INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE: Form 990, tax year 2020
View the entire original 990 at ProPublica ↗
- Organization
- INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE (EIN 52-1744337)
- Tax period
- 2020-07-01 to 2021-06-30
- Filed
- 2021-11-18
- IRS object ID
- 202133229349301508
- Schema version
- 2020v4.1
- 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 | 2021-11-18T16:19:45-06:00 | ReturnTs |
| Tax Period End | 2021-06-30 | 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 | 2020-07-01 | 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 | 2021-11-18 | SignatureDt |
| Discuss With Paid Preparer | Yes (1) | DiscussWithPaidPreparerInd |
Signing Officer SigningOfficerGrp
Person Full Name PersonFullName
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Person First | SCOTT | PersonFirstNm |
| Person Last | BULLOCK | PersonLastNm |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| SSN | 999009999 | SSN |
Preparer Person PreparerPersonGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Preparer Person | DANIEL O'SHEA | PreparerPersonNm |
| PTIN | P00957510 | PTIN |
| Phone | 3016529100 | PhoneNum |
| Preparation | 2021-11-15 | PreparationDt |
Additional Filer Information AdditionalFilerInformation
Trusted Customer TrustedCustomerGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Trusted Customer | 2 | TrustedCustomerCd |
| Authentication Assurance Level | AAL1 | AuthenticationAssuranceLevelCd |
| Identity Assurance Level | IAL1 | IdentityAssuranceLevelCd |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Tax | 2020 | 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 | $45,322,047 | 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 | 187 | TotalEmployeeCnt |
| Total Volunteers | 30 | TotalVolunteersCnt |
| Total Gross UBI | $0 | TotalGrossUBIAmt |
| Net Unrelated Bus Txbl Incm | $0 | NetUnrelatedBusTxblIncmAmt |
| PY Contributions Grants | $27,138,233 | PYContributionsGrantsAmt |
| CY Contributions Grants | $31,138,106 | CYContributionsGrantsAmt |
| PY Program Service Revenue | $454,873 | PYProgramServiceRevenueAmt |
| CY Program Service Revenue | $3,318,224 | CYProgramServiceRevenueAmt |
| PY Investment Income | $7,579,986 | PYInvestmentIncomeAmt |
| CY Investment Income | $3,397,998 | CYInvestmentIncomeAmt |
| PY Other Revenue | $42,235 | PYOtherRevenueAmt |
| CY Other Revenue | $25,606 | CYOtherRevenueAmt |
| PY Total Revenue | $35,215,327 | PYTotalRevenueAmt |
| CY Total Revenue | $37,879,934 | CYTotalRevenueAmt |
| PY Grants And Similar Paid | $88,227 | PYGrantsAndSimilarPaidAmt |
| CY Grants And Similar Paid | $136,879 | CYGrantsAndSimilarPaidAmt |
| PY Benefits Paid To Members | $0 | PYBenefitsPaidToMembersAmt |
| CY Benefits Paid To Members | $0 | CYBenefitsPaidToMembersAmt |
| PY Salaries Comp Emp Bnft Paid | $19,382,886 | PYSalariesCompEmpBnftPaidAmt |
| CY Salaries Comp Emp Bnft Paid | $21,639,891 | CYSalariesCompEmpBnftPaidAmt |
| PY Total Prof Fndrsng Expns | $0 | PYTotalProfFndrsngExpnsAmt |
| CY Total Prof Fndrsng Expns | $0 | CYTotalProfFndrsngExpnsAmt |
| CY Total Fundraising Expense | $2,229,821 | CYTotalFundraisingExpenseAmt |
| PY Other Expenses | $6,862,146 | PYOtherExpensesAmt |
| CY Other Expenses | $7,416,871 | CYOtherExpensesAmt |
| PY Total Expenses | $26,333,259 | PYTotalExpensesAmt |
| CY Total Expenses | $29,193,641 | CYTotalExpensesAmt |
| PY Revenues Less Expenses | $8,882,068 | PYRevenuesLessExpensesAmt |
| CY Revenues Less Expenses | $8,686,293 | CYRevenuesLessExpensesAmt |
| Total Assets BOY | $104,919,956 | TotalAssetsBOYAmt |
| Total Assets EOY | $122,859,049 | TotalAssetsEOYAmt |
| Total Liabilities BOY | $8,720,628 | TotalLiabilitiesBOYAmt |
| Total Liabilities EOY | $6,297,135 | TotalLiabilitiesEOYAmt |
| Net Assets Or Fund Balances BOY | $96,199,328 | NetAssetsOrFundBalancesBOYAmt |
| Net Assets Or Fund Balances EOY | $116,561,914 | 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 | $23,483,986 | ExpenseAmt |
| Grant | $136,879 | GrantAmt |
| Revenue | $3,318,224 | 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 | $23,483,986 | 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 | 89 | IRPDocumentCnt |
| IRP Document W2 G | 0 | IRPDocumentW2GCnt |
| Backup Wthld Compliance | Yes (1) | BackupWthldComplianceInd |
| Employee | 187 | 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 | 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 (19 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) | $527,048 | $0 | $45,892 | ||
| WILLIAM MELLOR | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN & FOUNDING GENERAL COUNSEL | 40.00 | Yes (X) | Yes (X) | $41,968 | $0 | $14,872 | ||
| 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 | |||
| DANIEL KNEPPER | ||||||||
| MANAGING VP-CFO/SECRETARY | 40.00 | Yes (X) | $394,757 | $0 | $42,637 | |||
| DANA BERLINER | ||||||||
| SENIOR VP AND LITIGATION DIRECTOR | 40.00 | $460,384 | $0 | $52,849 | Yes (X) | |||
| JOHN KRAMER | ||||||||
| VP FOR COMMUNICATIONS | 40.00 | $372,980 | $0 | $71,254 | Yes (X) | |||
| DEBORAH SIMPSON | ||||||||
| CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER | 40.00 | $349,578 | $0 | $52,092 | Yes (X) | |||
| BETH STEVENS | ||||||||
| VP FOR DEVELOPMENT | 40.00 | $294,809 | $0 | $51,384 | Yes (X) | |||
| ROBERT MCNAMARA | ||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | 40.00 | $294,875 | $0 | $57,651 | Yes (X) | |||
| JEFFREY ROWES | ||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | 40.00 | $231,429 | $0 | $68,019 | Yes (X) | |||
| ROBERT GALL | ||||||||
| MANAGING VP AND SENIOR ATTORNEY | 40.00 | $292,900 | $0 | $57,277 | Yes (X) | |||
| MELANIE HILDRETH | ||||||||
| VP FOR EXTERNAL RELATIONS | 40.00 | $235,967 | $0 | $50,242 | Yes (X) | |||
| PAUL SHERMAN | ||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | 40.00 | $213,830 | $0 | $57,376 | Yes (X) | |||
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Reportable Comp From Org | $3,710,525 | TotalReportableCompFromOrgAmt |
| Tot Reportable Comp Rltd Org | $0 | TotReportableCompRltdOrgAmt |
| Total Other Compensation | $621,545 | TotalOtherCompensationAmt |
| Indiv Rcvd Greater Than100 K | 62 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HBW CONSTRUCTION | |||||
| 1055 FIRST STREET SUITE 200 | ROCKVILLE | MD | 20850 | CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS | $1,322,154 |
| DOYLE PRINTING & OFFSET CO | |||||
| 5206 46TH AVENUE | HYATTSVILLE | MD | 20781 | PRINTING AND MAILING SHOP | $277,952 |
| NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATORS (NTI) | |||||
| 8340 HELGERMAN COURT | GATHERSBURG | MD | 20877 | IT/AV CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS | $266,237 |
| STEPHEN POLO | |||||
| 21 DUPONT CIRCLE NW SUITE 200 | WASHINGTON | DC | 20036 | ARCHITECT CONTRACTORS | $237,330 |
| ALVAREZ & MARSHAL GLOBAL FORENSIC AND DI | |||||
| 600 MADISON AVENUE 8TH FLOOR | NEW YORK | NY | 10022 | EXPERT WITNESS | $229,773 |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Cntrct Rcvd Greater Than100 K | 8 | CntrctRcvdGreaterThan100KCnt |
| All Other Contributions | $31,138,106 | AllOtherContributionsAmt |
| Noncash Contributions | $1,983,847 | NoncashContributionsAmt |
| Total Contributions | $31,138,106 | TotalContributionsAmt |
Program Service Revenue ProgramServiceRevenueGrp (2 entries)
| DescDesc | BusinessBusinessCd | Total Revenue ColumnTotalRevenueColumnAmt | Related Or Exempt Func IncomeRelatedOrExemptFuncIncomeAmt |
|---|---|---|---|
| ATTORNEY FEES | 541100 | $3,314,074 | $3,314,074 |
| HONORARIA | 900099 | $4,150 | $4,150 |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Program Service Revenue | $3,318,224 | TotalProgramServiceRevenueAmt |
Investment Income InvestmentIncomeGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Revenue Column | $1,473,498 | TotalRevenueColumnAmt |
| Exclusion | $1,473,498 | ExclusionAmt |
