValueAmt |
Other Land Buildings OtherLandBuildingsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Other Cost Or Other Basis | $577,352 | OtherCostOrOtherBasisAmt |
| Book Value | $577,352 | BookValueAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Book Value Land Buildings | $1,725,000 | TotalBookValueLandBuildingsAmt |
Other Securities OtherSecuritiesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Desc | HEDGE FUND | Desc |
| Book Value | $7,247,238 | BookValueAmt |
| Method Valuation | F | MethodValuationCd |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Book Value Securities | $7,247,238 | TotalBookValueSecuritiesAmt |
Other Liabilities Org OtherLiabilitiesOrgGrp (3 entries)
| DescDesc | AmtAmt |
|---|---|
| DEFERRED RENT | $2,372,946 |
| CAPITAL LEASE LIABILITY | $36,523 |
| GIFT ANNUITY | $469,394 |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Liability | $2,878,863 | TotalLiabilityAmt |
| Footnote Text | Yes (X) | FootnoteTextInd |
| Total Rev Etc Audited Fincl Stmt | $31,740,814 | TotalRevEtcAuditedFinclStmtAmt |
| Net Unrealized Gains Invst | -$3,555,547 | NetUnrealizedGainsInvstAmt |
| Donated Services And Use Fclts | $81,014 | DonatedServicesAndUseFcltsAmt |
| Revenue Not Reported | -$3,474,533 | RevenueNotReportedAmt |
| Revenue Subtotal | $35,215,347 | RevenueSubtotalAmt |
| Other Revenues Not Included | -$20 | OtherRevenuesNotIncludedAmt |
| Revenue Not Reported Fincl Stmt | -$20 | RevenueNotReportedFinclStmtAmt |
| Total Revenue Per Form990 | $35,215,327 | TotalRevenuePerForm990Amt |
| Tot Expns Etc Audited Fincl Stmt | $26,414,293 | TotExpnsEtcAuditedFinclStmtAmt |
| Donated Services Use Fclts | $81,014 | DonatedServicesUseFcltsAmt |
| Other Expenses Included | $20 | OtherExpensesIncludedAmt |
| Expenses Not Reported | $81,034 | ExpensesNotReportedAmt |
| Expenses Subtotal | $26,333,259 | ExpensesSubtotalAmt |
| Expenses Not Rpt Fincl Stmt | $0 | ExpensesNotRptFinclStmtAmt |
| Total Expenses Per Form990 | $26,333,259 | TotalExpensesPerForm990Amt |
Supplemental Information Detail SupplementalInformationDetail (4 entries)
| Form And Line ReferenceFormAndLineReferenceDesc | ExplanationExplanationTxt |
|---|---|
| PART V, LINE 4: | ENDOWMENT FUNDS ARE MAINTAINED TO PROVIDE A PERMANENT SOURCE OF INCOME TO SUPPORT THE INSTITUTE'S OVERALL MISSION. ENDOWMENT ASSETS ARE HELD IN PERPETUITY AS DONOR-RESTRICTED GIFTS, WHILE INCOME GENERATED BY THE ENDOWMENTS IS UTILIZED BY THE INSTITUTE FOR ITS GENERAL CHARITABLE PURPOSE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE GIFT INSTRUMENT. |
| PART X, LINE 2: | MANAGEMENT HAS DETERMINED THERE ARE NO UNCERTAIN TAX POSITIONS THAT ARE MATERIAL TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2020 AND 2019. THE INSTITUTE RECOGNIZES INTEREST EXPENSE AND PENALTIES ON INCOME TAXES RELATED TO UNCERTAIN TAX POSITIONS IN MANAGEMENT EXPENSES IN THE STATEMENTS OF ACTIVITIES AND CHANGE IN NET ASSETS. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR PENALTIES AND INTEREST RELATED TO INCOME TAXES ON UNCERTAIN TAX POSITIONS FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2020 AND 2019. TAX YEARS PRIOR TO 2016 ARE NO LONGER SUBJECT TO EXAMINATION BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE ("IRS") OR THE TAX JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. |
| PART XI, LINE 4B - OTHER ADJUSTMENTS: | LOSS ON DISPOSAL OF FIXED ASSETS -20. |
| PART XII, LINE 2D - OTHER ADJUSTMENTS: | LOSS ON DISPOSAL OF FIXED ASSETS 20. |
Schedule F IRS990ScheduleF
Account Activities Outside US AccountActivitiesOutsideUSGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Region | CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN | RegionTxt |
| Offices | 0 | OfficesCnt |
| Employee | 0 | EmployeeCnt |
| Type Of Activities Conducted | INVESTMENTS | TypeOfActivitiesConductedTxt |
| Region Total Expenditures | $7,247,238 | RegionTotalExpendituresAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Subtotal Offices | 0 | SubtotalOfficesCnt |
| Subtotal Employees | 0 | SubtotalEmployeesCnt |
| Continuation Total Office | 0 | ContinuationTotalOfficeCnt |
| Continuation Total Employee | 0 | ContinuationTotalEmployeeCnt |
| Total Office | 0 | TotalOfficeCnt |
| Total Employee | 0 | TotalEmployeeCnt |
| Subtotal Spent | $7,247,238 | SubtotalSpentAmt |
| Continuation Spent | $0 | ContinuationSpentAmt |
| Total Spent | $7,247,238 | TotalSpentAmt |
| Transfer To Foreign Corp | 0 | TransferToForeignCorpInd |
| Interest In Foreign Trust | 0 | InterestInForeignTrustInd |
| Foreign Corp Ownership | 0 | ForeignCorpOwnershipInd |
| Passive Foreign Investmest Co | 0 | PassiveForeignInvestmestCoInd |
| Foreign Partnership | 0 | ForeignPartnershipInd |
| Boycott Countries | 0 | BoycottCountriesInd |
Supplemental Information Detail SupplementalInformationDetail
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Form And Line Reference | PART III ACCOUNTING METHOD: | FormAndLineReferenceDesc |
Schedule I IRS990ScheduleI
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Grant Records Maintained | Yes (1) | GrantRecordsMaintainedInd |
Recipient Table RecipientTable (3 entries)
| Address Line1USAddress/AddressLine1Txt | CityUSAddress/CityNm | State AbbreviationUSAddress/StateAbbreviationCd | ZIPUSAddress/ZIPCd | Recipient EINRecipientEIN | IRC SectionIRCSectionDesc | Cash GrantCashGrantAmt | Purpose Of GrantPurposeOfGrantTxt |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STATE POLICY NETWORK | |||||||
| 1655 NORTH FORT MYER DRIVE 360 | ARLINGTON | VA | 22209 | 570952531 | 501(C)(3) | $20,000 | 2020 SPN CONFERENCE SPONSORSHIP |
| SERVING OUR CHILDREN INC | |||||||
| 1615 L STREET NW SUITE 750 | WASHINGTON | DC | 20036 | 208874570 | 501(C)(3) | $32,629 | GRANT TO ASSIST PARENTS APPLYING TO DC SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM |
| AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL (ALEC) | |||||||
| 2900 CRYSTAL DRIVE 6TH FLOOR | ARLINGTON | VA | 22202 | 520140979 | 501(C)(3) | $17,000 | 2019 MEMBERSHIP CONTRIBUTION |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total501c3 Org | 3 | Total501c3OrgCnt |
Supplemental Information Detail SupplementalInformationDetail
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Form And Line Reference | PART I, LINE 2: | FormAndLineReferenceDesc |
| Explanation | PURSUANT TO A GRANT AGREEMENT, GRANTEE DELIVERS REGULAR STATUS REPORTS TO IJ DURING THE TERM OF THE GRANT. IJ REVIEWS THESE GRANT REPORTS AND MONITORS PERFORMANCE AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT. | ExplanationTxt |
Schedule J IRS990ScheduleJ
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Compensation Committee | Yes (X) | CompensationCommitteeInd |
| Independent Consultant | Yes (X) | IndependentConsultantInd |
| Form990 Of Other Organizations | Yes (X) | Form990OfOtherOrganizationsInd |
| Compensation Survey | Yes (X) | CompensationSurveyInd |
| Board Or Committee Approval | Yes (X) | BoardOrCommitteeApprovalInd |
| Severance Payment | 0 | SeverancePaymentInd |
| Supplemental Nonqual Rtr Plan | Yes (1) | SupplementalNonqualRtrPlanInd |
| Equity Based Comp Arrngm | 0 | EquityBasedCompArrngmInd |
| Comp Based On Revenue Of Flng Org | 0 | CompBasedOnRevenueOfFlngOrgInd |
| Comp Bsd On Rev Related Orgs | 0 | CompBsdOnRevRelatedOrgsInd |
| Comp Bsd Net Earns Flng Org | 0 | CompBsdNetEarnsFlngOrgInd |
| Comp Bsd Net Earns Rltd Orgs | 0 | CompBsdNetEarnsRltdOrgsInd |
| Any Non Fixed Payments | Yes (1) | AnyNonFixedPaymentsInd |
| Initial Contract Exception | 0 | InitialContractExceptionInd |
Rltd Org Officer Trst Key Empl RltdOrgOfficerTrstKeyEmplGrp (12 entries)
| TitleTitleTxt | Base Compensation Filing OrgBaseCompensationFilingOrgAmt | Compensation Based On Rltd OrgsCompensationBasedOnRltdOrgsAmt | Bonus Filing OrganizationBonusFilingOrganizationAmount | Bonus Related OrganizationsBonusRelatedOrganizationsAmt | Other Compensation Filing OrgOtherCompensationFilingOrgAmt | Other Compensation Rltd OrgsOtherCompensationRltdOrgsAmt | Deferred Compensation Flng OrgDeferredCompensationFlngOrgAmt | Deferred Comp Rltd OrgsDeferredCompRltdOrgsAmt | Nontaxable Benefits Filing OrgNontaxableBenefitsFilingOrgAmt | Nontaxable Benefits Rltd OrgsNontaxableBenefitsRltdOrgsAmt | Total Compensation Filing OrgTotalCompensationFilingOrgAmt | Total Compensation Rltd OrgsTotalCompensationRltdOrgsAmt | Comp Report Prior990 Filing OrgCompReportPrior990FilingOrgAmt | Comp Report Prior990 Rltd OrgsCompReportPrior990RltdOrgsAmt |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCOTT G BULLOCK | ||||||||||||||
| PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL | $409,403 | $0 | $60,000 | $0 | $72 | $0 | $38,500 | $0 | $9,005 | $0 | $516,980 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| WILLIAM MELLOR | ||||||||||||||
| CHAIRMAN & FOUNDING GENERAL COUNSEL | $38,614 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $317,839 | $0 | $4,000 | $0 | $18,011 | $0 | $378,464 | $0 | $317,458 | $0 |
| DANIEL KNEPPER | ||||||||||||||
| MANAGING VP-CFO/SECRETARY & TREAS. | $328,617 | $0 | $45,000 | $0 | $31 | $0 | $33,666 | $0 | $10,369 | $0 | $417,683 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| DANA BERLINER | ||||||||||||||
| SENIOR VP AND LITIGATION DIRECTOR | $380,973 | $0 | $60,000 | $0 | $72 | $0 | $38,500 | $0 | $12,404 | $0 | $491,949 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| JOHN KRAMER | ||||||||||||||
| VP FOR COMMUNICATIONS | $337,136 | $0 | $35,000 | $0 | $72 | $0 | $38,500 | $0 | $31,036 | $0 | $441,744 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| DEBORAH SIMPSON | ||||||||||||||
| CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER | $297,889 | $0 | $35,000 | $0 | $72 | $0 | $38,038 | $0 | $30,186 | $0 | $401,185 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| BETH STEVENS | ||||||||||||||
| VP FOR DEVELOPMENT | $265,403 | $0 | $12,000 | $0 | $72 | $0 | $36,676 | $0 | $11,755 | $0 | $325,906 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| ROBERT MCNAMARA | ||||||||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | $278,601 | $0 | $15,000 | $0 | $28 | $0 | $37,500 | $0 | $13,124 | $0 | $344,253 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| JEFFREY ROWES | ||||||||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | $214,746 | $0 | $20,000 | $0 | $47 | $0 | $34,433 | $0 | $31,292 | $0 | $300,518 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| ROBERT GALL | ||||||||||||||
| MANAGING VP AND SENIOR ATTORNEY | $233,674 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $45 | $0 | $35,006 | $0 | $27,823 | $0 | $296,548 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| MELANIE HILDRETH | ||||||||||||||
| VP FOR EXTERNAL RELATIONS | $204,911 | $0 | $15,000 | $0 | $28 | $0 | $33,206 | $0 | $17,205 | $0 | $270,350 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| MICHAEL BINDAS | ||||||||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | $185,300 | $0 | $20,000 | $0 | $47 | $0 | $20,682 | $0 | $29,480 | $0 | $255,509 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Supplemental Information Detail SupplementalInformationDetail (2 entries)
| Form And Line ReferenceFormAndLineReferenceDesc | ExplanationExplanationTxt |
|---|---|
| PART I, LINE 4B | FOUNDING GENERAL COUNSEL WILLIAM MELLOR PARTICIPATED IN A SECTION 457(F) PLAN. THERE WERE NO CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PLAN FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2020. THE FINAL $317,458 OF DEFERRED COMPENSATION IN THE PLAN WAS PAID TO MR. MELLOR IN DECEMBER 2019. |
| PART I, LINE 7 | THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE DETERMINES, ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, THE BONUSES TO BE AWARDED TO SIX SENIOR IJ EMPLOYEES: (I) PRESIDENT/GENERAL COUNSEL, (II) SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR LITIGATION, (III) CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, (IV) MANAGING VP AND SENIOR ATTORNEY, (V) VICE PRESIDENT FOR COMMUNICATIONS, AND (VI) THE MANAGING VP-CFO/SECRETARY AND TREASURER. FOR ALL OTHERS, BONUSES ARE DETERMINED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE INSTITUTE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. ALL BONUSES ARE BASED ON A BOARD APPROVED BUDGET. |
Schedule M IRS990ScheduleM
Cars And Other Vehicles CarsAndOtherVehiclesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Non Cash Checkbox | Yes (X) | NonCashCheckboxInd |
| Contribution | 3 | ContributionCnt |
| Noncash Contributions Rpt F990 | $1,010 | NoncashContributionsRptF990Amt |
| Method Of Determining Revenues | FMV | MethodOfDeterminingRevenuesTxt |
Securities Publicly Traded SecuritiesPubliclyTradedGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Non Cash Checkbox | Yes (X) | NonCashCheckboxInd |
| Contribution | 40 | ContributionCnt |
| Noncash Contributions Rpt F990 | $1,477,933 | NoncashContributionsRptF990Amt |
| Method Of Determining Revenues | FMV | MethodOfDeterminingRevenuesTxt |
Other Non Cash Contri Table OtherNonCashContriTableGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Non Cash Checkbox | Yes (X) | NonCashCheckboxInd |
| Desc | BITCOIN | Desc |
| Contribution | 8 | ContributionCnt |
| Noncash Contributions Rpt F990 | $6,172 | NoncashContributionsRptF990Amt |
| Method Of Determining Revenues | FMV | MethodOfDeterminingRevenuesTxt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Any Property That Must Be Held | 0 | AnyPropertyThatMustBeHeldInd |