Gross Amount Sales Assets GrossAmountSalesAssetsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Securities | $9,366,342 | SecuritiesAmt |
| Other | $271 | OtherAmt |
Less Cost Oth Basis Sales Expnss LessCostOthBasisSalesExpnssGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Securities | $7,442,113 | SecuritiesAmt |
| Other | $0 | OtherAmt |
Gain Or Loss GainOrLossGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Securities | $1,924,229 | SecuritiesAmt |
| Other | $271 | OtherAmt |
Net Gain Or Loss Investments NetGainOrLossInvestmentsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Revenue Column | $1,924,500 | TotalRevenueColumnAmt |
| Exclusion | $1,924,500 | ExclusionAmt |
Other Revenue Misc OtherRevenueMiscGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Desc | OTHER INCOME | Desc |
| Business | 541110 | BusinessCd |
| Total Revenue Column | $25,606 | TotalRevenueColumnAmt |
| Exclusion | $25,606 | ExclusionAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Other Revenue Total | $25,606 | OtherRevenueTotalAmt |
Total Revenue TotalRevenueGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Revenue Column | $37,879,934 | TotalRevenueColumnAmt |
| Related Or Exempt Func Income | $3,318,224 | RelatedOrExemptFuncIncomeAmt |
| Unrelated Business Revenue | $0 | UnrelatedBusinessRevenueAmt |
| Exclusion | $3,423,604 | ExclusionAmt |
Grants To Domestic Orgs GrantsToDomesticOrgsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $136,879 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $136,879 | ProgramServicesAmt |
Comp Current Ofcr Directors CompCurrentOfcrDirectorsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $2,817,202 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $2,349,233 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $277,327 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $190,642 | FundraisingAmt |
Other Salaries And Wages OtherSalariesAndWagesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $14,965,286 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $12,479,385 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $1,473,191 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $1,012,710 | FundraisingAmt |
Pension Plan Contributions PensionPlanContributionsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $1,322,771 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $1,103,044 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $130,214 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $89,513 | FundraisingAmt |
Other Employee Benefits OtherEmployeeBenefitsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $1,430,024 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $1,233,918 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $95,973 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $100,133 | FundraisingAmt |
Payroll Taxes PayrollTaxesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $1,104,608 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $921,121 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $108,738 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $74,749 | FundraisingAmt |
Fees For Services Legal FeesForServicesLegalGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $121,123 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $100,679 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $15,690 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $4,754 | FundraisingAmt |
Fees For Services Accounting FeesForServicesAccountingGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $61,909 | TotalAmt |
| Management And General | $61,909 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
Fees For Services Lobbying FeesForServicesLobbyingGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $146,903 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $146,903 | ProgramServicesAmt |
Fees For Srvc Invst Mgmnt Fees FeesForSrvcInvstMgmntFeesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $9,972 | TotalAmt |
| Fundraising | $9,972 | FundraisingAmt |
Fees For Services Other FeesForServicesOtherGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $1,431,387 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $1,293,478 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $58,324 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $79,585 | FundraisingAmt |
Advertising AdvertisingGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $110,903 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $98,911 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Fundraising | $11,992 | FundraisingAmt |
Office Expenses OfficeExpensesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $854,313 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $399,132 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $75,999 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $379,182 | FundraisingAmt |
Information Technology InformationTechnologyGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $701,860 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $103,068 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $572,382 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $26,410 | FundraisingAmt |
Occupancy OccupancyGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $2,344,312 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $1,953,277 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $232,221 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $158,814 | FundraisingAmt |
Travel TravelGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $127,134 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $121,418 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $5,116 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $600 | FundraisingAmt |
Conferences Meetings ConferencesMeetingsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $40,252 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $39,999 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $129 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $124 | FundraisingAmt |
Interest InterestGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $7,707 | TotalAmt |
| Management And General | $7,707 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
Depreciation Depletion DepreciationDepletionGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $599,363 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $499,802 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $59,002 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $40,559 | FundraisingAmt |
Insurance InsuranceGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $125,754 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $54,321 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $71,433 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
Other Expenses OtherExpensesGrp (2 entries)
| DescDesc | TotalTotalAmt | Program ServicesProgramServicesAmt | Management And GeneralManagementAndGeneralAmt | FundraisingFundraisingAmt |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RESEARCH TOOLS | $354,145 | $309,262 | $15,617 | $29,266 |
| FILING AND COURT FEES | $72,308 | $71,683 | $625 |
All Other Expenses AllOtherExpensesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $307,526 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $68,473 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $218,237 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $20,816 | FundraisingAmt |
Total Functional Expenses TotalFunctionalExpensesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $29,193,641 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $23,483,986 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $3,479,834 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $2,229,821 | FundraisingAmt |
Cash Non Interest Bearing CashNonInterestBearingGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $5,558,922 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $3,839,769 | EOYAmt |