| Review Process Unusual NC Gifts | Yes (1) | ReviewProcessUnusualNCGiftsInd |
| Third Parties Used | Yes (1) | ThirdPartiesUsedInd |
Supplemental Information Detail SupplementalInformationDetail (2 entries)
| Form And Line ReferenceFormAndLineReferenceDesc | ExplanationExplanationTxt |
|---|---|
| PART I, COLUMN (B): | THE CONTRIBUTIONS REPORTED IN COLUMN B OF PART I ABOVE REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED. |
| PART I, LINE 32B: | THE INSTITUTE UTILIZES A BROKERAGE FIRM TO SELL DONATED SECURITIES AND OTHER INVESTMENT VEHICLES. |
Schedule O IRS990ScheduleO
Supplemental Information Detail SupplementalInformationDetail (15 entries)
| Form And Line ReferenceFormAndLineReferenceDesc | ExplanationExplanationTxt |
|---|---|
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11B | THE FORM 990 WAS REVIEWED BY THE INSTITUTE'S AUDIT COMMITTEE IN CONSULTATION WITH THE INSTITUTE'S INDEPENDENT AUDITORS, AS NECESSARY. AFTER REVIEW BY THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, THE FORM 990 WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE FULL BOARD OF DIRECTORS. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C | ON AN ANNUAL BASIS BOTH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND EVERY EMPLOYEE REVIEW THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY AND MUST DISCLOSE ANY CONFLICTS WITH THE INSTITUTE. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS REVIEWS THE POLICY AT OR AROUND ITS FINAL MEETING OF THE FISCAL YEAR AND EACH MEMBER PROVIDES WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. EVERY EMPLOYEE RECEIVES AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE POLICY. ANY CONFLICTS OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS ARE RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT OR OTHERWISE REPORTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND REVIEWED AND RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, LESS ANY MEMBER THAT MAY HAVE A CONFLICT OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15 | AT THE FALL BOARD MEETING, THE BOARD DETERMINES THE COMPENSATION OF SIX EMPLOYEES: THE PRESIDENT/GENERAL COUNSEL, THE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR LITIGATION, THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, THE MANAGING VICE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR ATTORNEY, THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR COMMUNICATIONS, AND THE MANAGING VICE PRESIDENT-CFO/SECRETARY AND TREASURER. IJ PROVIDES THE BOARD'S COMPENSATION COMMITTEE WITH PRESENT AND PAST COMPENSATION AMOUNTS FOR THESE POSITIONS, AS WELL AS COMPARABLE DATA FROM THE MOST RECENTLY AVAILABLE FORM 990 FOR SIMILARLY SITUATED NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. IJ ALSO ANNUALLY ENGAGES AN OUTSIDE VENDOR TO PROVIDE AN INDEPENDENT COMPENSATION SURVEY. THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE MAKES A RECOMMENDATION ON COMPENSATION TO THE FULL BOARD (EXCEPT FOR THE PRESIDENT/GENERAL COUNSEL, WHO IS RECUSED), AND THE FULL BOARD THEN VOTES TO DETERMINE COMPENSATION, WHICH DECISION IS CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RECORDED AND COMMUNICATED TO THE CFO BY THE CHAIRMAN AND PLACED IN THE APPLICABLE CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT FILES. DURING THE SUMMER BOARD MEETING, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZES FORECASTED COMPENSATION INCREASES FOR OTHER OFFICERS AND KEY EMPLOYEES THROUGH ITS APPROVAL OF THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR'S BUDGET. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 | IJ'S 990 AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ON ITS AND OTHER WEBSITES. IJ'S 990, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND OTHER IRS DOCUMENTATION, GOVERNING DOCUMENTS AND CERTAIN OTHER POLICIES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC UPON REQUEST. |
| FORM 990, PART XII, LINE 2C: | THE INSTITUTE HAS AN AUDIT COMMITTEE THAT ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR OVERSIGHT OF THE AUDIT OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SELECTION OF AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR. THE PROCESS HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE THE PRIOR YEAR. |
| CASES IN LITIGATION | ESPINOZA V. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE (IJ) SECURED A LANDMARK VICTORY FOR EDUCATIONAL CHOICE AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WHEN THE COURT RULED THAT BARRING RELIGIOUS OPTIONS IN SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAMS VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S PROTECTIONS FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. PROGRAMS MUST BE NEUTRAL REGARDING RELIGION AND ALLOW FAMILIES TO CHOOSE THE SCHOOL THAT WORKS BEST FOR THEM. IN 2015, IJ FILED SUIT ON BEHALF OF THREE MONTANA FAMILIES TO DEFEND A TAX-CREDIT SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM FROM AN ATTACK BY THE MONTANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, WHICH ATTEMPTED TO LIMIT THESE SCHOLARSHIPS TO NONRELIGIOUS PRIVATE SCHOOLS. WHEN THE MONTANA SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN THE ENTIRE PROGRAM FOR INCLUDING RELIGIOUSLY AFFILIATED SCHOOLS, IJ APPEALED THE CASE TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, AND WE WON. IJ WILL USE THIS VICTORY TO EXPAND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES ACROSS AMERICA. TIMBS V. STATE OF INDIANA SEVEN YEARS AND ONE LANDMARK U.S. SUPREME COURT VICTORY LATER, IJ CLIENT TYSON TIMBS FINALLY HAS HIS CAR BACK. IN APRIL 2020, A TRIAL COURT JUDGE RULED THAT THE CIVIL FORFEITURE OF TYSON'S $35,000 LAND ROVER VIOLATED THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT'S BAN ON GOVERNMENTS IMPOSING EXCESSIVE FINES AND FEES AND ORDERED THE STATE OF INDIANA TO RETURN HIS CAR IMMEDIATELY. TYSON'S JOURNEY BEGAN WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT USED FORFEITURE TO SEIZE HIS VEHICLE AFTER HE WAS CONVICTED OF SELLING $225 WORTH OF DRUGS. AFTER THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES NO PROTECTION AGAINST FINES AND FORFEITURES IMPOSED BY THE STATES, IJ CHALLENGED THIS DECISION AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT - AND RESOUNDINGLY WON. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE BAN ON EXCESSIVE FINES AND FEES APPLIES TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, A DECISION WHICH PROTECTS AMERICANS FROM ABUSE OF THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS BY ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. THE HIGH COURT SENT TYSON'S CASE BACK TO THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT, WHICH IN TURN SENT THE CASE BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT, WHICH RULED FOR TYSON. AMAZINGLY, THE INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS APPEALED THE DECISION, PLACING TYSON'S CASE BEFORE THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT FOR A THIRD TIME. IJ WILL KEEP FIGHTING ON BEHALF OF TYSON AND ALL VICTIMS OF CIVIL FORFEITURE. SOUTH MOUNTAIN CREAMERY, LLC, V. FDA, ET AL. DAIRY FARMERS ACROSS AMERICA CAN SELL, AND THEIR CUSTOMERS CAN ENJOY, TRUTHFULLY LABELED SKIM MILK THANKS TO AN IJ VICTORY FOR FREE SPEECH. RANDY SOWERS IS THE FOUNDER OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN CREAMERY IN MIDDLETOWN, MARYLAND. THE SKIM MILK HE SELLS IS 100% PURE, WITH NO ADDITIVES; IT'S SAFE TO DRINK AND LEGAL TO SELL. BUT WHEN RANDY WANTED TO SELL HIS SKIM MILK ACROSS STATE LINES, HE LEARNED THAT FDA REGULATIONS REQUIRED HE LABEL HIS ALL-NATURAL MILK AS "IMITATION SKIM MILK OR "IMITATION MILK PRODUCT" BECAUSE HE DIDN'T ADD TWO ARTIFICIAL VITAMINS TO IT. IF HE VIOLATED THIS REGULATION, HE COULD FACE FINES OR EVEN JAIL. THERE'S NOTHING IMITATION ABOUT RANDY'S MILK, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS HIS RIGHT TO TELL THE TRUTH. SO, RANDY AND IJ FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FDA'S BAN ON TRUTHFUL ADVERTISING. IN RESPONSE, THE FDA AGREED IN APRIL 2020 NOT TO ENFORCE THE LABELING REQUIREMENT AND POSTED AN EXPLANATION ON ITS WEBSITE THAT OTHER SKIM MILK PRODUCERS CAN TRUTHFULLY LABEL THEIR PRODUCT "SKIM MILK." LADD, ET AL. V. REAL ESTATE COMMISSION OF PENNSYLVANIA IN A VICTORY FOR ECONOMIC LIBERTY, THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT HELD THAT VACATION RENTAL MANAGER SALLY LADD'S CONSTITUTIONAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE PENNSYLVANIA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION CAN MOVE FORWARD, REVERSING AN EARLIER DECISION BY THE PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH COURT DISMISSING THE CASE. THE DECISION VINDICATES THE RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING ENSHRINED IN THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION. THIS MEANS PENNSYLVANIANS CAN NOW LEVERAGE THE "MORE RESTRICTIVE" PROTECTIONS OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION WHEN CHALLENGING ECONOMIC LIBERTY RESTRICTIONS IN COURT. SALLY LADD IS AN ENTREPRENEUR WHO MANAGED VARIOUS VACATION PROPERTIES IN PENNSYLVANIA'S POCONO MOUNTAINS. THOUGH SHE IS NOT A REAL ESTATE BROKER, SALLY RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE INFORMING HER THAT SHE WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR THE UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF REAL ESTATE. TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE LEGALLY, SHE WOULD HAVE TO SPEND THREE YEARS WORKING FOR AN ESTABLISHED BROKER, PASS TWO EXAMS, AND SET UP HER OWN BRICK-AND-MORTAR OFFICE IN PENNSYLVANIA. FORCED TO SHUT DOWN HER BUSINESS, SALLY TEAMED UP WITH IJ IN JULY 2017 TO CHALLENGE THIS HEAVY-HANDED LICENSING SCHEME AND VINDICATE THE RIGHTS OF ENTREPRENEURS THROUGHOUT PENNSYLVANIA. BROWNBACK V. KING IN JANUARY, IJ LAUNCHED OUR PROJECT ON IMMUNITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AN INITIATIVE TO TEAR DOWN THE LEGAL DOCTRINES THAT SHIELD GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS FROM BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR EVEN THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS ABUSES OF PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. TWO MONTHS LATER, IJ LEARNED THAT WE WILL BE HEADING TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO ARGUE A CASE THAT WILL DETERMINE WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN INVENT YET ANOTHER LEGAL PROTECTION FOR THEMSELVES. IN 2014, TWO PLAINCLOTHES OFFICIALS - A MICHIGAN POLICE OFFICER AND AN FBI AGENT - SAVAGELY BEAT IJ CLIENT JAMES KING AFTER MISTAKING THE THEN-COLLEGE STUDENT FOR A PETTY THIEF HE BARELY RESEMBLED. SINCE THEN, THE GOVERNMENT REPEATEDLY DENIED JAMES JUSTICE. NOW IT IS GOING EVEN FURTHER, SEEKING TO CREATE AN ENTIRELY NEW WAY OF PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM HOLDING ACCOUNTABLE FEDERAL OFFICERS WHO BREAK THE LAW. IJ WILL FIGHT FOR JAMES' RIGHTS AND TO CONVINCE THE HIGH COURT TO STOP THIS EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY. HOHENBERG AND HANSON V. SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, ET AL. WHEN A COURT PROCEEDING MAY RESULT IN A PERSON LOSING THEIR HOME, THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DEMANDS A FAIR PROCESS WITH RIGOROUS SAFEGUARDS. FOR DEFENDANTS IN MEMPHIS' ENVIRONMENTAL COURT, THE PROCESS IS ANYTHING BUT FAIR. SARAH HOHENBERG AND JOSEPH HANSON BOTH ENDED UP IN ENVIRONMENTAL COURT AFTER TREES FELL ON THEIR HOUSES. BOTH ENDED UP LOSING THEIR HOMES AFTER A YEARS-LONG PROCESS IN A COURT WHERE WITNESSES ARE NOT SWORN IN, EVIDENCE IS NOT AUTHENTICATED, AND PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT RECORDED, MAKING DECISIONS ALL BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO APPEAL. SARAH AND JOSEPH HAVE PARTNERED WITH IJ FOR A LAWSUIT TO ENSURE THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL COURT, AND SIMILAR HOUSING COURTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, PROVIDE THE DUE PROCESS THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES, SO THAT NO ONE LOSES THEIR HOME TO A COURT WITHOUT PROPER SAFEGUARDS. THEY ARE ASKING THAT THE COURT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR MAKING BOTH OF THEM HOMELESS. RAINWATERS AND HOLLINGSWORTH V. TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY, ET AL. TERRY RAINWATERS AND HUNTER HOLLINGSWORTH OWN RURAL PROPERTIES IN TENNESSEE. THEIR PROPERTIES ARE THEIR SANCTUARIES, BUT OFFICERS FROM THE TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY (TWRA) ROUTINELY ENTER PRIVATE LAND ON A WHIM TO SEARCH FOR POTENTIAL HUNTING VIOLATIONS WITHOUT A WARRANT. THEY TRESPASS, TAKE PHOTOS AND VIDEOS, AND EVEN INSTALL CAMERAS TO RECORD 24/7. TWRA THINKS IT CAN GET AWAY WITH SUCH CREEPY SURVEILLANCE BECAUSE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WRONGLY HELD THAT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION'S PROTECTIONS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES DON'T APPLY TO "OPEN FIELDS." BUT THE TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS STATE OFFICIALS FROM BARGING IN WHENEVER THEY WISH. THAT'S WHY TERRY AND HUNTER HAVE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO SUE TWRA IN TENNESSEE STATE COURT AND VINDICATE THE RIGHT OF ALL TENNESSEANS TO BE FREE FROM UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEARCHES. MEADE AND SOOKRAM V. BONIN AND ETOH MONITORING, LLC THE U.S. CONSTITUTION REQUIRES JUDGES TO BE OBJECTIVE WHEN DECIDING WHETHER TO DEPRIVE A PERSON OF HER LIBERTY OR PROPERTY. WHEN JUDGES HAVE A PERSONAL, POLITICAL, OR FINANCIAL INTEREST IN A CASE, THEY VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT'S GUARANTEE OF DUE PROCESS. HAKEEM MEADE, MARSHALL SOOKRAM, AND TOO MANY OTHERS IN NEW ORLEANS KNOW THIS ALL TOO WELL - THEY WERE ORDERED TO SUBMIT TO ANKLE MONITORING BY A JUDGE WHO HAS PERSONAL, POLITICAL, AND FINANCIAL TIES TO THE COMPANY THAT PROVIDED AND CHARGED FOR THIS SERVICE. NOW, HAKEEM AND MARSHALL ARE FIGHTING TO ENSURE THAT ANKLE MONITORING DECISIONS IN ORLEANS PARISH AND ELSEWHERE ARE MADE WITHOUT BIAS OR THE APPEARANCE OF BIAS. IN MAY 2020, THEY TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FILE A CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT SEEKING AN ORDER DECLARING THAT JUDICIAL DECISIONS INFLUENCED BY A JUDGE'S TIES TO A PRIVATE PARTY VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION, AND REQUIRING THE COMPANY TO DISGORGE THE FEES IT HAS COLLECTED FROM DEFENDANTS APPEARING BEFORE JUDGE BONIN AND CANCEL ANY REMAINING FEES. |