Savings And Temp Cash Invst SavingsAndTempCashInvstGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $1,254 | BOYAmt |
Pledges And Grants Receivable PledgesAndGrantsReceivableGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $2,504,592 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $1,673,364 | EOYAmt |
Accounts Receivable AccountsReceivableGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $101,630 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $131,182 | EOYAmt |
Prepaid Expenses Defrd Charges PrepaidExpensesDefrdChargesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $347,034 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $518,257 | EOYAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Land Bldg Equip Cost Or Other Bss | $8,379,556 | LandBldgEquipCostOrOtherBssAmt |
| Land Bldg Equip Accum Deprec | $4,572,947 | LandBldgEquipAccumDeprecAmt |
Land Bldg Equip Basis Net LandBldgEquipBasisNetGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $1,725,000 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $3,806,609 | EOYAmt |
Investments Pub Traded Sec InvestmentsPubTradedSecGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $87,143,465 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $106,203,216 | EOYAmt |
Investments Other Securities InvestmentsOtherSecuritiesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $7,247,238 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $6,550,531 | EOYAmt |
Other Assets Total OtherAssetsTotalGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $290,821 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $136,121 | EOYAmt |
Total Assets TotalAssetsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $104,919,956 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $122,859,049 | EOYAmt |
Accounts Payable Accr Expnss AccountsPayableAccrExpnssGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $2,118,412 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $2,400,462 | EOYAmt |
Deferred Revenue DeferredRevenueGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $3,723,353 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $538,000 | EOYAmt |
Other Liabilities OtherLiabilitiesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $2,878,863 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $3,358,673 | EOYAmt |
Total Liabilities TotalLiabilitiesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $8,720,628 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $6,297,135 | 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 | $91,445,951 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $112,418,697 | EOYAmt |
Donor Restriction Net Assets DonorRestrictionNetAssetsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $4,753,377 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $4,143,217 | EOYAmt |
Total Net Assets Fund Balance TotalNetAssetsFundBalanceGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $96,199,328 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $116,561,914 | EOYAmt |
Tot Liab Net Assets Fund Balance TotLiabNetAssetsFundBalanceGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $104,919,956 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $122,859,049 | EOYAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Reconcilation Revenue Expnss | $8,686,293 | ReconcilationRevenueExpnssAmt |
| Net Unrlzd Gains Losses Invst | $11,676,293 | 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 | $23,931,523 | CurrentTaxYearMinus4YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus3 Years | $23,793,166 | CurrentTaxYearMinus3YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus2 Years | $21,267,811 | CurrentTaxYearMinus2YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus1 Year | $27,138,233 | CurrentTaxYearMinus1YearAmt |
| Current Tax Year | $31,138,106 | CurrentTaxYearAmt |
| Total | $127,268,839 | TotalAmt |
Total Calendar Year170 TotalCalendarYear170Grp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Current Tax Year Minus4 Years | $23,931,523 | CurrentTaxYearMinus4YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus3 Years | $23,793,166 | CurrentTaxYearMinus3YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus2 Years | $21,267,811 | CurrentTaxYearMinus2YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus1 Year | $27,138,233 | CurrentTaxYearMinus1YearAmt |
| Current Tax Year | $31,138,106 | CurrentTaxYearAmt |
| Total | $127,268,839 | TotalAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Substantial Contributors Tot | $13,141,130 | SubstantialContributorsTotAmt |
| Public Support Total170 | $114,127,709 | PublicSupportTotal170Amt |
Gross Investment Income170 GrossInvestmentIncome170Grp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Current Tax Year Minus4 Years | $823,607 | CurrentTaxYearMinus4YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus3 Years | $1,103,004 | CurrentTaxYearMinus3YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus2 Years | $1,577,636 | CurrentTaxYearMinus2YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus1 Year | $1,622,922 | CurrentTaxYearMinus1YearAmt |
| Current Tax Year | $1,473,498 | CurrentTaxYearAmt |
| Total | $6,600,667 | TotalAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Support | $133,869,506 | TotalSupportAmt |
| Gross Receipts Rltd Activities | $6,278,174 | GrossReceiptsRltdActivitiesAmt |
| Public Support CY170 | 0.85250 | PublicSupportCY170Pct |
| Public Support PY170 | 0.82430 | 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 | $26,028 | FilingOrganizationsTotalAmt |
Total Direct Lobbying TotalDirectLobbyingGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Filing Organizations Total | $324,850 | FilingOrganizationsTotalAmt |
Total Lobbying Expend TotalLobbyingExpendGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Filing Organizations Total | $350,878 | FilingOrganizationsTotalAmt |
Other Exempt Purpose Expend OtherExemptPurposeExpendGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Filing Organizations Total | $28,842,763 | FilingOrganizationsTotalAmt |
Total Exempt Purpose Expend TotalExemptPurposeExpendGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Filing Organizations Total | $29,193,641 | 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 | $306,469 | CurrentYearMinus3Amt |
| Current Year Minus2 | $323,049 | CurrentYearMinus2Amt |
| Current Year Minus1 | $309,769 | CurrentYearMinus1Amt |
| Current Year | $350,878 | CurrentYearAmt |
| Total | $1,290,165 | 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 | $35,565 | CurrentYearMinus3Amt |
| Current Year Minus2 | $33,382 | CurrentYearMinus2Amt |
| Current Year Minus1 | $42,160 | CurrentYearMinus1Amt |
| Current Year | $26,028 | CurrentYearAmt |
| Total | $137,135 | TotalAmt |
Schedule D IRS990ScheduleD
CY Endwmt Fund CYEndwmtFundGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Beginning Year Balance | $116,692 | BeginningYearBalanceAmt |
| Investment Earnings Or Losses | $21,151 | InvestmentEarningsOrLossesAmt |
| Other Expenditures | $1,745 | OtherExpendituresAmt |
| End Year Balance | $136,098 | EndYearBalanceAmt |
CY Minus1 Yr Endwmt Fund CYMinus1YrEndwmtFundGrp
| 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 Minus2 Yr Endwmt Fund CYMinus2YrEndwmtFundGrp
| 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 Minus3 Yr Endwmt Fund CYMinus3YrEndwmtFundGrp
| 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 Minus4 Yr Endwmt Fund CYMinus4YrEndwmtFundGrp
| 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 |
| 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 | $5,064,211 | OtherCostOrOtherBasisAmt |
| Depreciation | $2,230,776 | DepreciationAmt |
| Book Value | $2,833,435 | BookValueAmt |
Equipment EquipmentGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Other Cost Or Other Basis | $3,246,195 | OtherCostOrOtherBasisAmt |
| Depreciation | $2,342,171 | DepreciationAmt |
| Book Value | $904,024 | BookValueAmt |
Other Land Buildings OtherLandBuildingsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Other Cost Or Other Basis | $69,150 | OtherCostOrOtherBasisAmt |
| Book Value | $69,150 | BookValueAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Book Value Land Buildings | $3,806,609 | TotalBookValueLandBuildingsAmt |
Other Securities OtherSecuritiesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Desc | HEDGE FUND | Desc |
| Book Value | $6,550,531 | BookValueAmt |
| Method Valuation | F | MethodValuationCd |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Book Value Securities | $6,550,531 | TotalBookValueSecuritiesAmt |
Other Liabilities Org OtherLiabilitiesOrgGrp (3 entries)
| DescDesc | AmtAmt |
|---|---|
| DEFERRED RENT | $2,769,702 |
| CAPITAL LEASE LIABILITY | $51,135 |
| CHARITABLE GIFT ANNUITIES | $537,836 |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Liability | $3,358,673 | TotalLiabilityAmt |
| Footnote Text | Yes (X) | FootnoteTextInd |
| Total Rev Etc Audited Fincl Stmt | $49,662,069 | TotalRevEtcAuditedFinclStmtAmt |
| Net Unrealized Gains Invst | $11,676,293 | NetUnrealizedGainsInvstAmt |
| Donated Services And Use Fclts | $106,113 | DonatedServicesAndUseFcltsAmt |
| Revenue Not Reported | $11,782,406 | RevenueNotReportedAmt |
| Revenue Subtotal | $37,879,663 | RevenueSubtotalAmt |
| Other Revenues Not Included | $271 | OtherRevenuesNotIncludedAmt |
| Revenue Not Reported Fincl Stmt | $271 | RevenueNotReportedFinclStmtAmt |
| Total Revenue Per Form990 | $37,879,934 | TotalRevenuePerForm990Amt |
| Tot Expns Etc Audited Fincl Stmt | $29,299,483 | TotExpnsEtcAuditedFinclStmtAmt |
| Donated Services Use Fclts | $106,113 | DonatedServicesUseFcltsAmt |
| Other Expenses Included | -$271 | OtherExpensesIncludedAmt |
| Expenses Not Reported | $105,842 | ExpensesNotReportedAmt |
| Expenses Subtotal | $29,193,641 | ExpensesSubtotalAmt |
| Expenses Not Rpt Fincl Stmt | $0 | ExpensesNotRptFinclStmtAmt |
| Total Expenses Per Form990 | $29,193,641 | 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, 2021 AND 2020. 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, 2021 AND 2020. TAX YEARS PRIOR TO 2017 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 271. |
| PART XII, LINE 2D - OTHER ADJUSTMENTS: | LOSS ON DISPOSAL OF FIXED ASSETS -271. |
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 | $6,550,531 | 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 | $6,550,531 | SubtotalSpentAmt |
| Continuation Spent | $0 | ContinuationSpentAmt |
| Total Spent | $6,550,531 | 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 (9 entries)
| Address Line1USAddress/AddressLine1Txt | CityUSAddress/CityNm | State AbbreviationUSAddress/StateAbbreviationCd | ZIPUSAddress/ZIPCd | Recipient EINRecipientEIN | IRC SectionIRCSectionDesc | Cash GrantCashGrantAmt | Purpose Of GrantPurposeOfGrantTxt | Non Cash AssistanceNonCashAssistanceAmt | Valuation Method UsedValuationMethodUsedDesc | Non Cash AssistanceNonCashAssistanceDesc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STATE POLICY NETWORK | ||||||||||
| 1655 NORTH FORT MYER DRIVE 360 | ARLINGTON | VA | 22209 | 570952531 | 501(C)(3) | $20,000 | 2021 SPN CONFERENCE SPONSORSHIP | |||
| CONSORTIUM OF CATHOLIC ACADEMIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF WASHINGTON INC | ||||||||||
| 5001 EASTERN AVENUE | HYATTSVILLE | MD | 20782 | 522050972 | 501(C)(3) | GRANT TO PROVIDE COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AND INTERNET TO STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN D.C'S OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. | $5,821 | FMV | 22 DELL CHROMEBOOK LAPTOPS | |
| AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL (ALEC) | ||||||||||
| 2900 CRYSTAL DRIVE 6TH FLOOR | ARLINGTON | VA | 22202 | 520140979 | 501(C)(3) | $17,000 | 2020 MEMBERSHIP CONTRIBUTION | |||
| CORNERSTONE SCHOOLS OF WASHINGTON DC INC | ||||||||||
| 3742 ELY PLACE SE | WASHINGTON | DC | 20019 | 522084049 | 501(C)(3) | $6,793 | GRANT TO PROVIDE COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AND INTERNET TO STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN D.C'S OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. | $10,293 | FMV | 11 DELL CHROMEBOOK LAPTOPS; 9 AT&T NIGHTHAWK MOBILE HOTSPOTS; |
| DUPONT PARK ADVENTIST SCHOOL | ||||||||||
| 3942 ALABAMA AVENUE SE | WASHINGTON | DC | 20020 | 263419787 | 501(C)(3) | $7,480 | GRANT TO PROVIDE COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AND INTERNET TO STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN D.C'S OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. | $22,597 | FMV | 42 DELL CHROMEBOOK LAPTOPS; 14 AT&T NIGHTHAWK MOBILE HOTSPOTS |
| NEW MAGNOLIA GARDEN CENTER INC | ||||||||||
| 1400 W 46TH STREET | CHICAGO | IL | 60609 | 320389995 | $7,000 | CASH PRIZE GIVEN TO THE 2ND PLACE 2020 SOUTH SIDE PITCH FINALIST. | ||||
| PREPARATORY SCHOOL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA | ||||||||||
| 3220 17TH ST NW T40 | WASHINGTON | DC | 20010 | 521918567 | 501(C)(3) | $1,959 | GRANT TO PROVIDE COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AND INTERNET TO STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN D.C'S OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. | $3,493 | FMV | 7 DELL CHROMEBOOK LAPTOPS; 2 AT&T NIGHTHAWK MOBILE HOTSPOTS |
| TBM GROUP | ||||||||||
| 8114 S HARVARD | CHICAGO | IL | 60620 | 824025727 | $11,000 | GRANT TO PROVIDE COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AND INTERNET TO STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN D.C'S OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. | ||||
| TEMPLETON ACADEMY | ||||||||||
| 609 WEST MARY STREET | AUSTIN | TX | 78704 | 472666272 | $1,219 | GRANT TO PROVIDE COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AND INTERNET TO STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN D.C'S OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. | $8,977 | FMV | 9 DELL CHROMEBOOK LAPTOPS; 8 AT&T NIGHTHAWK MOBILE HOTSPOTS | |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total501c3 Org | 6 | Total501c3OrgCnt |
| Total Other Org | 3 | TotalOtherOrgCnt |
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 | 0 | 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 (11 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 | $456,976 | $0 | $70,000 | $0 | $72 | $0 | $35,750 | $0 | $10,142 | $0 | $572,940 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| DANA BERLINER | ||||||||||||||
| SENIOR VP AND LITIGATION DIRECTOR | $400,312 | $0 | $60,000 | $0 | $72 | $0 | $39,200 | $0 | $13,649 | $0 | $513,233 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| JOHN KRAMER | ||||||||||||||
| VP FOR COMMUNICATIONS | $332,846 | $0 | $40,000 | $0 | $134 | $0 | $39,200 | $0 | $32,054 | $0 | $444,234 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| DANIEL KNEPPER | ||||||||||||||
| MANAGING VP-CFO/SECRETARY | $349,726 | $0 | $45,000 | $0 | $31 | $0 | $29,463 | $0 | $13,174 | $0 | $437,394 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| DEBORAH SIMPSON | ||||||||||||||
| CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER | $314,444 | $0 | $35,000 | $0 | $134 | $0 | $39,200 | $0 | $12,892 | $0 | $401,670 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| ROBERT MCNAMARA | ||||||||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | $274,847 | $0 | $20,000 | $0 | $28 | $0 | $38,244 | $0 | $19,407 | $0 | $352,526 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| ROBERT GALL | ||||||||||||||
| MANAGING VP AND SENIOR ATTORNEY | $267,853 | $0 | $25,000 | $0 | $47 | $0 | $37,207 | $0 | $20,070 | $0 | $350,177 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| BETH STEVENS | ||||||||||||||