| INGRAM, ET AL. V. WAYNE COUNTY | FOR DECADES, RESIDENTS OF DETROIT AND WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN, HAVE LIVED UNDER CONSTANT THREAT OF HAVING THEIR CARS TAKEN AWAY AND RANSOMED BACK TO THEM FOR $1,000 OR MORE - THAT IS, IF THE CAR IS EVER RECOVERED. THE PERPETRATORS ARE POLICE AND PROSECUTORS WHO USE CIVIL FORFEITURE TO SEIZE HUNDREDS OF CARS EACH YEAR. DETROITERS MELISA INGRAM AND ROBERT REEVES BOTH LOST THEIR CARS (AND OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY INSIDE) WHEN WAYNE COUNTY SEIZED THEM BASED ON OTHER PEOPLE'S ALLEGED MISBEHAVIOR. MELISA AND ROBERT HAVE PARTNERED WITH THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE TO FILE A MAJOR FEDERAL CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WAYNE COUNTY'S FORFEITURE PROGRAM. THE LAWSUIT ASKS THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN TO ENFORCE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND THE RIGHTS TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEIZURES AND EXCESSIVE FINES. BROWN AND ROLIN V. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. RETIRED RAILROAD ENGINEER TERRY ROLIN'S LIFE SAVINGS OF $82,373 WERE SEIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT, BUT HE HASN'T BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME. TERRY SAVED UP CASH AND KEPT IT IN HIS PITTSBURGH HOME OVER MANY YEARS. HE ASKED HIS DAUGHTER, REBECCA BROWN, TO TAKE THE MONEY HOME WITH HER TO BOSTON AND DEPOSIT IT INTO A NEW JOINT BANK ACCOUNT. REBECCA CHECKED ONLINE AND FOUND OUT THAT FLYING DOMESTICALLY WITH ANY AMOUNT OF CASH IS COMPLETELY LEGAL. BUT AT THE AIRPORT, THE TSA HELD HER BAGS AS SHE WENT THROUGH SECURITY SCREENING, THEN A DEA AGENT TOOK THE MONEY WITHOUT CHARGING REBECCA WITH A CRIME OR ARRESTING HER. MONTHS LATER, THE GOVERNMENT SAID IT WAS KEEPING THE MONEY FOR GOOD. SO, TERRY AND REBECCA JOINED WITH IJ IN JANUARY 2020 TO FILE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE DEA AND TSA FOR PRACTICES THAT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION AND ARE OUTSIDE THE TSA'S LEGAL AUTHORITY. IN RESPONSE TO THE LAWSUIT, THE GOVERNMENT RETURNED TERRY'S MONEY. BUT BECAUSE TERRY AND REBECCA'S SUIT INCLUDES CLASS ACTION CLAIMS TO VINDICATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHER TRAVELERS, WE WILL CONTINUE TO LITIGATE IT IN FEDERAL COURT. LECH V. CITY OF GREENWOOD VILLAGE SHOCKINGLY, THE 10TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD IN 2019 THAT AS LONG AS THE GOVERNMENT USES ITS "POLICE POWER" TO DESTROY PROPERTY, IT CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION FOR THAT PROPERTY UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION'S TAKINGS CLAUSE. THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE FILED A PETITION ASKING U.S. SUPREME COURT TO TELL THE 10TH CIRCUIT THAT THERE IS NO "POLICE POWER" EXCEPTION TO THE TAKINGS CLAUSE. THE CASE WAS BROUGHT BY LEO, ALFONSINA, AND JOHN LECH, SEEKING COMPENSATION FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF A HOME LEO AND ALFONSINA OWNED (AND IN WHICH THEIR SON JOHN LIVED WITH HIS OWN FAMILY) IN GREENWOOD VILLAGE, COLORADO. IN 2015, AN ARMED SHOPLIFTER FLED INTO THE HOME (APPARENTLY AT RANDOM). AFTER TAKING GUNFIRE FROM THE SHOPLIFTER, THE POLICE USED EXPLOSIVES, HIGH-CALIBER AMMUNITION, AND A BATTERING RAM. THE FUGITIVE WAS APPREHENDED, BUT THE HOME WAS TOTALED. UNFORTUNATELY, IN JUNE OF 2020, THE SUPREME COURT DENIED THE LECHS' PETITION FOR REVIEW. IJ REMAINS COMMITTED TO GETTING THIS PRECEDENT OVERTURNED IN A FUTURE CASE. SALGADO V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN MAY 2015, MILADIS SALGADO RETURNED HOME TO FIND POLICE HAD RAIDED HER HOME AND TAKEN HER LIFE SAVINGS OF $15,000 BASED ON A FALSE TIP THAT HER ESTRANGED HUSBAND WAS DEALING DRUGS. THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (DEA) ATTEMPTED TO KEEP MILADIS' MONEY FOREVER, BUT SHE WENT TO COURT TO GET HER MONEY BACK. RIGHT BEFORE THE COURT WAS ABOUT TO RULE, THE DEA SUDDENLY AGREED TO GIVE THE MONEY BACK AND CLAIMED THIS MEANT MILADIS HAD NOT WON HER CASE AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT RECEIVE AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES. MILADIS' LAWYER OBJECTED, BUT THE COURT AGREED WITH THE GOVERNMENT. THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE TEAMED UP WITH MILADIS TO BRING HER PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TAKE YOUR PROPERTY, KEEP IT FOR YEARS, AND THEN SUDDENLY GIVE IT BACK AND PRETEND LIKE NOTHING HAPPENED. UNFORTUNATELY, IN APRIL 2020, THE SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO HEAR THE CASE. WOODCREST HOMES, INC. V. CAROUSEL FARMS METRO. DISTRICT IN 2006, WOODCREST HOMES BEGAN PLANNING A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN COLORADO. YEARS LATER, CENTURY COMMUNITIES, A COMPETING DEVELOPER, PURCHASED LAND SURROUNDING WOODCREST, THEN CREATED A SO-CALLED "MUNICIPAL DISTRICT" - A PSEUDO-GOVERNMENTAL BODY PERMITTED IN COLORADO - COMPRISING THEIR AND WOODCREST'S LAND AND STAFFED BY CENTURY'S OWN EMPLOYEES. THE DISTRICT THEN "VOTED" TO USE EMINENT DOMAIN TO TAKE AWAY WOODCREST'S LAND. WOODCREST CHALLENGED THE TAKING IN COURT, BUT THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT HELD THAT ALL THAT MATTERED WAS WHAT WOODCREST WANTED TO PUT ON THE LAND (ROADS AND UTILITIES), NOT WHETHER THE PROCESS HAD BEEN CAPTURED BY A PRIVATE DEVELOPER SERVING ITS OWN ENDS. THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE PARTNERED WITH WOODCREST TO FORMALLY PETITION THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW THE CASE. UNFORTUNATELY, ON MARCH 23, 2020, THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED NOT TO HEAR THIS CASE, WHICH MEANS THAT THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT'S DECISION UPHOLDING THIS LAND GRAB REMAINS THE LAW OF THE LAND IN THAT STATE. CAMERON V. CITY OF RICHLAND LINDA CAMERON HAD BEEN LIVING IN THE SAME RICHLAND, WASHINGTON, HOME FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS WHEN SHE DECIDED TO TURN HER OUTDATED CARPORT INTO A GARAGE AND ADD A SECOND BEDROOM AND BATHROOM. ALTHOUGH THE CITY BUILDING PERMIT AND INSPECTION OFFICE WAS PREPARED TO APPROVE THE PERMIT, THE RICHLAND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, WHICH ALSO REVIEWED LINDA'S APPLICATION, INFORMED HER THAT BECAUSE HER RENOVATIONS WERE SLATED TO COST MORE THAN $50,000, SHE'D HAVE TO "RENOVATE" THE CITY STREET ADJOINING THE BACK OF HER PROPERTY. ALL TOLD, THE MANDATORY STREET "IMPROVEMENTS" ADDED ROUGHLY $60,000 TO THE COST OF LINDA'S RENOVATION. THESE FEES AMOUNT TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITION ON A PROPERTY OWNER'S RIGHT TO USE HER OWN PROPERTY. THAT'S WHY LINDA PARTNERED WITH THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE TO CHALLENGE RICHLAND'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN FEDERAL COURT. FOLLOWING LINDA'S CHALLENGE, RICHLAND CHANGED ITS LAW AND GRANTED LINDA'S PERMIT, ALLOWING HER TO MAKE HER RENOVATIONS. IJ RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT $10,000 IN ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THIS CASE. LOZANO, ET AL. V. ZION THE CITY OF ZION, ILLINOIS, REQUIRES LANDLORDS TO FORCE TENANTS TO OPEN THE DOORS OF THEIR HOMES TO CITY INSPECTORS WITHOUT A WARRANT. IF A TENANT REFUSES TO CONSENT TO AN INSPECTION, THE CITY THREATENS THEIR LANDLORD WITH RUINOUS FINES. THE CITY REFUSES TO ACQUIRE SEARCH WARRANTS IN RESPONSE TO TENANT OBJECTIONS, AND IT IS APPARENT THAT THE PRACTICE IS PART OF A BROADER PLAN TO DISCOURAGE RENTERS FROM LIVING IN ZION AT ALL. IN SEPTEMBER 2019, JOSEFINA LOZANO AND THREE OF HER TENANTS JOINED WITH IJ TO FILE A FEDERAL LAWSUIT TO SHUT DOWN ZION'S WARRANTLESS INSPECTION PROGRAM, BECAUSE YOUR HOME IS YOUR CASTLE, WHETHER YOU RENT OR OWN. WEST V. WINFIELD SHANIZ WEST'S NIGHTMARE STARTED WHEN SHE STOPPED HOME ONE AFTERNOON IN 2014 TO FIND HER HOUSE SURROUNDED BY FIVE LOCAL POLICE OFFICERS. THEY TOLD HER THEY WERE LOOKING FOR HER EX-BOYFRIEND; SHE SAID HE WASN'T THERE AND GAVE THEM A KEY SO THEY COULD SEE FOR THEMSELVES. INSTEAD, THEY CALLED IN THE LOCAL SWAT TEAM AND BOMBARDED IT FROM THE OUTSIDE WITH TEAR-GAS GRENADES. SHANIZ'S HOME AND POSSESSIONS WERE DESTROYED, AND THE EX-BOYFRIEND WAS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. SHANIZ SUED TO CHALLENGE THE WARRANTLESS DESTRUCTION OF HER HOME AND PROPERTY. THE 9TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT FIND THAT IT WAS EITHER RIGHT OR WRONG FOR OFFICERS TO DESTROY HER HOUSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT. RATHER, IT SIMPLY SAID THAT NO CASE IN THE CIRCUIT HAD CLEARLY ESTABLISHED WHAT THE OFFICERS DID WAS ILLEGAL, SO SHANIZ LOST. THE REASON IS A CONTROVERSIAL LEGAL DOCTRINE CALLED "QUALIFIED IMMUNITY," WHICH MAKES IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO HOLD GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE UNLESS A COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY RULED THAT EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THAT IS WHY SHANIZ JOINED FORCES WITH IJ TO ASK THE SUPREME COURT TO HEAR HER CASE AND ESTABLISH ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT QUALIFIED IMMUNITY CANNOT BE USED TO ALLOW GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WITH IMPUNITY. UNFORTUNATELY, THE SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO HEAR SHANIZ'S CASE AT THE END OF ITS 2019 TERM, ALONG WITH EVERY OTHER QUALIFIED IMMUNITY CASE THAT SOUGHT SUPREME COURT REVIEW. |
| FICKEN V. CITY OF DUNEDIN, FLORIDA, ET AL. | IJ JOINED WITH JIM FICKEN OF DUNEDIN, FLORIDA, TO CHALLENGE THE CITY'S ATTEMPT TO FORECLOSE HIS HOME SIMPLY BECAUSE HIS GRASS WAS TOO LONG. WHILE JIM WAS OUT OF TOWN TENDING TO HIS LATE MOTHER'S ESTATE, CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS BEGAN FINING HIM FOR HIS LONG GRASS, TO THE TUNE OF $500 PER DAY. BY THE TIME HE GOT BACK AND BECAME AWARE THAT HE WAS BEING FINED, THEY HAD ALREADY ACCRUED TO NEARLY $30,000. THE CITY TOLD JIM HE HAD 15 DAYS TO PAY, OR THEY WOULD GET THEIR MONEY BY FORECLOSING ON HIS HOME. AND THAT IS JUST WHAT THE CITY VOTED TO DO. BUT JIM AND IJ WON ROUND ONE WHEN A JUDGE IN THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA DENIED THE CITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS JIM'S LAWSUIT. THIS CASE IS ABOUT MORE THAN JUST SAVING JIM'S HOME; IT IS ABOUT ENSURING - FOR EVERYONE - THAT ABUSIVE GOVERNMENTS CANNOT TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION. DAVIS, ET AL. V. CITY OF CHICAGO IN APRIL 2019, IJ FILED A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT CHALLENGING CHICAGO'S MASSIVE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL VEHICLE IMPOUND PROGRAM. IN A CITY THAT RUNS A CHRONIC BUDGET DEFICIT OF MORE THAN $100 MILLION, IMPOUNDING VEHICLES HAS BECOME AN EASY - AND SIGNIFICANT - SOURCE OF CASH. THE LEAD PLAINTIFFS IN OUR CLASS ACTION ARE INNOCENT OWNERS JEROME DAVIS AND VERONICA WALKER-DAVIS. THE CITY IMPOUNDED THEIR CAR AFTER AN AUTO-SHOP EMPLOYEE TOOK IT FOR A JOY RIDE WHILE IT WAS IN THE SHOP FOR REPAIRS. AFTER FIGHTING THE CITY FOR NEARLY A YEAR AND BEING CHARGED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN FINES AND FEES, THE DAVISES ARRIVED TO PICK UP THEIR VEHICLE - ONLY TO FIND THAT CITY HAD ALREADY DESTROYED IT. A VICTORY IN THIS CASE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CREATE BROAD, SYSTEMIC CHANGE IN AN AREA WHERE ABUSE IS RAMPANT. IN JUNE 2020, THE MAYOR OF CHICAGO PROPOSED REFORMS TO THE IMPOUND PROGRAM THAT WOULD FIX SOME OF THE GLARING CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS. WHILE A GOOD FIRST STEP, OUR LAWSUIT WILL NOT STOP UNTIL EVERYONE IS PROTECTED FROM HAVING THEIR CARS UNJUSTLY IMPOUNDED. BRUMIT V. CITY OF GRANITE CITY NO ONE SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR A CRIME SOMEONE ELSE COMMITTED. BUT TRY TELLING THAT TO GRANITE CITY, ILLINOIS, WHERE CITY OFFICIALS ARE TRYING TO KICK ANDY SIMPSON AND DEBI BRUMIT (ALONG WITH DEBI'S GRANDCHILDREN) OUT OF THEIR HOME AS PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME EVERYONE AGREES THEY DID NOT COMMIT. WHY? BECAUSE DEBI'S DAUGHTER (WHO DOES NOT LIVE WITH HER) STOLE A VAN ELSEWHERE IN TOWN. GRANITE CITY HAS WHAT IT CALLS A "CRIME-FREE" HOUSING ORDINANCE THAT AMOUNTS TO A COMPULSORY