| VP FOR DEVELOPMENT | $269,737 | $0 | $25,000 | $0 | $72 | $0 | $37,992 | $0 | $13,392 | $0 | $346,193 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| JEFFREY ROWES | ||||||||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | $216,382 | $0 | $15,000 | $0 | $47 | $0 | $36,022 | $0 | $31,997 | $0 | $299,448 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| MELANIE HILDRETH | ||||||||||||||
| VP FOR EXTERNAL RELATIONS | $215,938 | $0 | $20,000 | $0 | $29 | $0 | $32,600 | $0 | $17,642 | $0 | $286,209 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| PAUL SHERMAN | ||||||||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | $206,299 | $0 | $7,500 | $0 | $31 | $0 | $31,948 | $0 | $25,428 | $0 | $271,206 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Supplemental Information Detail SupplementalInformationDetail
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Form And Line Reference | PART I, LINE 7 | FormAndLineReferenceDesc |
| Explanation | 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. | ExplanationTxt |
Schedule M IRS990ScheduleM
Cars And Other Vehicles CarsAndOtherVehiclesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Non Cash Checkbox | Yes (X) | NonCashCheckboxInd |
| Contribution | 4 | ContributionCnt |
| Noncash Contributions Rpt F990 | $1,742 | NoncashContributionsRptF990Amt |
| Method Of Determining Revenues | FMV | MethodOfDeterminingRevenuesTxt |
Securities Publicly Traded SecuritiesPubliclyTradedGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Non Cash Checkbox | Yes (X) | NonCashCheckboxInd |
| Contribution | 55 | ContributionCnt |
| Noncash Contributions Rpt F990 | $1,942,742 | 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 | 12 | ContributionCnt |
| Noncash Contributions Rpt F990 | $39,363 | 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 (16 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 IN THE SUMMER OF 2020, THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE (IJ) SECURED A LANDMARK U.S. SUPREME COURT VICTORY FOR EDUCATIONAL CHOICE 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. WE FILED THIS CASE IN 2015 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. IN FY21, WE RECEIVED $13,880.52 IN COSTS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA. TIMBS V. STATE OF INDIANA AFTER SEVEN YEARS IN COURT, INCLUDING A LANDMARK U.S. SUPREME COURT VICTORY, IJ CLIENT TYSON TIMBS FINALLY HAS HIS CAR BACK. 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 U.S. SUPREME COURT HELD IN 2019 THAT THE BAN ON EXCESSIVE FINES AND FEES APPLIES TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE 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. THE INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL APPEALED THE DECISION, PLACING TYSON'S CASE BEFORE THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT FOR A THIRD TIME. IN JUNE 2021, THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT ONCE AGAIN RULED IN OUR CLIENT'S FAVOR, STATING THAT FORFEITING HIS CAR VIOLATED THE EIGHT AMENDMENT'S EXCESSIVE FINES CLAUSE. WE WAIT TO SEE IF THE STATE WILL APPEAL THE LATEST RULING, YET THE VICTORIES IN THIS CASE HAVE ESTABLISHED IMPORTANT PROTECTIONS FOR, AND PRECEDENT SURROUNDING, PROPERTY RIGHTS THAT WILL BE CITED FOR YEARS TO COME. HAVEMAN, ET AL. V. BUREAU OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL AFFAIRS, ET AL. IN AUGUST 2020, IJ WON A CASE IN PENNSYLVANIA THAT STRUCK DOWN A "COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCE" LAW, FREEING OUR CLIENTS AMANDA SPILLANE AND COURTNEY HAVEMAN TO PURSUE THEIR CHOSEN CAREERS. PENNSYLVANIA'S COSMETOLOGY BOARD CLAIMED THAT AMANDA AND COURTNEY LACKED "GOOD MORAL CHARACTER AND DENIED THEIR LICENSES TO PRACTICE AS ESTHETICIANS BECAUSE OF PAST CRIMINAL MISTAKES. BUT THE BOARD LET AMANDA AND COURTNEY SPEND MONTHS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS COMPLETING COSMETOLOGY TRAINING BEFORE SHUTTING DOWN THEIR DREAMS. BOTH PARTNERED WITH IJ TO CHALLENGE THIS LAW. THE STATE'S INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT RULED IN OUR FAVOR AND CALLED THE STATE'S REQUIREMENT "UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNENFORCEABLE." THE DECISION WILL HELP EVERYONE WHO HAS OVERCOME A CRIMINAL HISTORY TO ENTER THE BEAUTY PROFESSIONS. AND THE COURT'S LANGUAGE ENDORSED IJ'S POSITION AND ESTABLISHES IMPORTANT PRECEDENT IJ CAN USE IN OUR CASEWORK ACROSS THE NATION. SOUROVELIS V. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA IN A CASE SPANNING MORE THAN SIX YEARS, IJ SUCCESSFULLY DISMANTLED THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA'S DRACONIAN CIVIL FORFEITURE PROGRAM. 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. IJ SECURED TWO SWEEPING CONSENT DECREES 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. THIS YEAR, CHECKS FROM THE FUND WERE DELIVERED TO VICTIMS. AS A RESULT OF OUR LITIGATION, IJ RECEIVED FROM THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA $2,630,000 IN ATTORNEY'S FEES. EL-SHABAZZ, ET AL. V. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL. IN OCTOBER 2020, IJ CLIENT SUNG CHO SECURED JUSTICE FOR HIMSELF AND THOUSANDS OF OTHERS. SUNG OWNS A LAUNDROMAT IN MANHATTAN AND, JUST BEFORE CHRISTMAS 2013, HE FOUND HIMSELF TARGETED BY THE CITY'S NO-FAULT EVICTION MACHINE. UNDERCOVER COPS HAD COME TO HIS LAUNDROMAT MONTHS BEFORE AND ASKED CUSTOMERS AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IF THEY WANTED TO BUY STOLEN ELECTRONICS. TWO TOOK THE BAIT. NEITHER HAD ANY CONNECTION TO SUNG'S BUSINESS. THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT (NYPD) DID NOT ACCUSE SUNG OF WRONGDOING. INSTEAD, ATTORNEYS FOR THE CITY THREATENED THE LAUNDROMAT WITH EVICTION SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS THE PLACE WHERE THE ALLEGED OFFENSES OCCURRED. 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. IJ CHALLENGED THESE COERCIVE AGREEMENTS IN COURT, AND, LAST FALL, A FEDERAL COURT APPROVED AN ORDER BARRING THE CITY FROM ENFORCING THESE SETTLEMENTS AND PROVIDING RELIEF TO THOUSANDS OF NEW YORKERS WHOM THE CITY HAD TARGETED IN ITS SCHEME. SYLVIA GONZALEZ V. CITY OF CASTLE HILLS, TEXAS SYLVIA GONZALEZ, A RETIRED RESIDENT OF CASTLE HILLS, TEXAS, RAN FOR LOCAL OFFICE IN 2019 AND DEFEATED A WELL-CONNECTED AND POWERFUL INCUMBENT AFTER KNOCKING ON MORE THAN 500 DOORS AND TALKING WITH HUNDREDS OF RESIDENTS. SYLVIA HELPED ORGANIZE A NON-BINDING PETITION CALLING FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE CASTLE HILLS CITY MANAGER. INCENSED BY THE CRITICISM, CITY OFFICIALS RETALIATED WITH A CAMPAIGN OF HARASSMENT THAT CULMINATED IN SYLVIA BEING ARRESTED AND SPENDING A DAY IN JAIL, ACCUSED OF STEALING HER OWN PETITION. IN SEPTEMBER 2020, SYLVIA TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO HOLD ACCOUNTABLE THE CITY OFFICIALS WHO VIOLATED HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. CITY OFFICIALS CLAIMED THEY COULD NOT BE SUED BECAUSE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. IN MARCH 2021, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE DENIED THE OFFICIALS IMMUNITY, RULING THAT THROWING SOMEONE IN JAIL FOR EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IS A CLEARLY ESTABLISHED VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THIS DECISION MARKS AN EARLY AND IMPORTANT VICTORY IN THE FIGHT TO VINDICATE SYLVIA'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 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, 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 NEIGHBORING BERKS COUNTY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. IN FEBRUARY, THE COMMONWEALTH COURT RULED IN IJ'S FAVOR, STATING THAT DISCLOSING THIS INFORMATION "ADVANCES ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE CIVIL FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY." THIS TOTAL VICTORY WILL PREVENT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ACROSS THE STATE FROM KEEPING