EVICTION LAW. UNDER THE LAW, IF ANY MEMBER OF YOUR "HOUSEHOLD OR EVEN A GUEST COMMITS A CRIME ANYWHERE IN THE CITY THEN YOUR LANDLORD IS REQUIRED TO EVICT YOU. BUT DEBI AND ANDY'S LANDLORD DOESN'T WANT TO EVICT THEM. THAT IS WHY DEBI AND ANDY HAVE TEAMED UP WITH THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE TO SUE GRANITE CITY TO AFFIRM THE BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT AMERICANS CANNOT BE RENDERED HOMELESS AS PUNISHMENT FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S CRIMES. IN OCTOBER 2019, A FEDERAL JUDGE AGREED, ENTERING A RESTRAINING ORDER THAT WILL KEEP DEBI AND ANDY SAFELY IN THEIR HOME WHILE THEIR LAWSUIT PROCEEDS. CITY OF NORCO V. MUGAR THREE YEARS AGO, NORCO, CALIFORNIA, RESIDENT RON MUGAR RECEIVED A NOTICE INDICATING THAT HE HAD VIOLATED THE CITY'S HOUSING CODE. HE ADMITTEDLY ALLOWED HIS HOME AND BACKYARD TO BECOME CLUTTERED WITH HOBBY MACHINERY. BUT INSTEAD OF FINING HIM OR ASKING HIM TO BRING HIS PROPERTY UP TO CODE, THE CITY'S PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT PROSECUTORS DECLARED THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE OVER OWNERSHIP OF HIS HOUSE USING A LEGAL PROCESS KNOWN AS "RECEIVERSHIP." TRADITIONALLY, RECEIVERSHIPS ALLOW A CITY TO TAKE TEMPORARY OWNERSHIP OF A PROPERTY TO FIX AN IMMINENT DANGER TO A COMMUNITY, SUCH AS A STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND BUILDING. UNFORTUNATELY, RECEIVERSHIPS ARE NOW BEING USED IN CALIFORNIA TO ADDRESS EVEN MINOR CODE VIOLATIONS. RON BROUGHT HIS HOME AND YARD UP TO CODE AND FOUGHT THE RECEIVERSHIP IN COURT - AND WON. BUT JUST WHEN RON THOUGHT HE COULD RELAX, HE RECEIVED A BILL FROM THE CITY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE FOR THE $60,798.94 IT SPENT LOSING RON'S CASE. RON IS EFFECTIVELY BEING PUNISHED FOR SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDING HIS PROPERTY RIGHTS AGAINST GOVERNMENT OVERREACH. UNDER BOTH THE U.S. AND CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONS, PROSECUTORS CANNOT HAVE A DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THEIR CASES. IJ JOINED RON IN APRIL 2019 TO VINDICATE HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND TO PROTECT ALL CALIFORNIA PROPERTY OWNERS FROM FALLING VICTIM TO ABUSIVE CODE ENFORCEMENT SCHEMES. THE HOMELESS CHARITY, ET AL. V. AKRON BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS; THE HOMELESS CHARITY, ET AL. V. CITY OF AKRON AKRON, OHIO, HAS A SOARING HOMELESS POPULATION, AND GOVERNMENT POLICY IS AT LEAST PARTLY TO BLAME FOR THIS CRISIS, DRIVING UP EXISTING HOUSING PRICES AND MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO BUILD LOW-COST ALTERNATIVES. SAGE LEWIS STEPPED UP TO PROVIDE REAL SUPPORT TO THOSE IN NEED BY ALLOWING A FEW HOMELESS MEN AND WOMEN TO PITCH THEIR TENTS IN THE BACK LOT OF HIS BUILDING AND KEEP WARM IN THE BASEMENT WHEN NEEDED. THIS INFORMAL ARRANGEMENT EVOLVED INTO A COMMUNITY DESIGNED TO HELP HOMELESS MEN AND WOMEN TRANSITION BACK TO INDEPENDENCE. BUT WHILE AKRON OFFICIALS DO NOT OFFER ADEQUATE SOLUTIONS TO THE CITY'S HOMELESS PROBLEM, THEY ARE ALL TOO QUICK TO USE ZONING LAWS TO SHUT DOWN SECOND CHANCE VILLAGE. IJ JOINED WITH SAGE IN OCTOBER 2018 TO VINDICATE THE RIGHT TO CARRY ON THIS NOBLE WORK BY KEEPING VULNERABLE PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS. UNFORTUNATELY, A DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED SAGE'S CASE AGAINST THE CITY ON A TECHNICALITY, BUT OUR SUIT AGAINST THE AKRON BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CONTINUES. BEAN, ET AL. V. SEATTLE, ET AL. WHEN IT COMES TO RESPECTING THE PROPERTY AND PRIVACY RIGHTS OF ITS RESIDENTS, THE CITY OF SEATTLE TREATS ITS RENTAL TENANTS AS SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS BY FORCING THEM TO ALLOW GOVERNMENT-MANDATED INSPECTORS INTO THEIR HOMES WITHOUT FIRST GETTING A WARRANT. RENTERS MATTHEW BENTLEY, WESLEY WILLIAMS, AND JOSEPH BRIERE FOUND THAT OUT FIRSTHAND WHEN THE CITY INFORMED THEIR LANDLORD THAT THEIR HOME NEEDED TO BE INSPECTED BY A GOVERNMENT-MANDATED HOUSING INSPECTOR. BENTLEY, WILLIAMS, AND BRIERE, ALONG WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE ROOMMATES, ALL VALUE THEIR PRIVACY AND INFORMED THE CITY THAT THEY DID NOT WANT THEIR HOME INSPECTED. THEIR LANDLORDS AGREED, AND TOLD THE CITY THEIR TENANTS REFUSED TO ALLOW AN INSPECTOR TO ENTER AND INSPECT THEIR APARTMENT. THE CITY RESPONDED BY THREATENING FINES UPWARDS OF $500 PER DAY IF THE LANDLORDS DID NOT SOMEHOW COERCE THEIR TENANTS TO ALLOW THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL INSPECTION. THIS IS WHY BENTLEY, WILLIAMS, AND BRIERE, ALONG WITH THEIR LANDLORDS AND A GROUP OF OTHER RENTERS, PARTNERED TOGETHER WITH IJ IN DECEMBER 2018 TO FILE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST SEATTLE ASKING THE COURTS TO UPHOLD RENTERS' PRIVACY RIGHTS BY SHUTTING DOWN SEATTLE'S WARRANTLESS INSPECTIONS PROGRAM. UNFORTUNATELY, THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE CASE, AND IJ HAS TAKEN IT TO THE WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS. VALANCOURT BOOKS, LLC V. CLAGGETT, ET AL. VALANCOURT IS A SMALL PUBLISHING COMPANY OPERATED OUT OF THE RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, HOME OF JAMES JENKINS, A FORMER LAWYER WHO FOUND HIS LIFE'S CALLING REVIVING AND POPULARIZING RARE, NEGLECTED, AND OUT-OF-PRINT FICTION. VALANCOURT HAS PUBLISHED MORE THAN 300 BOOKS, ALL OF WHICH THEY HAVE PERMISSION TO REPRINT. BUT IN JUNE 2018, JAMES RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM THE U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE DEMANDING THAT HE PROVIDE IT WITH COPIES OF EVERY SINGLE BOOK IN VALANCOURT'S CATALOG AND THREATENING HIM WITH FINES THAT COULD REACH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IF HE FAILED TO COMPLY. A LITTLE-KNOWN PROVISION OF FEDERAL LAW MAKES IT ILLEGAL TO PUBLISH A NEW BOOK IN THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT PROVIDING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH TWO FREE COPIES. VALANCOURT BOOKS JOINED WITH THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE IN AUGUST 2018 TO FILE A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CLAIMING THAT THE BOOK-DEPOSIT MANDATE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE TAKINGS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND OPERATES AS A PENALTY ON PEOPLE WHO PUBLISH PHYSICAL BOOKS WITHOUT TURNING OVER A COPY. BUT THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T PUNISH PEOPLE SIMPLY FOR PUBLISHING A BOOK, AND THE NOTION THAT A PRIVATE CITIZEN OWES THE GOVERNMENT A DEBT SIMPLY FOR ENGAGING IN A CERTAIN KIND OF SPEECH IS ANTITHETICAL TO THE CONSTITUTION. |
| KAZAZI V. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION | IN OCTOBER OF 2017, RUSTEM KAZAZI, A FORMER POLICE OFFICER FROM ALBANIA, WAS STOPPED IN SECURITY AT THE CLEVELAND AIRPORT AND HAD $58,100 IN CASH SEIZED BY U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTIONS (CBP) - EVEN THOUGH HE HAD DONE NOTHING ILLEGAL. RUSTEM WAS FLYING TO NEW JERSEY AND THEN RETURNING TO HIS NATIVE COUNTRY WITH 12 YEARS' WORTH OF FAMILY SAVINGS TO FIND A PROPERTY HE AND HIS WIFE COULD ENJOY IN RETIREMENT. ADDING INSULT TO INJURY, CBP CLAIMED LATER THAT THEY ONLY TOOK $57,330 - $770 LESS THAN HE WAS ACTUALLY CARRYING. SOON AFTER IJ GOT INVOLVED, THE GOVERNMENT AGREED TO RETURN $57,115. IN NOVEMBER 2018, THE GOVERNMENT AGREED TO RETURN A FURTHER $385. IJ RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT $43,280 IN FEES IN JULY 2019. BRUCKER V. CITY OF DORAVILLE EACH YEAR, THE CITY OF DORAVILLE, GEORGIA, BUDGETS BETWEEN 17% AND 30% OF ITS OVERALL ANTICIPATED REVENUE TO COME FROM FINES AND FEES ISSUED BY ITS POLICE OFFICERS AND CODE INSPECTORS. BY PUTTING FINE REVENUE INTO ITS ANNUAL BUDGET, DORAVILLE CREATES A PERVERSE INCENTIVE FOR POLICE, PROSECUTORS, AND EVEN ITS MUNICIPAL COURT TO POLICE FOR PROFIT, RATHER THAN SEEK JUSTICE AND PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE CITY. DORAVILLE HOMEOWNER HILDA BRUCKER WAS FINED AND SENTENCED TO SIX MONTHS OF PROBATION FOR THE "CRIME" OF HAVING CRACKS IN HER DRIVEWAY. HILDA'S NEIGHBOR JEFF THORNTON WAS FINED $1,000 FOR THE CRIME OF HAVING A STACK OF FIREWOOD IN HIS BACKYARD. THAT IS WHY IN MAY 2018, HILDA, JEFF, AND TWO OTHERS PARTNERED WITH THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE TO STOP DORAVILLE'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL RELIANCE ON FINES AND FEES INCOME, AND TO FORCE THE CITY TO NOT USE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO BALANCE ITS BUDGET. AFTER A FIRST-ROUND VICTORY IN APRIL 2019 AND A SECOND WIN THAT JULY, IJ IS CONTINUING TO FIGHT IN COURT TO END DORAVILLE'S ILLEGAL CASH GRAB. SERRANO V. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION WHILE GERARDO SERRANO WAS CROSSING THE BORDER INTO MEXICO AT EAGLE PASS, TEXAS, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) USED CIVIL FORFEITURE TO SEIZE HIS TRUCK. AGENTS HAD FOUND FIVE LOW-CALIBER BULLETS IN HIS CENTER CONSOLE WHICH, ACCORDING TO CBP, CONSTITUTED TRANSPORTING "MUNITIONS OF WAR," MAKING THE TRUCK SUBJECT TO CIVIL FORFEITURE. FOR OVER TWO YEARS, THE AGENCY HELD GERARDO'S TRUCK WITHOUT EVER TAKING ITS CASE BEFORE A JUDGE - ALL WHILE GERARDO CONTINUED TO MAKE HIS MONTHLY CAR PAYMENTS. DONE WAITING, GERARDO JOINED WITH THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE TO SUE TO GET HIS PROPERTY BACK, AND IN OCTOBER 2017, THE GOVERNMENT FINALLY RETURNED GERARDO'S TRUCK. WHILE GERARDO HAS RECOVERED HIS OWN TRUCK, THE CASE IS STILL ONGOING, AS WE FILED SUIT ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD THEIR VEHICLES SEIZED BY CBP AND ARE BEING HELD WITHOUT A HEARING. WE ARE CURRENTLY AWAITING A RULING FROM THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 5TH CIRCUIT. NWAORIE V. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION ANTHONIA NWAORIE IS A REGISTERED NURSE AND AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO WAS EN ROUTE TO NIGERIA IN OCTOBER 2017, WITH $41,377 SHE HAD SAVED TO OPEN A MEDICAL CLINIC. BUT AT HOUSTON'S GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINENTAL AIRPORT, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) AGENTS DISCOVERED HER MONEY AND TOOK EVERY PENNY - EVEN THOUGH SHE OBTAINED THE MONEY LEGALLY AND PLANNED TO USE IT LEGALLY. CBP STATED IT WOULD RETURN HER MONEY ONLY IF SHE SIGNED AN AGREEMENT WAIVING HER RIGHT TO INTEREST ON THE SEIZED PROPERTY AND HER RIGHTS TO SUE CBP OVER ANYTHING RELATED TO THE CONFISCATION OF HER MONEY. ANTHONIA TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FILE A FEDERAL CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST CBP, AND WITHIN JUST ONE MONTH, SHE RECEIVED HER MONEY BACK. YET, IJ FORGED AHEAD WITH THE LAWSUIT TO END CBP'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR. WE RECEIVED A SETBACK IN AUGUST 2019 WHEN A DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE CASE, BUT WE HAVE APPEALED THE DISMISSAL TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 5TH CIRCUIT. MORALES V. CITY OF INDIO, ET AL. LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN INDIO, CALIFORNIA, TEAMED UP WITH A PRIVATE LAW FIRM TO CHARGE PROPERTY OWNERS TO COVER THE COSTS OF THEIR OWN PROSECUTIONS. UNDER THIS OUTRAGEOUS SCHEME, THE LAW FIRM PROVIDED INDIO AND SEVERAL OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH "COST-NEUTRAL" CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES. THIS MEANS THAT EVERY TICKET THE CITY ISSUED FOR VIOLATIONS SUCH AS UNMOWED GRASS OR "SUN-DAMAGED" ADDRESS NUMBERS WAS MONEY IN THE BANK FOR THE CITY AND FOR THE LAW FIRM, WHICH THEN BILLED PROPERTY OWNERS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR "PROSECUTION FEES." IF OWNERS DARED TO CONTEST THE FEES, THEIR LEGAL BILLS SIMPLY GREW LARGER. IJ FILED A CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST THE CITY IN FEBRUARY 2018 TO PUT A STOP TO THIS EGREGIOUS FORM OF POLICING FOR PROFIT. AND THAT DECEMBER, WE WON A RESOUNDING VICTORY WHEN THE CITY OF INDIO AGREED TO RETURN THE MONEY OF EVERYONE WHO WAS VICTIMIZED BY THE CITY'S SCHEME. IT WAS A WELCOME RELIEF FOR OUR CLIENT RAMONA MORALES AND COUNTLESS OTHERS LIKE HER. THE CASE WILL OFFICIALLY CONCLUDE ONCE THE COURT GRANTS FINAL APPROVAL TO THE SETTLEMENT. EL-SHABAZZ, ET AL. V. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL. IN A FEDERAL CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT, IJ IS REPRESENTING THREE RENTERS TO CHALLENGE NEW YORK CITY'S "NO-FAULT" EVICTION LAW, WHICH ALLOWS POLICE TO SHUTTER A PROPERTY AND EVICT THE TENANT SIMPLY BECAUSE A CRIME OCCURRED ON THE PREMISES - EVEN IF THE TENANT HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE CRIME. IJ CLIENT SUNG CHO OPERATES A LAUNDROMAT IN A RENTAL SPACE IN MANHATTAN AND FELL PREY TO THE SCHEME IN 2013, WHEN UNDERCOVER POLICE WENT TO THE LAUNDROMAT ASKING CUSTOMERS IF THEY WANTED TO PURCHASE STOLEN ELECTRONICS. NEITHER SUNG NOR ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES WERE INVOLVED IN THE STING, BUT BECAUSE TWO CUSTOMERS TOOK THE BAIT, SUNG WAS THREATENED WITH EVICTION. THE CITY OFFERED TO DROP THE ACTION IF SUNG AGREED TO WAIVE HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO REFUSE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES, GIVE POLICE UNLIMITED ACCESS TO HIS SECURITY CAMERAS, AND CONSENT TO FINES AND SANCTIONS FOR ALLEGED CRIMINAL OFFENSES AT THE BUSINESS WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO BEFORE A JUDGE. THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE CASE ON JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS IN JANUARY 2018, HOLDING THAT SUCH A CLAIM CAN ONLY BE BROUGHT IN STATE COURT. THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 2ND CIRCUIT REVERSED THIS RULING IN DECEMBER 2018, AND THE CASE IS NOW MOVING FORWARD IN THE DISTRICT COURT. PLATT V. MOORE ARIZONA RESIDENTS TERRY AND RIA PLATT LOANED THEIR CAR TO THEIR SON WHO WAS PULLED OVER BY POLICE FOR A WINDOW TINT VIOLATION. THE POLICE FOUND CASH AND A SMALL AMOUNT OF PERSONAL-USE MARIJUANA, BOTH OF WHICH THE SON ACKNOWLEDGED WERE HIS. EVEN THOUGH ARIZONA LAW DOES NOT ALLOW FORFEITURE OF A CAR UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE POLICE AND PROSECUTOR STILL SEIZED AND HELD THE PLATTS' CAR. NAVAJO COUNTY PROSECUTORS THEN USED A TROUBLING PROCEDURE THAT TURNS PROSECUTORS INTO JUDGES TO KEEP THE PLATTS FROM HAVING THEIR DAY IN COURT. A MONTH AFTER THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE GOT INVOLVED, THE GOVERNMENT RELENTED AND RETURNED THE CAR TO TERRY AND RIA. IN RESPONSE TO CASES LIKE THE PLATTS', THE ARIZONA LEGISLATURE ENACTED IMPORTANT REFORMS TO THE STATE'S FORFEITURE SYSTEM. BUT ARIZONA STILL ALLOWS "UNCONTESTED FORFEITURE" FROM THOSE WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH, MUCH LESS CONVICTED OF, ANY CRIME. SO, THE PLATTS AND IJ ARE CONTINUING TO FIGHT IN COURT TO ENSURE THE VIOLATION OF TERRY AND RIA'S RIGHTS IS RECOGNIZED AND TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING TO THEM OR OTHERS IN THE FUTURE. CITY OF DALLAS V. HINGA MBOGO, HINGA AUTOMOTIVE CO., D/B/A HINGA AUTO REPAIR, AND 3516 ROSS AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS FOR 30 YEARS, KENYAN IMMIGRANT HINGA MBOGO HAS OWNED AND OPERATED HIS AUTO GARAGE ON ROSS AVENUE IN DALLAS. BUT THEN THE CITY DEMANDED THAT HINGA CLOSE UP SHOP AND LEAVE BECAUSE HIS POPULAR GARAGE DID NOT FIT THE CITY COUNCIL'S VISION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SEVERAL YEARS AGO, THE CITY PASSED RETROACTIVE ZONING LAWS - A PROCESS OFFICIALLY KNOWN AS "AMORTIZATION" - AND SPECIFICALLY DISALLOWED ANY AUTOMOTIVE-RELATED BUSINESS IN THE ROSS STREET NEIGHBORHOOD. IN ADDITION, THE CITY SLAPPED HINGA WITH MORE THAN $300,000 IN FINES, EVEN THOUGH THE CITY REGULATIONS EXPLICITLY LIMIT FINES TO $2,000. HINGA AND IJ SOUGHT THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT'S REVIEW OF A LOWER COURT'S JULY 2017 DECISION THAT DISMISSED THE CASE, NOT JUST SO THAT HE COULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE HIS BUSINESS ON LAND HE HAS OWNED FOR DECADES, BUT ALSO TO SET PRECEDENT THAT PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. UNFORTUNATELY, HINGA'S LONG ROAD TO JUSTICE CAME TO AN ABRUPT AND FRUSTRATING END WHEN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO HEAR HIS CHALLENGE IN AUGUST 2019. |
| SOUROVELIS V. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA | IN SEPTEMBER 2018, IJ SUCCESSFULLY DISMANTLED THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA'S DRACONIAN FORFEITURE PROGRAM, USHERING IN LONG-AWAITED JUSTICE TO THE 35,000 PHILADELPHIANS WHO WERE STRIPPED OF THEIR PROPERTY AND THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. UNTIL IJ SUED, PHILADELPHIA ROUTINELY SEIZED HOMES, CARS, AND CASH WITHOUT NOTICE. IT FORCED OWNERS TO NAVIGATE THE NOTORIOUS "COURTROOM 478," WHERE SO-CALLED "HEARINGS" WERE RUN ENTIRELY BY PROSECUTORS, WITHOUT ANY JUDGES OR COURT-APPOINTED LAWYERS TO DEFEND PROPERTY OWNERS. MISSING EVEN A SINGLE "HEARING" MEANT THAT PROSECUTORS COULD PERMANENTLY TAKE AN OWNER'S PROPERTY, SELL IT, AND USE THE PROCEEDS FOR ANY LAW-ENFORCEMENT PURPOSE THEY WISHED, CREATING A PERVERSE INCENTIVE TO SEIZE PROPERTY FOR FORFEITURE. IJ PUT ALL THIS TO AN END BY SECURING TWO SWEEPING CONSENT DECREES - WHICH RECEIVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL IN MAY 2019 - THAT CURB THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES UNDER WHICH LAW ENFORCEMENT KEEPS AND USES FORFEITURE REVENUE, FUNDAMENTALLY REFORM PROCEDURES FOR SEIZING AND FORFEITING PROPERTY, AND ESTABLISH A $3 MILLION FUND TO COMPENSATE THOSE WHOSE PROPERTY WAS WRONGLY CONFISCATED. CASINO REINVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. CHARLES AND LUCINDA BIRNBAUM, ET AL. IN FEBRUARY 2019, IJ WON A DECISIVE VICTORY ON BEHALF OF PIANO TUNER CHARLIE BIRNBAUM, SAVING HIS LONGTIME FAMILY HOME FROM AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL EMINENT DOMAIN ATTEMPT. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, AFFIRMED IJ'S LOWER-COURT VICTORY FROM 2016, WHICH CALLED THE STATE'S ATTEMPT TO TAKE CHARLIE'S HISTORIC ATLANTIC CITY HOME "A MANIFEST ABUSE OF EMINENT DOMAIN POWER." THE LONG-RUNNING COURT BATTLE PIT BIRNBAUM'S FAMILY HISTORY AGAINST THE STATE CASINO REINVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WHICH SOUGHT TO TAKE THE HOME IN SERVICE OF A "DEVELOPMENT" PROJECT THAT IT COULD NEITHER EXPLAIN NOR IDENTIFY. THANKS TO THIS VICTORY, CHARLIE CAN FINALLY REST EASY KNOWING THAT THE HOME HE INHERITED FROM HIS PARENTS - HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS WHO IMMIGRATED TO AMERICA NEARLY 70 YEARS AGO - IS SAFE FROM THE STATE'S WRECKING BALL. IT ALSO SENDS A STRONG MESSAGE TO OTHER LAND-HUNGRY AGENCIES THAT IJ IS READY TO CHALLENGE ABUSIVE TAKINGS AND PROTECT THE SWEEPING REFORMS TO EMINENT DOMAIN LAWS WE HAVE WORKED SO HARD TO SECURE. FOR THIS VICTORY, IJ RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT $221,935 IN FEES IN DECEMBER 2019. FULL CIRCLE OF LIVING AND DYING, ET AL. V. SANCHEZ, ET AL. AKHILA MURPHY AND DONNA PEIZER ARE END-OF-LIFE DOULAS, HELPING PLAN HOME FUNERALS AND PROVIDING EMOTIONAL AND PRACTICAL SUPPORT TO THE DYING PERSON AND FAMILY. HOME FUNERALS ARE AN AMERICAN TRADITION LEGAL IN EVERY STATE, AND THEY ARE EXPERIENCING A RESURGENCE. IN DECEMBER 2019, THE CALIFORNIA CEMETERY AND FUNERAL BUREAU RULED THAT AKHILA AND DONNA'S BUSINESS IS AN UNLICENSED FUNERAL AGENCY, MEANING AKHILA AND DONNA MUST BECOME LICENSED FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND BUILD A FUNERAL HOME. THIS DECISION PROTECTS FUNERAL HOMES FROM COMPETITION WHILE LIMITING OPTIONS FOR GRIEVING FAMILIES. SO, AKHILA AND DONNA HAVE JOINED WITH IJ TO FILE A LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT TO DEFEND THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND THEIR FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING. GURROLA V. DUNCAN AND KEPPLE DARIO GURROLA LEARNED HOW TO FIGHT FIRES IN CALIFORNIA'S WELL-KNOWN INMATE FIREFIGHTING PROGRAM. WHEN HE FINALLY TURNED HIS LIFE AROUND, HE THOUGHT HE COULD TURN THE SKILLS HE LEARNED WHILE INCARCERATED INTO A GOOD CAREER SERVING THE PUBLIC AS A FIREFIGHTER. BUT CALIFORNIA, DESPITE USING THOUSANDS OF INMATES TO FIGHT ITS INCREASINGLY DESTRUCTIVE WILDFIRES, PERMANENTLY BANS THOSE SAME PEOPLE FROM RECEIVING THE EMT CERTIFICATION NEEDED TO BECOME A CAREER FIREFIGHTER IF THEY HAVE MORE THAN ONE FELONY ON THEIR RECORD - EVEN WHEN THE CONVICTIONS ARE OLD AND IRRELEVANT. SO, ALTHOUGH HE HAS ALL THE NECESSARY SKILLS AND TRAINING, DARIO CAN ONLY WORK AS A VOLUNTEER OR SEASONAL FIREFIGHTER. DARIO AND IJ ARE CHALLENGING THIS UNJUST RESTRICTION TO VINDICATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF DARIO AND THOUSANDS LIKE HIM TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING. HARPER V. CITY OF LINCOLN, ET AL. IN 2019, NEBRASKA JOINED THE VAST MAJORITY OF STATES IN ALLOWING HOME BAKERS TO SELL THEIR SHELF-STABLE GOODS DIRECTLY TO INFORMED CONSUMERS WITHOUT THE BURDENSOME PERMITTING AND INSPECTIONS THAT APPLY TO RESTAURANTS. LINCOLN'S CINDY HARPER, WHO HAD TESTIFIED IN FAVOR OF THE CHANGE, STARTED SELLING HER SUGAR COOKIES AND CUPCAKES UNDER THE NEW LAW. SUCH FOODS ARE SAFE AND GIVE BUYERS AND SELLERS GREATER CHOICE ABOUT WHAT TO EAT AND HOW TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES. A FEW MONTHS LATER, HOWEVER, THE CITY OF LINCOLN PASSED NEW REGULATIONS LOCALLY THAT SUBJECT LINCOLN HOME BAKERS TO MANY OF THE SAME PERMITTING AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS THE NEBRASKA LEGISLATURE EXEMPTED THEM FROM. LOCAL ORDINANCES CANNOT PREEMPT STATE LAW, SO CINDY AND IJ ARE CHALLENGING LINCOLN'S ORDINANCE IN COURT. BARNES AND MISSION INVESTIGATIONS GROUP, LLC, V. JESS L. ANDERSON, ET AL. IJ SCORED A FAST VICTORY FOR ECONOMIC LIBERTY WHEN IT CHALLENGED UTAH'S RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR LICENSES ON BEHALF OF JEREMY BARNES, WHO LIVES JUST OVER THE BORDER IN IDAHO AND WANTS TO EXPAND HIS BUSINESS INTO THE BEEHIVE STATE. RECOGNIZING THAT RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY INDEFENSIBLE, THE UTAH LEGISLATURE PASSED A BILL IN JUNE 2020 REMOVING THIS REQUIREMENT, JUST TWO MONTHS AFTER IJ FILED SUIT. N'DA AND DIGNITY NON-EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, INC., V. HYBL, ET AL. MARC N'DA RUNS A HOME HEALTH AGENCY, AND WHEN HE SAW HIS PATIENTS GETTING BAD SERVICE FROM NON-EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES, HE DECIDED TO START HIS OWN COMPANY TO PROVIDE BETTER SERVICE. TO DO SO, HE NEEDS A "CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY" FROM THE GOVERNMENT. SUCH LAWS PROTECT ESTABLISHED BUSINESSES BY SHUTTING OUT NEW COMPETITION, RAISING PRICES AND LOWERING SERVICE. AMONG OTHER REQUIREMENTS, MARC MUST GET PERMISSION FROM HIS COMPETITORS BEFORE HE CAN BEGIN OPERATING. NOT SURPRISINGLY, THOSE COMPETITORS SAID "NO." SO, MARC HAS TEAMED UP WITH THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE TO PROTECT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING. THE GOOD NEWS FOR MARC AND HIS PATIENTS IS THAT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT AND THE INSIDERS ARE DOING IS NOT ONLY WRONG BUT UNCONSTITUTIONAL - IT VIOLATES THREE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE NEBRASKA CONSTITUTION. HAY, ET AL. V. ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ET AL. WHEN KATHY HAY SAW HER NEIGHBORS IN ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON, STRUGGLING TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE, SHE BUILT A "LITTLE FREE PANTRY" ON HER PROPERTY SO THAT HER NEIGHBORS COULD TAKE AND DONATE FOOD. HER COMMUNITY APPRECIATED IT, BUT THE ASOTIN COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH DIDN'T. IN FEBRUARY 2020, THEY CLOSED HER PANTRY AND ORDERED HER TO COMPLY WITH A LONG LIST OF DEMANDS BEFORE SHE COULD REOPEN IT. LATER, AS THE COVID PANDEMIC RAGED AND PEOPLE ACROSS AMERICA WERE CONVERTING THEIR LITTLE LENDING LIBRARIES INTO PANTRIES, THE COUNTY SENT KATHY AN INVOICE FOR $2,800 AND A LETTER DEMANDING SHE PAY FOR THE ILLEGAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AGAINST HER. KATHY, NEIGHBORS WHO USED HER PANTRY, AND IJ HAVE FILED A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT TO STRIKE DOWN THE POLICIES THAT PREVENT KATHY FROM SHARING FOOD WITH THOSE IN NEED. MICKELSON, ET AL. V. NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. IN 2017, THE NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE PASSED THE COTTAGE FOOD ACT, GREATLY EXPANDING THE FREEDOM TO BUY AND SELL HOMEMADE FOODS. NORTH DAKOTANS LIKE FARMER DANIELLE MICKELSON USED THIS FOOD FREEDOM TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES AND CONSUME HOMEMADE FOODS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE AVAILABLE. BUT IN JANUARY 2020, THE NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, HAVING FAILED TO CONVINCE THE LEGISLATURE TO PASS NEW RESTRICTIONS ON FOOD FREEDOM, ILLEGALLY ISSUED REGULATIONS THAT ARBITRARILY BAN THE SALE OF ALL BUT A FEW TYPES OF HOMEMADE FOODS. STATE AGENCIES CANNOT PASS REGULATIONS THAT CONTRADICT STATUTES. IJ IS CHALLENGING THESE REGULATIONS SO THAT ALL NORTH DAKOTANS CAN ENJOY GREATER ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND A GREATER VARIETY OF FOODS TO CHOOSE FROM. |
| MILLS AND SOUTHWEST ENGINEERING CONCEPTS, LLC V. ARIZONA BOARD OF TECHNICAL | REGISTRATION, ET AL. FOR 12 YEARS, GREG MILLS HAS RUN AN ARIZONA ENGINEERING FIRM. LIKE 80% OF AMERICAN ENGINEERS, HE DOES NOT HAVE AN ENGINEER'S LICENSE, WHICH IS NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECTS THAT HE WORKS ON. BUT IN MAY 2019, THE ARIZONA BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION THREATENED TO SHUT DOWN GREG'S COMPANY AND FINE HIM BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HAVE AN EXTREMELY BURDENSOME STATE-ISSUED LICENSE, A LICENSE THAT THE BOARD'S OWN RULES SAY HE WOULDN'T NEED IF HE WORKED AT A MANUFACTURING COMPANY. GREG PARTNERED WITH IJ SO THAT HE AND OTHER ARIZONA ENGINEERS CAN DO THE WORK THEY ARE QUALIFIED TO DO WITHOUT UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCE FROM THE BOARD. IN MAY 2020, HOWEVER, THE MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT RULED THAT GREG COULD NOT SUE TO PROTECT HIS RIGHTS UNTIL THE BOARD FINISHED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AGAINST HIM. WE ARE APPEALING THIS RULING. SINGH, ET AL. V. NORTH CAROLINA DEP'T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.; SINGLETON AND SINGLETON VISION CENTER V. NORTH CAROLINA DEP'T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. NORTH CAROLINA MAKES IT ILLEGAL FOR DOCTORS TO OFFER NEW HEALTH CARE SERVICES, BUILD NEW FACILITIES OR BUY NEW EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OBTAINING A SPECIAL PERMIT CALLED A "CERTIFICATE OF NEED" (CON) FROM A BOARD DOMINATED BY REGULATORS AND INDUSTRY INSIDERS. IF THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT THERE ARE ALREADY "ENOUGH" PROVIDERS IN A COMMUNITY, DOCTORS ARE FORBIDDEN FROM OFFERING SERVICES TO PATIENTS WHO NEED THEM. BY STIFLING COMPETITION, CON LAWS DIRECTLY HARM THOUSANDS OF PATIENTS, WHO MUST SEEK EXPENSIVE TREATMENT FROM EXISTING PROVIDERS. IN 2018, IJ TEAMED UP WITH DR. GAJENDRA SINGH, WHO OPENED A CENTER IN 2017 TO PROVIDE X-RAYS, MRI SCANS, AND MORE AT AFFORDABLE PRICES. BUT A BOARD MADE UP OF HEALTH INDUSTRY INSIDERS DECIDED THERE WAS NO NEED FOR ANOTHER MRI SCANNER IN HIS REGION AND PREVENTED HIM FROM EVEN APPLYING.. IN THE SPRING OF 2020, DR. SINGH HAD TO CLOSE HIS IMAGING CENTER, IN PART BECAUSE OF THE COSTS IMPOSED BY THE CON LAW. AS A RESULT, DR. SINGH'S LAWSUIT COULD NOT CONTINUE, BUT SHORTLY THEREAFTER IJ JOINED UP WITH DR. JAY SINGLETON, AN OPHTHALMOLOGIST FROM NEW BERN, TO FILE A NEW CHALLENGE TO NORTH CAROLINA'S CON LAW. DR. SINGLETON OWNS A STATE-OF-THE-ART OUTPATIENT OPERATING FACILITY, BUT CAN'T EVEN START THE CON APPLICATION PROCESS TO PERFORM SURGERIES THERE BECAUSE A FORMULA PUT IN PLACE BY STATE REGULATORS HAS ALREADY DETERMINED THAT HIS COMMUNITY DOES NOT "NEED" ANOTHER SURGERY CENTER. TIWARI, ET AL. V. MEIER, ET AL. DIPENDRA TIWARI AND KISHOR SAPKOTAARE ARE NEPALI IMMIGRANTS WHO WANT TO START A HOME HEALTH AGENCY THAT CATERS TO THE LARGE NEPALI-SPEAKING POPULATION IN LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY. THEIR FUTURE COMPETITOR - A $2 BILLION HEALTH CARE CONGLOMERATE - ARGUED THAT THEIR NEW AGENCY WAS UNNEEDED, AND THE STATE OF KENTUCKY REFUSED TO ISSUE DIPENDRA AND KISHOR'S BUSINESS A CERTIFICATE OF NEED THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO OPERATE. SO, DIPENDRA, KISHOR, AND IJ ARE CHALLENGING KENTUCKY'S CON REQUIREMENT FOR HOME HEALTH AGENCIES IN FEDERAL COURT. THIS IS ONE OF SEVERAL IJ CASES CHALLENGING CON LAWS, WHICH ARTIFICIALLY LIMIT ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE AND RAISE COSTS. GARRETT AND HELD V. TEXAS STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY, ET AL.; BRIDGES, ET AL. V. MONTANA BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, ET AL. IN 44 STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DOCTORS CAN AND DO DISPENSE MEDICINE DIRECTLY TO THEIR PATIENTS. THIS CAN SAVE PATIENTS TIME AND MONEY AND MAKE IT MORE LIKELY THEY WILL FILL THEIR PRESCRIPTION. TEXAS AND MONTANA, HOWEVER, ALLOW ONLY DOCTORS IN CERTAIN RURAL AREAS TO DISPENSE MEDICATION, EVEN THOUGH DOCTOR DISPENSING IS JUST AS SAFE AS DISPENSING BY PHARMACIES. THE BANS SERVE ONLY TO PROTECT THE PROFITS OF PHARMACIES, NOT PUBLIC HEALTH. SO, IJ IS REPRESENTING DOCTORS FROM TEXAS AND MONTANA IN TWO LAWSUITS CHALLENGING THESE STATES' BANS ON DOCTOR DISPENSING. N'DAKPRI, ET AL. V. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, ET AL. IJ CONTINUES OUR BRAIDING FREEDOM INITIATIVE WITH A CASE IN LOUISIANA REPRESENTING THREE NATURAL HAIR BRAIDERS - ASHLEY N'DAKPRI, LYNN SCHOFIELD, AND MICHELLE ROBERTSON - WHO WANT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING BUT FACE ENORMOUS AND IRRATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING HURDLES. ALTHOUGH HAIR BRAIDING IS NOT A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY, THE LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY REQUIRES ANYONE SEEKING A BRAIDING LICENSE TO COMPLETE 500 HOURS OF UNNECESSARY AND IRRELEVANT TRAINING. THIS RUNS AFOUL OF THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION, WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO LICENSE SOMETHING AS SAFE AND COMMON AS BRAIDING HAIR. IN OCTOBER 2019, A JUDGE IN BATON ROUGE DENIED THE BOARD'S MOTION TO DISMISS, SO THE CASE CONTINUES. VISIBLY, INC. V. THE MEDICAL LICENSING BOARD OF INDIANA, ET AL.; OPTERNATIVE, INC. V. SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS CONSUMERS TO TAKE A ROUTINE VISION TEST IN THE COMFORT OF THEIR OWN HOME USING THEIR PERSONAL COMPUTER AND SMARTPHONE. AN OPHTHALMOLOGIST REVIEWS THE RESULTS AND WRITES A PRESCRIPTION. DEVELOPED BY HEALTHCARE STARTUP VISIBLY, THESE TESTS ARE INEXPENSIVE AND ENABLE MORE PEOPLE TO GET EYEGLASS PRESCRIPTIONS MORE QUICKLY AND EASILY THAN EVER BEFORE. OPTOMETRISTS HAVE GONE TO EXTRAORDINARY LENGTHS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM ONLINE COMPETITORS LIKE VISIBLY. FOR EXAMPLE, THE INDIANA AND SOUTH CAROLINA OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATIONS AGGRESSIVELY LOBBIED TO CONVINCE LEGISLATORS TO BAN THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE EYE CARE SPACE. IN APRIL 2019, IJ FILED SUIT IN INDIANA TO STAMP OUT THIS BLATANT ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM AND PROTECT BOTH THE RIGHTS OF ENTREPRENEURS TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING, AND THE RIGHTS OF DOCTORS AND PATIENTS TO BENEFIT FROM MODERN TECHNOLOGY. UNFORTUNATELY, VISIBLY AND IJ HAD TO DISMISS THIS LAWSUIT THAT AUGUST DUE TO A SHIFT IN HOW THE FDA CLASSIFIES ONLINE VISION TESTING SOFTWARE. WE ARE CONTINUING TO LITIGATE A SIMILAR CASE IN SOUTH CAROLINA, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ON APPEAL BEFORE THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. HIGHT V. U.S. DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY CAPTAIN HIGHT HAS BEEN A MERCHANT MARINER FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS, WITH EIGHT OF THOSE YEARS SPENT COMMANDING SHIPS ALL OVER THE WORLD. BUT HE DECIDED TO RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES AND SEEK EMPLOYMENT CLOSER TO HIS FAMILY, WORKING TOWARD GETTING HIS LICENSE TO PILOT COMMERCIAL VESSELS ON THE SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY AND LAKE ONTARIO. PILOTING ON THE GREAT LAKES IS HIGHLY REGULATED, AND CAPTAIN HIGHT WAS REQUIRED BY THE COAST GUARD TO TRAIN WITH THE SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY PILOTS' ASSOCIATION, A FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS. AFTER DISAGREEMENTS OVER THE FINANCIAL PRACTICES OF THE ASSOCIATION'S LEADERSHIP, THE ASSOCIATION SUDDENLY INFORMED THE COAST GUARD THAT IT RECOMMENDED AGAINST GRANTING CAPTAIN HIGHT A LICENSE. WITH NO MEANINGFUL WAY TO CONTEST THE RECOMMENDATION WITH THE COAST GUARD, HIGHT TEAMED UP WITH THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE LAST MARCH TO DEFEND HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND ASK THE COAST GUARD TO STOP THE PRACTICE OF DELEGATING ITS POWER TO THE SELF-INTERESTED PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. A VICTORY IN THIS CASE WOULD BOTH VINDICATE CAPTAIN HIGHT AND CURB UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWMAKING AUTHORITY AMONG SIMILAR ASSOCIATIONS NATIONWIDE. SURFVIVE, ET AL. V. CITY OF SOUTH PADRE ISLAND YOU MIGHT THINK THAT SOUTH PADRE ISLAND, A POPULAR BEACH-FRONT TOURIST DESTINATION IN TEXAS, WOULD BE A HAVEN FOR FOOD TRUCKS. INSTEAD, THE CITY GOVERNMENT CAPS FOOD TRUCK PERMITS AT ONLY 12 AND REQUIRES FOOD TRUCKS GET A RESTAURANT OWNER'S APPROVAL ON THEIR APPLICATION. NOT ONLY DOES THIS MEAN LESS CHOICE AND HIGHER PRICES FOR SOUTH PADRE ISLAND RESIDENTS AND VISITORS, IT VIOLATES THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, WHICH FORBIDS LAWS THAT SERVE ONLY TO PROTECT BUSINESSES FROM COMPETITION. IJ TEAMED UP WITH SURFVIVE - A LOCAL NONPROFIT'S FOOD TRUCK - AND FOOD TRUCK OWNERS ANUBIS AND RAMSES AVALOS TO CHALLENGE SOUTH PADRE ISLAND'S LAW. THIS CASE IS PART OF IJ'S NATIONAL STREET VENDING INITIATIVE, WHICH SEEKS TO VINDICATE THE RIGHTS OF STREET VENDORS NATIONWIDE. |
| HAVEMAN, ET AL. V. BUREAU OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL AFFAIRS, ET AL. | IJ IS TAKING ON A PENNSYLVANIA LAW THAT NOT ONLY VIOLATES DUE PROCESS AND THE RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION; IT ALSO GIVES EVEN MORE POWER TO ALREADY UNACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. THE COMMONWEALTH'S COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCE LAW, WHICH REQUIRES INDIVIDUALS TO HAVE "GOOD MORAL CHARACTER" IN ORDER TO GET A LICENSE, DENIES EX-OFFENDERS LIKE OUR CLIENTS COURTNEY HAVEMAN AND AMANDA SPILLANE FROM CONTRIBUTING TO SOCIETY AND HAVING A SECOND CHANCE AT LIFE. AFTER SPENDING MONTHS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ATTENDING COSMETOLOGY SCHOOL, COURTNEY AND AMANDA WERE DENIED A LICENSE DESPITE BOTH HAVING TURNED THEIR LIVES AROUND YEARS AGO AND THE FACT THAT THEIR PRIOR CONVICTIONS HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP TO BEAUTY AND FACIAL CARE. REFUSING TO GIVE UP, THEY JOINED WITH IJ TO BRING AN END TO THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT IN DECEMBER 2018. IN JUNE 2020, THE PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE PASSED AN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING REFORM BILL THAT WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE LIKE COURTNEY AND AMANDA TO RECEIVE LICENSES. WE ARE PUSHING FOR A DECISION IN THIS CASE TO HELP CHALLENGE UNREASONABLE LAWS THAT MAKE IT HARDER FOR AMERICANS TO WORK IN THE FIELD OF THEIR CHOOSING. DIAZ, ET AL. V. CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, ET AL. IN FEBRUARY 2019, A FLORIDA CIRCUIT COURT ISSUED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STATING THAT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE CANNOT ENFORCE ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BAN ON FOOD TRUCKS OPERATING WITHIN 500 FEET OF ANOTHER ESTABLISHMENT THAT SELLS FOOD. FORT PIERCE'S LAW WAS CREATED IN 2014 FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING RESTAURANT OWNERS FROM COMPETITION. FOOD TRUCK OWNERS BENNY DIAZ AND BRIAN PEFFER JOINED WITH THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE IN DECEMBER 2018 TO CHALLENGE THE BAN AND, THANKS TO THIS RULING, THEY AND OTHER FOOD TRUCK OWNERS CAN OPERATE THEIR FOOD TRUCKS WHILE LITIGATION CONTINUES, UNTIL THE BAN IS STRUCK DOWN FOR GOOD. JACKSON, ET AL. V. KEMP, ET AL. IN A MAJOR VICTORY FOR ECONOMIC FREEDOM IN THE PEACH STATE, THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT RULED IN MAY 2020 THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE STATE'S NEW LACTATION CONSULTANT LICENSE WILL GO FORWARD. REVERSING A TRIAL COURT DECISION THAT HAD DISMISSED THE CASE IN 2019, THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY AFFIRMED THAT IT HAS "LONG INTERPRETED THE GEORGIA CONSTITUTION AS PROTECTING A RIGHT TO WORK IN ONE'S CHOSEN PROFESSION FREE FROM UNREASONABLE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE." MARY JACKSON, A CERTIFIED LACTATION COUNSELOR, AND REACHING OUR SISTERS EVERYWHERE (ROSE) - A NONPROFIT DEDICATED TO PROVIDING BREASTFEEDING SUPPORT TO MINORITY COMMUNITIES - JOINED WITH IJ IN JUNE 2018 TO CHALLENGE GEORGIA'S MANDATE THAT LACTATION CONSULTANTS BE CERTIFIED BY A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION TO BECOME INTERNATIONAL BOARD CERTIFIED LACTATION CONSULTANTS (IBCLC). DOING SO REQUIRES ROUGHLY TWO YEARS OF COLLEGE COURSES AND MORE THAN 300 HOURS OF SUPERVISED CLINICAL WORK. IJ'S CLIENTS HAVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, AND THERE IS NO PROOF THAT BEING IBCLC-CERTIFIED IMPROVES THE QUALITY OF CARE. VERY FEW LACTATION CONSULTANTS IN GEORGIA ARE IBCLC-CERTIFIED. THIS CASE SERVES TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS, AND THE RIGHTS OF NON-IBCLC LACTATION CONSULTANTS ACROSS THE STATE, TO EARN A LIVING PROVIDING MOTHERS AND BABIES WITH THE CARE THEY NEED. WHITE COTTAGE RED DOOR, LLC V. TOWN OF GIBRALTAR LISA AND KEVIN HOWARD, ALONG WITH JESSICA AND CHRIS HADRABA, OPENED A FOOD TRUCK OUTSIDE THEIR FAMILY BUSINESS IN FISH CREEK, WISCONSIN. DESPITE OBTAINING THE PROPER STATE AND COUNTY PERMITS FOR THEIR TRUCK, THE TOWN'S CONSTABLE TOLD THE QUARTET TO STOP VENDING AND HAD THE COUNTY REVOKE THE TRUCK'S ZONING PERMIT. WHEN THE COUNTY REFUSED, THE TOWN BOARD PASSED A TOTAL BAN ON VENDING GOODS FROM MOBILE VEHICLES, INCLUDING FOOD TRUCKS. AT THE ROOT OF THE BAN IS THE TOWN BOARD'S SCHEME TO PROTECT ESTABLISHED RESTAURANTS FROM HEALTHY COMPETITION. WITH IJ'S HELP, LISA, KEVIN, JESSICA, AND CHRIS ARE CHALLENGING THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL VENDING BAN TO SAVE THEIR BUSINESS AND ESTABLISH THAT VENDORS' RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING DOES NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER THEIR BUSINESSES HAVE WHEELS OR NOT. IN NOVEMBER 2019, A JUDGE DENIED THE TOWN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE LAWSUIT, SO THE CASE CONTINUES. SANCHEZ V. OFFICE OF THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION IJ JOINED WITH ALTAGRACIA YLUMINADA "ILUMI" SANCHEZ IN APRIL 2018 TO FIGHT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S OFFICE OF THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION'S (OSSE) REGULATIONS REQUIRING MANY OF THE CITY'S DAY CARE PROVIDERS TO GO TO COLLEGE OR LOSE THEIR JOBS. THESE DISASTROUS REGULATIONS WOULD HAVE CAREER-ENDING CONSEQUENCES FOR ILUMI, WHO RUNS A DAY CARE IN HER HOME IN NORTHEAST D.C. AND HAS WORKED WITH CHILDREN FOR OVER 20 YEARS SINCE COMING TO THE U.S. FROM HER NATIVE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC. TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW REGULATIONS AND RETURN TO SCHOOL FOR A DEGREE IRRELEVANT TO CHILDCARE IS TOO MUCH OF A