FORFEITURE RECORDS AWAY FROM PUBLIC SCRUTINY. CHARLESTOWN PLEASANT RIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ET AL. V. CITY OF CHARLESTOWN, ET AL. AT THE END OF 2020, IJ ENDED A SIX-YEAR BATTLE ON BEHALF OF HOMEOWNERS IN CHARLESTOWN, INDIANA, TO PROTECT THEIR HOMES AGAINST AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAND GRAB. THE FORMER MAYOR AND HIS ALLIES HAD TARGETED HOMEOWNERS AND LANDLORDS BY ISSUING EXCESSIVE FINES FOR MINOR CODE VIOLATIONS ULTIMATELY TOTALING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. THEY SOUGHT TO FORCE THE HOMEOWNERS INTO SELLING THEIR HOMES TO A DEVELOPER AT A DISCOUNTED RATE. IJ PARTNERED WITH THESE RESIDENTS TO SUE THE CITY. WE SECURED A PARTIAL VICTORY IN 2019 THAT TEMPORARILY HALTED THE ABUSE. THEN IN DECEMBER 2020, A COURT APPROVED AN AGREEMENT PREVENTING THE TOWN FROM USING ITS MUNICIPAL CODE TO TREAT CITIZENS LIKE ATMS, KICK PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR HOMES UNCONSTITUTIONALLY, OR SEARCH THEIR HOMES WITHOUT A WARRANT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE. IJ RECEIVED FROM THE CITY OF CHARLESTOWN $70,000 IN ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THIS CASE. |
| 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 OUTLAWED HOME-BASED BUSINESSES THAT SERVE CLIENTS, 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, FACE STEEP FINES IF ANY CUSTOMERS PHYSICALLY COME TO THEIR HOMES TO DO BUSINESS. IJ AND THE BEACON CENTER OF TENNESSEE TEAMED UP TO VINDICATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO USE YOUR OWN HOME TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING. IN OCTOBER 2019, A NASHVILLE COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT. WE APPEALED THAT RULING AND NOW WAIT TO HEAR WHETHER THE STATE SUPREME COURT WILL ACCEPT THE CASE FOR REVIEW. BARNES AND MISSION INVESTIGATIONS GROUP, LLC, V. JESS L. ANDERSON, ET AL. IJ SCORED A FAST VICTORY FOR ECONOMIC LIBERTY WHEN WE 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. IJ OFFICIALLY CLOSED THE CASE IN JULY 2020. 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. IN DECEMBER 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. IN AUGUST 2020, THE COURT REJECTED THE CHALLENGE TO THE CITY'S RULES ON MOBILE VENDORS, STRIKING A BLOW TO ENTREPRENEURS IN BALTIMORE AND ACROSS MARYLAND. 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. IN DECEMBER 2020, A CONSENT AGREEMENT WAS REACHED AFTER THE 5TH CIRCUIT'S RULING. BECAUSE THE CONSENT AGREEMENT RECOGNIZES THAT THE SERVICES VIZALINE IS PROVIDING ARE LEGAL, VIZALINE AND IJ HAVE AGREED TO DROP THE LAWSUIT. 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 (FORMERLY OPTERNATIVE), THESE TESTS ARE INEXPENSIVE AND ENABLE MORE PEOPLE TO GET EYEGLASS PRESCRIPTIONS MORE QUICKLY AND EASILY THAN EVER BEFORE. BUT OPTOMETRISTS HAVE GONE TO EXTRAORDINARY LENGTHS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM ONLINE COMPETITORS LIKE VISIBLY. IN SOUTH CAROLINA, THE GOVERNMENT MADE IT A CRIME FOR ANY OPTOMETRIST TO DISPENSE AN EYEGLASS PRESCRIPTION USING VISIBLY'S TECHNOLOGY. IJ FILED SUIT IN OCTOBER 2016 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. DESPITE AN INITIAL SETBACK, IN MAY 2021, THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED A LOWER COURT DECISION DISMISSING OUR CASE, ALLOWING OUR CASE TO PROCEED. LADD, ET AL. V. REAL ESTATE COMMISSION OF PENNSYLVANIA 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, 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. IN MAY 2020, THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT HELD THAT SALLY'S LAWSUIT AGAINST THE PENNSYLVANIA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION COULD MOVE FORWARD, VINDICATING THE RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING ENSHRINED IN THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION. THE DECISION PROVIDED A DEFINITIVE RULING OUTLINING AND APPLYING THE PROTECTIONS OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION WHEN CHALLENGING ECONOMIC LIBERTY RESTRICTIONS IN COURT. THE DECISION WILL AFFECT ALL PENNSYLVANIANS AND MOST DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CHALLENGES IN PENNSYLVANIA STATE COURT. RUSSINKO, ET AL. V. NEW JERSEY DEP'T OF HEALTH, ET AL. HOME BAKERS HEATHER RUSSINKO, LIZ CIBOTARIU, AND MARTHA RABELLO 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 SEPARATE FROM ONE'S HOME KITCHEN, PAYING FEES, AND ABIDING BY HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF REGULATIONS. BANNING THE SALE OF HOME-BAKED GOODS DIRECTLY TO CONSUMERS GIVES 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. THE NEW RULES ARE CURRENTLY MAKING THEIR WAY THROUGH THE STATE'S RULEMAKING PROCESS. LISA KIVIRIST ET AL. V. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ET AL. WISCONSIN BANS THE SALE OF MANY HOMEMADE FOODS, AND FOR THOSE WHO WOULD DARE SELL, THE PUNISHMENT INCLUDES UP TO $1,000 IN FINES OR SIX MONTHS IN JAIL. BEFORE 2017, WISCONSIN BANNED THE SALE OF ALL HOME-BAKED GOODS, BUT IJ SECURED A VICTORY WHEN A STATE COURT ORDERED THE STATE TO ALLOW THE SALE OF THESE GOODS BECAUSE THEY ARE PERFECTLY SAFE. BUT A STATE AGENCY INTERPRETED "BAKED GOOD" TO MEAN FOODS MADE WITH FLOUR AND CONTINUES TO BAN BAKED GOODS MADE WITHOUT FLOUR. IJ PARTNERED WITH SEVEN WISCONSINITES AND THE WISCONSIN COTTAGE FOODS ASSOCIATION TO HAVE OUR PREVIOUS VICTORY ENFORCED AND FILE ANOTHER LAWSUIT ASKING THE COURT TO STRIKE DOWN THE STATE'S ARBITRARY BAN. THE JUDGE IN THE ORIGINAL CASE TOLD THE AGENCY THAT THE PRIOR RULING COVERED BAKED GOODS MADE WITHOUT FLOUR. IN THE SEPARATE CASE, IN JUNE 2021, IJ SECURED A FIRST-ROUND VICTORY AFTER A JUDGE REJECTED THE STATE'S ATTEMPT TO DISMISS THE CASE. 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 PRODUCE HOMEMADE FOODS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE AVAILABLE. BUT IN JANUARY 2020, THE NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ILLEGALLY ISSUED REGULATIONS THAT ARBITRARILY BAN THE SALE OF ALL BUT A FEW TYPES OF HOMEMADE FOODS. IJ CHALLENGED THESE REGULATIONS, AND, IN DECEMBER 2020, A NORTH DAKOTA JUDGE RULED THE NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH BROKE THE LAW AND STRUCK DOWN THE NEW REGULATIONS. IJ RECEIVED $752.37 IN COSTS FROM THE NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. |
| HARPER V. CITY OF LINCOLN, ET AL. | IN 2019, NEBRASKA JOINED MOST 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, NEBRASKA'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 CHALLENGED LINCOLN'S ORDINANCE IN COURT. IN MARCH 2021, THE TOWN AMENDED ITS ORDINANCE TO ALLOW HOMEMADE FOOD PRODUCERS TO SELL THEIR GOODS FREE OF BURDENSOME REGULATIONS. IJ MOVED TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS THE CASE. ELIJAH AND ASHLEY DURHAM, ET AL. V. CITY OF TARPON SPRINGS, ET AL. AFTER ELIJAH DURHAM LOST HIS JOB LAST YEAR AS A CHEF, HE DECIDED TO TAKE HIS CULINARY TALENTS TO THE STREETS BY OPENING A BURGER FOOD TRUCK WITH HIS WIFE, ASHLEY. THEY THOUGHT THEIR TIMING COULD NOT BE BETTER. THANKS IN LARGE PART TO IJ'S EFFORTS IN 2020, FLORIDA MADE IT ILLEGAL FOR CITIES TO BAN FOOD TRUCKS. BUT THE CITY PASSED A NEW ORDINANCE THAT ONLY ALLOWED FOOD TRUCKS OPERATED BY BRICK-AND-MORTAR RESTAURANTS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA WHERE ALL THE RESTAURANTS, CRAFT BREWERIES, AND CUSTOMERS ARE LOCATED. ALL OTHER FOOD TRUCKS WERE RELEGATED TO A SMALL STRIP OF LAND BY THE HIGHWAY, AN UNSUITABLE LOCATION FOR A BUSINESS THAT RELIES ON FOOT TRAFFIC. THE CITY PASSED THIS ORDINANCE AT THE BEHEST OF LOCAL BRICK-AND-MORTAR RESTAURANT OWNERS TO LIMIT COMPETITION, SO ELIJAH AND ASHLEY PARTNERED WITH IJ IN MAY 2021 TO CHALLENGE THE PROTECTIONIST LAW. 