STRAIN ON ILUMI'S TIME AND MONEY. FOR PARENTS, THE REGULATIONS WOULD RAISE PRICES AND LOWER OPTIONS. IN MAY 2020, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT REJECTED A LOWER COURT'S DISMISSAL OF THE LAWSUIT. A WIN IN THIS CASE WILL ENSURE THAT ILUMI AND HUNDREDS OF D.C. DAY CARE PROVIDERS MAY CONTINUE TO DO WHAT THEY LOVE WITHOUT UNWARRANTED GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. RUSSINKO, ET AL. V. NEW JERSEY DEP'T OF HEALTH, ET AL. HOME BAKERS HEATHER RUSSINKO, LIZ CIBOTARIU, AND MARTHA RABELLO HAVE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO CONTEST THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH'S REQUIREMENT THAT THEY BE LICENSED AS A "RETAIL FOOD ESTABLISHMENT" TO SELL THEIR HOMEMADE GOODS. THIS ENTAILS USING A COMMERCIAL-GRADE KITCHEN THAT IS SEPARATE FROM ONE'S PERSONAL HOME KITCHEN, PAYING FEES, AND ABIDING BY HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF REGULATIONS. BANNING THE SALE OF HOME-BAKED GOODS DIRECTLY TO CONSUMERS SERVES NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO GIVE COMMERCIAL BAKERS UNDUE PROTECTION FROM COMPETITION. THE COURT SERVED IJ AND THE HOME BAKERS A FIRST-ROUND VICTORY IN APRIL 2018, WHEN IT DENIED THE NEW JERSEY HEALTH DEPARTMENT'S REQUEST TO DISMISS THE LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE STATE'S BAN. IN APRIL 2020, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT PUBLISHED PROPOSED RULES THAT WOULD ALLOW HEATHER, LIZ, MARTHA, AND OTHER NEW JERSEY BAKERS TO SELL THEIR HOMEMADE BAKED GOODS. SHAW, ET AL. V. METRO. GOV'T OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, IS THE CENTER OF COUNTRY MUSIC. YET, INCREDIBLY, THE CITY BANNED MUSICIANS FROM MAKING MUSIC IN THEIR OWN HOMES. NASHVILLE HAD OUTLAWED HOME-BASED BUSINESSES, PREVENTING LOCAL MUSICIANS, HAIR STYLISTS, AND OTHER BUDDING ENTREPRENEURS FROM BUILDING THEIR OWN AMERICAN DREAM. NASHVILLE RESIDENTS LIKE IJ CLIENTS LIJ SHAW AND PAT RAYNOR FACED STEEP FINES IF ANY CUSTOMERS PHYSICALLY CAME TO THEIR HOMES TO DO BUSINESS. IJ AND THE BEACON CENTER OF TENNESSEE TEAMED UP TO VINDICATE PEOPLE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO USE THEIR HOMES TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING. IN OCTOBER 2019, A NASHVILLE COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT. WE HAVE APPEALED THAT RULING. KING AND MARTIN V. LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO. GOVERNMENT NOBODY SHOULD NEED THEIR COMPETITORS' PERMISSION TO OPERATE A BUSINESS. THAT'S WHY, IN 2017, TWO LOUISVILLE FOOD TRUCK OWNERS TEAMED UP WITH THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE TO FIGHT A CITY LAW THAT BANNED TRUCKS FROM OPERATING WITHIN 150 FEET OF ANY RESTAURANT THAT SELLS SIMILAR FOOD. LOUISVILLE, RECOGNIZING THAT ITS 150-FOOT RULE FLUNKED A CONSTITUTIONAL TEST, WISELY REPEALED THE RULE IN MARCH OF 2018. FURTHERMORE, THE CITY AGREED TO A FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE IN WHICH IT PROMISED TO TREAT FOOD TRUCKS JUST LIKE ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. IN AUGUST 2019, AFTER EIGHT MONTHS OF STONEWALLING, IJ RECEIVED EMAILS REVEALING HOW A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER COORDINATED WITH RESTAURANT OWNERS TO TRY TO UNDERMINE THE CONSENT DECREE. THE RESULTING UPROAR LED THE COUNCIL TO GET RID OF THE ORDINANCE'S ANTI-COMPETITIVE PROVISIONS. BIRCHANSKY, ET AL. V. CLABAUGH, ET AL. CERTIFICATE OF NEED (CON) LAWS REQUIRE MEDICAL PROVIDERS TO PROVE TO THE GOVERNMENT THAT THERE IS A "NEED" FOR NEW MEDICAL SERVICES BEFORE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO OFFER THEM. IJ CLIENT OPHTHALMOLOGIST LEE BIRCHANSKY IS JUST ONE CASUALTY OF THIS SYSTEM. FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS, DR. BIRCHANSKY HAS TRIED TO OPEN HIS OWN OUTPATIENT SURGERY CENTER NEXT TO HIS OFFICE IN CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA. THOUGH HE IS RECOGNIZED AS ONE OF THE TOP OPHTHALMOLOGISTS IN THE COUNTRY, DR. BIRCHANSKY WAS DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF NEED TO OPEN HIS CENTER ON FOUR SEPARATE OCCASIONS - EACH TIME AFTER TWO EXISTING OPERATING FACILITIES INTERVENED TO PROTECT THEIR BUSINESSES FROM COMPETITION. UNFORTUNATELY, THE FEDERAL TRIAL COURT RULED AGAINST DR. BIRCHANSKY AND THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS, AND, IN APRIL 2020, THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THAT RULING. HOWEVER, THERE IS SOME GOOD NEWS: DURING LITIGATION, IOWA GRANTED DR. BIRCHANSKY'S CON APPLICATION. DR. BIRCHANSKY CAN FINALLY OPEN HIS CENTER, EVEN IF OTHER DOCTORS - AND THEIR PATIENTS - REMAIN SHUT OUT. |
| ALEXIS BAILLY VINEYARD AND THE NEXT CHAPTER WINERY V. DOHMAN | A LITTLE-KNOWN MINNESOTA LAW REQUIRES WINERIES IN THE STATE MAKE THEIR WINE PRIMARILY USING GRAPES GROWN IN MINNESOTA, EVEN THOUGH FEW TYPES OF GRAPES CAN GROW IN MINNESOTA'S CLIMATE. THIS LAW HURTS THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF MINNESOTA VINEYARDS, MAKES IT HARDER FOR MINNESOTA WINE-LOVERS TO LOCALLY FIND THE KINDS OF WINES THEY LIKE, AND HINDERS THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT BINDS AMERICA TOGETHER. IJ JOINED FORCES WITH TWO MINNESOTA WINERIES, ALEXIS BAILLY VINEYARD AND NEXT CHAPTER WINERY, TO CHALLENGE THIS ONEROUS AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW. IN APRIL 2018, A FEDERAL JUDGE DISMISSED THE SUIT ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS, BUT IN JULY 2019, THE 8TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THIS DECISION AND SENT THE CASE BACK TO TRIAL COURT. PIZZA DI JOEY, LLC V. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE IN MAY 2016, TWO BALTIMORE-AREA FOOD TRUCKS - PIZZA DI JOEY AND MINDGRUB CAFE - JOINED WITH IJ TO FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY CHALLENGING ITS BAN ON MOBILE VENDORS OPERATING WITHIN 300 FEET OF ANY BRICK-AND-MORTAR ESTABLISHMENT SELLING SIMILAR FOOD. AND ON DECEMBER 20, 2017, A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE RULED THAT THE 300-FOOT BAN WAS TOO VAGUE, GIVING BALTIMORE 60 DAYS TO STOP ENFORCING IT. UNFORTUNATELY, IN MAY 2019, AN APPEALS COURT OVERTURNED THAT DECISION AND REINSTATED THE RULE. IJ AND THE FOOD TRUCK OWNERS KEPT UP THE FIGHT AGAINST THIS PROTECTIONIST LAW AND APPEALED TO THE MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS, THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT. WE ARE AWAITING A RULING TO SEE IF BALTIMORE RESIDENTS CAN ENJOY THE INCREASED CHOICE AND LOWER PRICES THAT MORE COMPETITION FROM FOOD TRUCK WOULD BRING. BURKE V. CITY OF CHICAGO IN A BLOW TO FOOD FREEDOM IN MAY 2019, THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT UPHELD TWO PROVISIONS OF CHICAGO'S LAW THAT BLOCK FOOD TRUCKS FROM PARKING WITHIN 200 FEET OF RESTAURANTS AND REQUIRE THEY INSTALL GPS DEVICES SO CITY OFFICIALS MAY TRACK THEIR EVERY MOVE. THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE CHALLENGED THESE TWO PROVISIONS IN 2012 ON BEHALF OF LAURA PEKARIK, OWNER OF THE CUPCAKES FOR COURAGE FOOD TRUCK. NOT ONLY DOES CHICAGO'S RULE STYMIE A COMMON, LOW-COST PATH INTO THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY FOR THE CITY'S ENTREPRENEURS, IT FORCES EVERYDAY CHICAGOANS TO CONTINUE TO SUFFER FROM FEWER CHOICES AND HIGHER PRICES. IN OCTOBER 2019, IJ ASKED THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO TAKE THE CASE ON THE GROUNDS THAT CHICAGO'S GPS MONITORING VIOLATES THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES BY THE GOVERNMENT. UNFORTUNATELY, THE SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO HEAR THE CASE. COURTNEY AND COURTNEY V. GOLTZ, ET AL. FOR YEARS, BROTHERS JIM AND CLIFF COURTNEY HAVE WANTED TO PROVIDE CONVENIENT FERRY SERVICE ACROSS LAKE CHELAN IN WASHINGTON STATE TO ENHANCE ECONOMIC PROSPERITY IN THEIR SMALL COMMUNITY LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN END OF THE LAKE. BUT THE STATE REQUIRES JIM AND CLIFF TO EITHER OBTAIN THE EXISTING FERRY COMPANY'S PERMISSION TO COMPETE, OR PROVE IN A TRIAL-LIKE HEARING THAT THE EXISTING COMPANY IS NOT PROVIDING "REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE SERVICE AND THAT A NEW SERVICE IS NECESSARY. REALIZING THAT THE STATE IS MORE CONCERNED WITH PROTECTING ESTABLISHED INTERESTS THAN FOSTERING ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND OPPORTUNITY, JIM AND CLIFF HAVE JOINED WITH IJ TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHT - AND THE RIGHT OF EVERY AMERICAN - TO PURSUE AN HONEST LIVING FREE FROM PROTECTIONIST INTERFERENCE BY THE GOVERNMENT. IN APRIL 2020, THE 9TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED AGAINST US. WE PLAN TO APPEAL THIS DECISION TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. KILLEEN, ET AL. V. YAVAPAI COUNTY, ET AL. JOSHUA AND EMILY KILLEEN MOVED FROM CALIFORNIA AND BOUGHT UNDEVELOPED DESERT PROPERTY IN YAVAPAI COUNTY, IN THE HEART OF ARIZONA, ENVISIONING A MODEST HOME FOR THEMSELVES AND A RUSTIC WELLNESS AND WEDDING RETREAT. WHILE THEY WORKED TO GET THEIR PERMITS IN ORDER, COUNTY OFFICIALS DIRECTED THEM TO PULL DOWN ANY ONLINE ADVERTISEMENTS SAYING THAT THEIR BUSINESS WOULD BE "COMING SOON OR TAKING ANY ADVANCED BOOKINGS. THE COUNTY ALSO BANNED JOSHUA AND EMILY FROM HAVING FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS OVER FOR YOGA AND POTLUCK MEALS, EVEN THOUGH THOSE EVENTS WERE FREE OF CHARGE AND TOOK PLACE OUTSIDE. ZONING CODES OFTEN MICROMANAGE HOW AMERICANS CAN USE THEIR PROPERTY, BUT THEY CANNOT DO SO IN A WAY THAT VIOLATES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ESPECIALLY ONE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION. IN MAY 2020, JOSHUA AND EMILY TEAMED UP WITH THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE ABOUT THEIR FUTURE BUSINESS AND TO WELCOME THEIR FRIENDS ONTO THEIR PROPERTY FOR FOOD, FELLOWSHIP, AND EXERCISE. REGULUS BOOKS, LLC, V. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND DIVERS; HART V. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY HAVE DECIDED TO REQUIRE A BUSINESS LICENSE TO WRITE NOVELS, AND THEY HAVE ASSESSED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN BACK TAXES AGAINST SOME OF THEIR HARDWORKING FREELANCE WRITERS, WHILE EXEMPTING NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES, RADIO, AND TELEVISION. CHARLOTTESVILLE'S MONEY-GRAB ISN'T JUST WRONG, IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THAT'S WHY BESTSELLING NOVELISTS CORBAN ADDISON AND JOHN HART TEAMED UP WITH IJ IN JULY 2019 TO FILE LAWSUITS AGAINST THE CITY AND COUNTY ASKING FOR REFUNDS OF THEIR BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES AND CHALLENGING THEIR CONSTITUTIONALITY UNDER THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS. THESE CUTTING-EDGE LAWSUITS WILL VINDICATE AMERICANS' RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR A LIVING WITHOUT BEING BURDENED BY DISCRIMINATORY TAXES. UPTON'S NATURALS CO. AND THE PLANT BASED FOODS ASSOCIATION V. BRYANT AND GIPSON PEOPLE CAN BUY AND SELL VEGAN FOODS IN MISSISSIPPI USING THE TERMS THEY UNDERSTAND BEST THANKS TO AN IJ FREE SPEECH VICTORY. AT THE BEHEST OF THE MEAT INDUSTRY, MISSISSIPPI HAD BANNED THE USE OF "MEAT" TERMS TO SELL PLANT-BASED FOODS, MEANING NO USE OF "VEGGIE BURGER OR "VEGAN HOT DOG." IJ PARTNERED WITH INDEPENDENT VEGAN FOOD MAKER UPTON'S NATURALS AND THE PLANT BASED FOODS ASSOCIATION TO FILE A FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MISSISSIPPI'S LAW. IN RESPONSE, THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ADOPTED NEW REGULATIONS IN NOVEMBER 2019 ALLOWING THE USE OF "MEAT" TERMS WHEN THE LABEL MAKES CLEAR THE FOOD IS PLANT-BASED. KERSTEN, ET AL. V. CITY OF MANDAN WHEN BRIAN BERUBE AND AUGUST "AUGIE" KERSTEN PAINTED A WESTERN-THEMED MURAL ON THEIR SALOON, COMPLETE WITH THE BAR'S NAME "LONESOME DOVE" IN FANCY SCRIPT, CUSTOMERS LOVED IT, BUT THE CITY OF MANDAN, NORTH DAKOTA, DID NOT. THE CITY WOULD GRANT THEM NEITHER A MURAL PERMIT (SINCE THE MURAL ADVERTISED THEIR BUSINESS) NOR A SIGN PERMIT (SINCE IT WAS PAINTED ON A WALL) AND INSTEAD ORDERED THEM TO REMOVE THE MURAL OR FACE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN FINES. SO, BRIAN AND AUGIE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO CHALLENGE MANDAN'S MURAL ORDINANCE AND VINDICATE THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. IN RESPONSE TO THE SUIT, THE CITY REWROTE ITS MURAL CODE TO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST BUSINESSES' SPEECH, IMPROVING THE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OF EVERYONE IN THE CITY. THIS CASE CLOSED IN FEBRUARY 2020. IJ RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT $60,000 IN FEES IN THIS CASE. LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE V. WALKER, ET AL. CARTER WALKER IS A REPORTER FOR THE MEDIA GROUP LNP, COVERING THE GOVERNMENT IN LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. CARTER WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE COUNTY WAS DOING WITH THE CASH AND PROPERTY IT ACQUIRED THROUGH CIVIL FORFEITURE - A PRACTICE UNDER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CAN SEIZE PROPERTY FROM THOSE NOT ACCUSED OF ANY CRIME - SO, HE ASKED THE LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THAT INFORMATION. THE DA REFUSED, WRONGLY CLAIMING AN EXCEPTION UNDER THE STATE'S RIGHT TO KNOW LAW. CARTER APPEALED THAT DENIAL TO PENNSYLVANIA'S OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS, WHICH CONCLUDED THAT THE RECORDS SHOULD BE PUBLIC. WHEN THE LANCASTER DA APPEALED THE DECISION, CARTER, LNP, AND IJ TEAMED UP TO MAKE FORFEITURE RECORDS IN LANCASTER COUNTY AND THE NEIGHBORING BERKS COUNTY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IN ORDER TO EXPOSE ABUSES. |
| CATO INSTITUTE V. SEC | SINCE THE 1970S, THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION HAS REFUSED TO SETTLE ANY ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS UNLESS THE DEFENDANT AGREES TO A GAG ORDER. FACED WITH THE POTENTIALLY STAGGERING COST OF CHALLENGING THE SEC'S PROSECUTION, MANY DEFENDANTS AGREE TO SETTLE. THIS PREVENTS THOSE WHO BELIEVE THEY ARE INNOCENT FROM CRITICIZING THE SEC'S ACTIONS AGAINST THEM, EFFECTIVELY MEANING A GOVERNMENT AGENCY IS DECIDING WHO CAN CRITICIZE THAT AGENCY. THE CATO INSTITUTE, A D.C.-BASED THINK TANK, WANTS TO PUBLISH A BOOK BY SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES HE IS THE VICTIM OF ABUSE BY THE SEC AND TO HOST A PANEL DISCUSSION WITH OTHERS. IJ JOINED CATO TO CHALLENGE THE SEC'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL INFRINGEMENT ON FREE SPEECH. IN FEBRUARY 2020, A FEDERAL JUDGE IN D.C. DISMISSED THE LAWSUIT, HOLDING THAT CATO COULDN'T CHALLENGE THE SEC'S POLICY BECAUSE, ALTHOUGH THE POLICY PREVENTS CATO FROM PUBLISHING INFORMATION IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, IT DOESN'T REGULATE CATO DIRECTLY. WE ARE APPEALING THIS RULING. HINES V. TEXAS STATE BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINERS, ET AL. DR. RON HINES IS A RETIRED AND PHYSICALLY DISABLED LICENSED VETERINARIAN IN TEXAS. FROM 2002 TO 2012, HE GAVE PET OWNERS AROUND THE COUNTRY VETERINARY ADVICE, MOSTLY TO THOSE WHO LACKED ACCESS TO VETERINARIANS AND OFTEN FOR FREE - THAT IS, UNTIL THE TEXAS STATE BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINERS SHUT RON DOWN, SUSPENDED HIS LICENSE, AND FINED HIM. RON AND IJ FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT TO VINDICATE RON'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, BUT AN APPEALS COURT RULED THAT RON'S SPEECH WASN'T PROTECTED BECAUSE IT'S PART OF AN OCCUPATION. SINCE THEN, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS AFFIRMED THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS PROFESSIONAL SPEECH, SO RON AND IJ HAVE FILED A NEW LAWSUIT TO VINDICATE HIS RIGHT TO GIVE VETERINARY ADVICE TO PET OWNERS WHO NEED IT AND TO HELP ALL THOSE WHO USE THE INTERNET TO SPEAK IN INNOVATIVE WAYS. MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF LICENSURE FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS V. VIZALINE BRENT MELTON AND SCOTT DOW ARE MISSISSIPPI ENTREPRENEURS AND FOUNDERS OF VIZALINE, LLC, A STARTUP THAT PROVIDES SMALL BANKS WITH INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR PROPERTIES BY USING PUBLIC INFORMATION TO DRAW LINES ON A MAP. IN 2017, HOWEVER, THE MISSISSIPPI BOARD OF LICENSURE FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS SUED THE COMPANY, CLAIMING IT WAS PRACTICING UNLICENSED SURVEYING. THE BOARD IS MADE UP OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS WHO HAVE A CLEAR INTEREST IN SHUTTING DOWN INNOVATIVE AND AFFORDABLE ALTERNATIVES THAT COMPETE WITH THEM. IN FEBRUARY 2020, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 5TH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S PROTECTION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH APPLIES TO OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING LAWS AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT. THE RULING IS A MAJOR VICTORY THAT WILL HELP ENTREPRENEURS IN MANY FIELDS VINDICATE THEIR RIGHTS IN COURT. PCHS, ET AL. V. GRAFILO, ET AL. IN 2017, BOB SMITH, OWNER OF THE PACIFIC COAST HORSESHOEING SCHOOL, RECEIVED A NOTICE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THREATENING TO SHUT HIM DOWN FOR VIOLATING STATE LAW BY ADMITTING STUDENTS WHO HADN'T GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL. SO, WHEN ESTEBAN NAREZ, A RANCH HAND, APPLIED TO BOB'S SCHOOL A FEW MONTHS LATER, BOB HAD TO REJECT HIS APPLICATION. CALIFORNIA'S LAW NOT ONLY HURTS STUDENTS WITH LITTLE EDUCATION BY PREVENTING THEM FROM LEARNING WELL-PAYING TRADES, IT ALSO VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT. BOB, ESTEBAN, AND IJ CHALLENGED THIS MISGUIDED LAW IN COURT. IN JUNE 2020, THE 9TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT CALIFORNIA RESTRICTED BOB AND ESTEBAN'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND SENT THE CASE BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT, WHERE CALIFORNIA WILL BE HARD-PRESSED TO DEFEND ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPEECH RESTRICTION. DEL CASTILLO V. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IN 2014, HEATHER DEL CASTILLO LEFT AN UNFULFILLING CAREER TO START A BUSINESS PROVIDING PERSONALIZED HEALTH COACHING. SHE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A LICENSED NUTRITIONIST OR DIETITIAN, BUT THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ORDERED HER TO CEASE PROVIDING NUTRITIONAL ADVICE AND DEMANDED THAT SHE PAY OVER $750 IN FINES. HEATHER COULDN'T AFFORD TO SPEND YEARS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS GETTING THE DEGREE TO BECOME A LICENSED DIETICIAN, SO SHE SHUT HER BUSINESS DOWN. THESE SORTS OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING LAWS PROTECT THE ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF LICENSE HOLDERS BY CENSORING WHAT OTHERS CAN SAY AND HEAR. HEATHER AND IJ FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING FLORIDA'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON GIVING DIETARY ADVICE. UNFORTUNATELY, IN JULY 2019, A FEDERAL DISTRICT UPHELD THE LICENSING REQUIREMENT ON THE BASIS THAT HEATHER'S ADVICE WAS "CONDUCT NOT "SPEECH AND THEREFORE EXEMPT FROM FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS. WE ARE APPEALING THIS RULING. BILLUPS, ET AL. V. CITY OF CHARLESTON; FREENOR, ET AL. V. MAYOR AND ALDERMAN OF THE CITY OF SAVANNAH IJ SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED ORDINANCES IN CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND SAVANNAH, GEORGIA, REQUIRING THAT ANYONE GIVING A PAID CITY TOUR OBTAIN A SPECIAL LICENSE. THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T DECIDE WHO GETS TO SPEAK, BUT THESE CITIES DEMANDED THAT TOUR GUIDES PASS EXTENSIVE TESTS TO RECEIVE A TOUR GUIDE LICENSE. IJ CHALLENGED THESE REQUIREMENTS TO VINDICATE THE RIGHTS OF TOUR GUIDES AND ALL AMERICANS WHO SPEAK FOR A LIVING. IN MAY 2019, A FEDERAL COURT IN SAVANNAH RULED THAT THAT CITY'S ORDINANCE VIOLATED THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND IN JUNE 2020, THE 4TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT CHARLESTON'S ORDINANCE DID AS WELL. THESE RULINGS ARE IMPORTANT VICTORIES IN IJ'S EFFORTS TO ENSURE THAT OCCUPATIONAL SPEECH ENJOYS THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AS OTHER TYPES OF SPEECH. IJ RECEIVED $161,500 IN FEES FROM THE SAVANNAH CITY GOVERNMENT. METRO. GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, ET AL., V. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ET AL. IN MAY 2019, TENNESSEE ENACTED THE TENNESSEE EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNT PILOT PROGRAM ACT, GIVING THOUSANDS OF LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIES IN TENNESSEE WITH GREATER SCHOOL CHOICE. IJ IS INTERVENING ON BEHALF OF TWO PARENTS, NATU BAH AND BUILGUISSA DIALLO, TO DEFEND THE PROGRAM FROM A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY. THE PROGRAM PROVIDES SCHOLARSHIPS WORTH UP TO $7,300 TO FAMILIES FROM SHELBY COUNTY AND METRO NASHVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS. UNFORTUNATELY, IN MAY 2020 THE CHANCERY COURT FOR DAVIDSON RULED THAT THE PROGRAM VIOLATED THE HOME RULE AMENDMENT OF THE TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION AND ENJOINED FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM. NATU, BUILGUISSA, AND IJ ARE APPEALING THIS RULING TO PRESERVE A LIFELINE FOR FAMILIES WHO WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE PUBLIC SCHOOLS THAT DO NOT MEET THEIR CHILDREN'S NEEDS. MORENCY, ET AL. V. STATE OF NEVADA, ET AL. TO ENSURE THAT STUDENTS OF EVERY BACKGROUND HAVE THE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY THEY NEED TO SUCCEED, THE STATE ESTABLISHED THE NEVADA EDUCATIONAL CHOICE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM, A NEED-BASED PROGRAM FUNDED BY PRIVATE DONATIONS INCENTIVIZED BY TAX CREDITS. TO ACCOMMODATE THE STATE'S GROWING POPULATION AND INCREASING EDUCATION COSTS, THE LAW INCREASED THE NUMBER OF TAX CREDITS AVAILABLE BY 10% ANNUALLY. THE STATE REPEALED THIS SO-CALLED "ESCALATOR PROVISION" IN 2019, BUT THE NEVADA CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW THE LEGISLATURE TO DO ANYTHING TO INCREASE TAX REVENUE WITHOUT A TWO-THIRDS VOTE IN BOTH THE STATE HOUSE AND SENATE, AND THE LEGISLATION PASSED WITH LESS THAN A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY. NEVADA PARENTS, A SCHOLARSHIP ORGANIZATION, AND PRIVATE DONORS TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FILE SUIT IN NEVADA STATE COURT CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE REDUCTION IN TAX CREDITS. IN MAY 2020, A JUDGE UPHELD THE 2019 CHANGE. WE ARE APPEALING THIS RULING. |
| GILLIS, ET AL. V. HASSON, JR., ET AL. | IN MAINE, THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AND THE FIRST LIBERTY INSTITUTE FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT IN AUGUST 2018 TO OVERTURN A STATE LAW THAT EXCLUDES PARENTS WHO SELECT RELIGIOUS OPTIONS FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE NATION'S SECOND-OLDEST SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM. MAINE'S "TUITIONING" PROGRAM, WHICH ENABLES PARENTS IN TOWNS THAT DO NOT OPERATE PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS TO CHOOSE THE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL THAT BEST SUITS THEIR CHILDREN'S NEEDS, HAS BARRED RELIGIOUS OPTIONS FOR NEARLY FOUR DECADES. BUT BY SINGLING OUT RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS, AND ONLY RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS, FOR DISCRIMINATION, MAINE IS VIOLATING BOTH THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND EQUAL PROTECTION GUARANTEES IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. LAST JUNE, A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE UPHELD THE EXCLUSIVE, ANTI-CHOICE LAW. THE CASE IS NOW ON APPEAL AT THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 1ST CIRCUIT. IJ'S LANDMARK U.S. SUPREME COURT VICTORY IN ESPINOZA V. MONTANA IN JUNE SHOWS THAT MAINE'S RESTRICTION IS CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SUMMIT CHRISTIAN ACADEMY, ET AL. V. MEOTTI, ET AL. WASHINGTON'S WORK-STUDY PROGRAM IS A FINANCIAL AID PROGRAM THAT PROVIDES FUNDING FOR LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME STUDENTS WHO WANT TO EARN MONEY DURING COLLEGE, OFTEN BY WORKING IN JOBS THAT RELATE TO THEIR FIELD OF STUDY. PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS RANGE FROM NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS TO BUSINESSES AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, BUT ALL HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON: IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE, THE EMPLOYER AND THE POSITION A STUDENT WOULD FILL MUST NOT HAVE ANY RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION REQUIRES GOVERNMENT TO BE NEUTRAL TOWARD RELIGION, NEITHER FAVORING NOR DISFAVORING IT. THAT IS WHY IJ TEAMED UP WITH A SECTARIAN EMPLOYER - A PRIVATE CHRISTIAN SCHOOL - AND A UNIVERSITY STUDENT GROUP IN AUGUST 2018 TO CHALLENGE WASHINGTON STATE'S SECTARIAN EXCLUSION. IN RESPONSE TO THE LAWSUIT, WASHINGTON ADOPTED NEW RULES SO THAT WASHINGTON'S STUDENTS AND RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, NOW HAVE FULL FREEDOM TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM. FRIEND OF THE COURT BRIEFS IN ADDITION TO LITIGATING THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED CASES, THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE FILED AMICUS BRIEFS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES BETWEEN JULY 1, 2019 AND JUNE 30, 2020: J.K.J. V. POLK COUNTY, WISCONSIN STATE OF WASHINGTON V. JOEL VILLELA DAVID THOMPSON, ET AL. V. HEATHER HEBDON, ET AL. JESUS HERNANDEZ, ET AL. V. JESUS MESA, JR AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION V. XAVIER BECERRA DOE V. IOWA STATE OF KANSAS V. CHARLES GLOVER CINDY MENDOZA, ET AL. V. MATTHEW L. GARRETT CTIA - THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION V. CITY OF BERKELEY, CA II CATHERINE REGINA HARPER, ET AL. V. PROFESSIONAL PROBATION SERVICES, INC. IN RE MERRILL LYNCH MORTGAGE INVESTORS TRUST MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-RM2 FRED ROBINSON, ET AL. V. JEFF LONG STATE OF ARIZONA V. WILLIAM MIXTON ARIZONA ADVOCACY NETWORK, ET AL. V. CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTIONS COMMISSION, ET AL. V. THE STATE OF ARIZONA FNU TANZIN, ET AL. V. MUHAMMED TANVIR, ET AL. VIOLET DOCK PORT, INC., L.L.C., V. DREW M. HEAPHY, ET AL. ROXANNE TORRES V. JANET MADRID, ET AL. MICAH JESSOP ET AL. V. CITY OF FRESNO, ET AL. BETHANY AUSTIN V. STATE OF ILLINOIS CITY OF CHICAGO V. ROBBIN L. FULTON, ET AL. SEC V. BARRY D. ROMERIL STATE OF WASHINGTON V. SHANNON B. BLAKE CLYDE S. BOVAT V. STATE OF VERMONT |
Comments