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 IJ 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. SURFVIVE, ET AL. V. CITY OF SOUTH PADRE ISLAND IN SOUTH PADRE ISLAND, TEXAS, THE CITY GOVERNMENT CAPS FOOD TRUCK PERMITS AT 12 AND REQUIRES FOOD TRUCKS TO GET A RESTAURANT OWNER'S APPROVAL ON THEIR APPLICATION. THIS MEANS LESS CHOICE AND HIGHER PRICES FOR SOUTH PADRE ISLAND RESIDENTS AND VISITORS, AND 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. IN DECEMBER 2020, A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE STRUCK DOWN SOUTH PADRE'S ANTI-COMPETITIVE FOOD TRUCK PERMIT CAP. ASTONISHINGLY, THE ISLAND CHOSE TO DEFY THE ORDER WITHOUT EVEN FILING AN APPEAL. IN MARCH 2021, IJ ASKED THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT TO ENFORCE THE EARLIER RULING, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ALONGSIDE FOOD TRUCK OWNERS UNTIL THIS ABUSE STOPS. 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 WAS THE TOWN BOARD'S SCHEME TO PROTECT ESTABLISHED RESTAURANTS FROM HEALTHY COMPETITION. WITH IJ'S HELP, LISA, KEVIN, JESSICA, AND CHRIS CHALLENGED THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL VENDING BAN TO SAVE THEIR BUSINESS AND ESTABLISH VENDORS' RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING. THE TOWN ATTEMPTED TO MODIFY THE ORDINANCE TO END THE SUIT, BUT, IN SEPTEMBER 2020, A DOOR COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE RULED THAT BOTH THE ORDINANCES VIOLATED WISCONSIN'S CONSTITUTION. IJ RECEIVED $6,941.14 IN COSTS FROM THE TOWN OF GIBRALTAR. 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 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 LAW. IN APRIL 2018, A FEDERAL JUDGE DISMISSED THE SUIT ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS, BUT IN JULY 2019, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 8TH CIRCUIT REVERSED THIS DECISION AND SENT THE CASE BACK TO TRIAL COURT. IN SEPTEMBER 2020, IJ SECURED A VICTORY FOR OUR CLIENTS AND MINNESOTANS WHEN A FEDERAL JUDGE STRUCK DOWN THE PROTECTIONIST LAW. IJ WAS AWARDED FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY $92,500 IN ATTORNEY'S FEES. 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." MARC TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO PROTECT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING. THOUGH NEBRASKA PASSED A LAW REPEALING SOME CON REQUIREMENTS IN AUGUST 2020, MARC'S CASE CONTINUES AS IJ ARGUES THE CON LAW IN HIS PROFESSION VIOLATES THREE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION. 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 CERTIFICATE OF NEED 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. IN APRIL 2020, IJ JOINED UP WITH DR. JAY SINGLETON, AN OPHTHALMOLOGIST FROM NEW BERN, TO FILE A CHALLENGE TO NORTH CAROLINA'S CON LAW. DR. SINGLETON OWNS A STATE-OF-THE-ART OUTPATIENT OPERATING FACILITY BUT CANNOT 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. THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING FREE FROM UNREASONABLE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE, AND IT IS UNREASONABLE FOR KENTUCKY TO PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS IN THE MARKETPLACE. SO DIPENDRA, KISHOR, AND IJ ARE CHALLENGING KENTUCKY'S CON REQUIREMENT FOR HOME HEALTH AGENCIES IN FEDERAL COURT. ABDALLAH BATAYNEH ET AL. V. COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ET AL. IJ AND OUR CLIENT ABDALLAH BATAYNEH FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST COLORADO'S MONOPOLISTIC SCHEME THAT PREVENTED HIM FROM LAUNCHING A SHUTTLE SERVICE BUSINESS. ABDALLAH WORKS AT A HOT SPRINGS RESORT AND HEARD NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS THAT EXISTING SERVICES WERE TOO EXPENSIVE AND HAD POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE, SO HE DECIDED TO CREATE HIS OWN COMPANY THAT WOULD PROVIDE BETTER SERVICE. UNFORTUNATELY, COLORADO LAW ALLOWS POWERFUL INDUSTRY INSIDERS TO DENY NEW COMPETITION BY REQUIRING NEW WOULD-BE BUSINESSES TO OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM EXISTING MONOPOLIES. EXISTING SHUTTLE COMPANIES USED THIS LAW TO THWART ABDALLAH IN STARTING HIS BUSINESS BY ARGUING THAT HIS SERVICES WERE NOT "NEEDED." THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS, AND EXISTING COMPANIES SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DENY COMPETITION. ABDALLAH PARTNERED WITH IJ IN MARCH 2021 TO SUE THE STATE REGULATORY AGENCY. |
| COURTNEY AND COURTNEY V. GOLTZ, ET AL. | FOR YEARS, BROTHERS JIM AND CLIFF COURTNEY WANTED TO PROVIDE CONVENIENT FERRY SERVICE ACROSS LAKE CHELAN IN WASHINGTON STATE. 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 JOINED WITH IJ TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHT TO PURSUE AN HONEST LIVING FREE FROM PROTECTIONIST INTERFERENCE BY THE GOVERNMENT. IN APRIL 2020, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 9TH CIRCUIT RULED AGAINST JIM AND CLIFF, SO IN SEPTEMBER 2020, WE APPEALED THE CASE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. IN JANUARY 2021, THE COURT DENIED REVIEW OF THE CASE. SHAZIA ITTIQ AND SEEMA PANJWANI V. OKLAHOMA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY AND BARBERING, ET AL. SHAZIA ITTIQ AND SEEMA PANJWANI ARE EYEBROW THREADERS IN OKLAHOMA WHO ARE SUBJECTED TO ONEROUS AND IRRELEVANT REGULATIONS BY THE OKLAHOMA BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY. THE BOARD REQUIRES THREADERS TO COMPLETE AT LEAST 600 HOURS OF COSMETOLOGY SCHOOLING, NOT A MINUTE OF WHICH ADDRESSES THREADING. THEY ALSO MUST PASS TWO EXAMS THAT ONLY TEST PRACTICES THREADERS NEVER USE. SHAZIA AND SEEMA HAVE PRACTICED THREADING SINCE THEY WERE TEENAGERS AND SPENT YEARS DEVELOPING THEIR BUSINESSES FROM THE GROUND UP. BOTH PARTNERED WITH IJ IN FEBRUARY IN A LAWSUIT DESIGNED TO EXPORT THE PRECEDENT IJ ESTABLISHED IN OUR 2015 VICTORY IN PATEL V. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATION. THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN THE STATE'S LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR EYEBROW THREADERS, AND IJ HAS FREED THREADERS IN LOUISIANA AND ARIZONA FROM SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS. NOW, WE SEEK TO ESTABLISH THE SAME PROTECTIONS FOR OKLAHOMA THREADERS. N'DAKPRI, ET AL. V. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, ET AL. IJ REPRESENTS 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. MARCUS & MILLICHAP REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT SERVICES OF NEVADA, INC. V. CHANDRA MARCUS & MILLICHAP REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC. IS A COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT SERVICES COMPANY WITH OFFICES THROUGHOUT THE U.S. AND CANADA. MOST STATES ACCOMMODATE THE SORT OF INTERSTATE BROKERAGE WORK THAT MARCUS & MILLICHAP PERFORMS. NEVADA, HOWEVER, REQUIRES INDIVIDUAL LICENSEES TO MAINTAIN A PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN THE STATE AND PROHIBITS MOST OUT-OF-STATE BROKER INVOLVEMENT, EVEN IF WORKING IN COOPERATION WITH A LOCAL BROKER. MARCUS & MILLICHAP FILED SUIT IN 2016 IN FEDERAL COURT TO CHALLENGE NEVADA'S SYSTEM AS PROTECTIONIST AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE TRIAL COURT ULTIMATELY UPHELD NEVADA'S LAW AND MARCUS & MILLICHAP APPEALED TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 9TH CIRCUIT. THE COMPANY ASKED THE COURT OF APPEALS TO RULE THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAD ERRED. THE STATE OF NEVADA THEN ASKED THE COURT OF APPEALS TO RULE THAT THE TRIAL COURT GOT THINGS RIGHT. RATHER THAN DECIDING WHICH SIDE WAS RIGHT, THE 9TH CIRCUIT RESURRECTED A PROCEDURAL ARGUMENT THAT NO ONE HAD MADE ON APPEAL. IT GAVE NO REASON FOR TAKING THAT UNUSUAL STEP, AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THAT NEW THEORY, IT WITHDREW THE FEDERAL COURTS FROM A CASE THEY HAD THE POWER TO DECIDE. FEW QUESTIONS ARE MORE DEMANDING OF UNIFORM, TRANSPARENT RESOLUTION THAN WHETHER AND WHEN THE FEDERAL COURTS CAN ABDICATE THEIR DUTY TO DECIDE CASES, SO IJ ASKED THE U.S. SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW. IN JUNE 2021, THE COURT DENIED REVIEW OF THE CASE. 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 REGULATIONS REQUIRING MANY OF THE CITY'S DAY CARE PROVIDERS TO GO TO COLLEGE OR LOSE THEIR JOBS. THESE 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. 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 JANUARY 2021, THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DISMISSED THE LAWSUIT, AND WE APPEALED THE DECISION TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT. 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 DISPENSE MEDICINE DIRECTLY TO THEIR PATIENTS, SAVING PATIENTS TIME AND MONEY AND MAKING IT MORE LIKELY THEY WILL FILL THEIR PRESCRIPTIONS. TEXAS AND MONTANA, HOWEVER, ALLOW ONLY DOCTORS IN CERTAIN RURAL AREAS TO DISPENSE MEDICATION. THE BANS SERVE ONLY TO PROTECT THE PROFITS OF PHARMACIES, SO IJ IS REPRESENTING DOCTORS FROM TEXAS AND MONTANA IN TWO LAWSUITS CHALLENGING THESE STATES' BANS ON DOCTOR DISPENSING. IN MAY 2021, FOLLOWING IJ'S LAWSUIT, MONTANA PASSED A BILL ALLOWING DOCTORS TO DISPENSE PRESCRIBED MEDICINE DIRECTLY TO PATIENTS. IN TEXAS, A DISTRICT COURT UPHELD THE STATE'S BAN, AND WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF APPEALING THAT DECISION. 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 - 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. 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. 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. IN FEBRUARY 2020, THE ASOTIN COUNTY BOARD 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. GURROLA AND HERRERA V. DUNCAN ET AL. DARIO GURROLA LEARNED HOW TO FIGHT FIRES IN CALIFORNIA'S WELL-KNOWN INMATE FIREFIGHTING PROGRAM. WHEN HE TURNED HIS LIFE AROUND, HE THOUGHT HE COULD TURN THE SKILLS HE LEARNED WHILE INCARCERATED INTO A CAREER SERVING THE PUBLIC AS A FIREFIGHTER. BUT CALIFORNIA, DESPITE USING THOUSANDS OF INMATES TO FIGHT ITS 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. 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 TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING. AND, IN SEPTEMBER 2020, IJ PARTNERED WITH A NEW PLAINTIFF, FERNANDO HERRERA, WHO IS SIMILARLY PREVENTED FROM BECOMING A CERTIFIED FIRST RESPONDER BECAUSE OF HIS RECORD. |
| 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. 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 JOINED WITH IJ TO FILE A LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT TO DEFEND THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND THEIR 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING. 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 A STATE-ISSUED LICENSE, WHICH THE BOARD'S RULES SAY HE WOULD NOT 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, 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. HIGHT V. U.S. DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY CAPTAIN MATTHEW HIGHT HAS BEEN A MERCHANT MARINER FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS. HE DECIDED TO WORK TOWARD GETTING HIS LICENSE TO PILOT COMMERCIAL VESSELS ON THE SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY AND LAKE ONTARIO. 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 IJ IN MARCH 2019 TO DEFEND HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND ASK THE COAST GUARD TO STOP DELEGATING ITS POWER TO THE PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. IN MARCH 2021, IJ WON A FIRST-ROUND VICTORY ON BEHALF OF CAPTAIN HIGHT IN A RARE DECISION IN WHICH A FEDERAL AGENCY LOST A CASE ABOUT HOW IT INTERPRETS ITS OWN REGULATIONS. A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE RULED THAT THE COAST GUARD HAD VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW, AND CAPTAIN HIGHT WAS ALLOWED TO TAKE THE NECESSARY EXAM TO OBTAIN HIS LICENSE. BEN AND HANK BRINKMANN, AND MATTITUCK 12500 LLC., V. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK THE FAMILY OWNERS OF BRINKMANN'S HARDWARE THOUGHT THEY HAD FOUND THE PERFECT LOCATION FOR A NEW STORE IN SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK. BUT EVEN THOUGH THEY FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES, THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD IS TRYING TO USE EMINENT DOMAIN TO TAKE THEIR PROPERTY FOR A "PARK" (BY WHICH THE TOWN MEANS THAT IT WILL LEAVE THE LAND AS AN UNIMPROVED LOT). IT IS AN EXTREME AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL TACTIC TO PREVENT AN ENTIRELY LEGAL BUSINESS FROM SERVING THE COMMUNITY. THE TOWN, WHERE THEY PURCHASED A COMMERCIAL-ZONED LOT, HAS DONE EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO STOP THE BRINKMANNS: IT SLOW-PLAYED THE PERMITTING PROCESS, IMPOSED EXORBITANT FEES, AND THEN ENACTED A TARGETED MORATORIUM ON BUILDING PERMITS ALONG A ONE MILE STRETCH OF ROAD WITH THE BRINKMANNS' PROPERTY IN THE CENTER. THE BRINKMANNS HAVE TEAMED UP WITH IJ IN FEDERAL COURT TO END THE TOWN'S ATTEMPTS TO THWART THEIR BUSINESS. BROWN AND ROLIN V. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. WHEN TRAVELERS GO ONLINE TO FIND OUT WHETHER IT IS LEGAL TO FLY WITH CASH, THE GOVERNMENT TELLS THEM THAT THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS ON TRAVELING WITH ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY ON DOMESTIC FLIGHTS. WHAT IT DOES NOT TELL FLYERS IS THAT, UPON SEEING CASH, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA) SCREENERS WILL DETAIN THEM AND TURN THEM OVER TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, WHO WILL TAKE THEIR MONEY WITHOUT ANY CAUSE FOR SUSPICION AND WITHOUT FILING ANY CRIMINAL CHARGES. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED TO IJ CLIENT TERRY ROLIN AND HIS DAUGHTER REBECCA BROWN, WHO HAD TERRY'S LIFE SAVINGS OF $82,000 SEIZED AT THE PITTSBURGH AIRPORT BY THE TSA AND DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (DEA) WHEN REBECCA WAS TRYING TO TAKE THE MONEY HOME WITH HER TO BOSTON TO DEPOSIT INTO A NEW JOINT BANK ACCOUNT. TO END THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES, IJ HAS FILED A FOURTH AMENDMENT CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF TERRY, REBECCA, AND OTHER TRAVELERS. IN MARCH 2021, IJ WON A FIRST-ROUND VICTORY WHEN A FEDERAL JUDGE REJECTED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE. 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. 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 WHEN WAYNE COUNTY SEIZED THEM BASED ON OTHER PEOPLE'S ALLEGED MISBEHAVIOR. SO THEY HAVE PARTNERED WITH IJ IN A MAJOR FEDERAL CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WAYNE COUNTY'S FORFEITURE PROGRAM. OUR GOAL WITH THIS CASE IS TO ENFORCE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEIZURES AND EXCESSIVE FINES AND THUS DISMANTLING MUCH OF DETROIT'S CAR FORFEITURE SYSTEM. STATE OF ARIZONA V. JERRY JOHNSON IJ FILED A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF JERRY JOHNSON AFTER OFFICERS INTERROGATED HIM AT THE PHOENIX AIRPORT AND SEIZED THE ALMOST $40,000 HE WAS CARRYING. JERRY HAD COMMITTED NO CRIME AND WAS ON HIS WAY TO BUY A TRUCK FOR HIS SMALL TRUCKING BUSINESS. BUT THE OFFICERS BASELESSLY ACCUSED HIM OF LAUNDERING MONEY. STATE PROSECUTORS THEN USED CIVIL FORFEITURE TO TAKE JERRY'S MONEY. JERRY HAD TO PROVE THE MONEY WAS HIS, BUT THE COURT FOUND THAT JERRY WAS MORE LIKELY TO BE TRANSPORTING THE PROCEEDS OF DRUG TRAFFICKING THAN TRAVELING WITH THE MONEY ON A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS TRIP. THIS EFFECTIVELY REQUIRED JERRY TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE. THE COURT ORDERED THE FORFEITURE OF JERRY'S MONEY AND NOW THE STATE RETAINS IT. IT VIOLATES DUE PROCESS TO REQUIRE SOMEONE TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE TO SECURE THE RETURN OF THEIR PROPERTY, SO JERRY PARTNERED WITH IJ TO APPEAL THE COURT'S DECISION. A VICTORY WILL FORTIFY PROPERTY RIGHTS IN ARIZONA BY REMOVING THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL LOOPHOLE. TERRY ABBOT V. STATE OF INDIANA IN 2015, POLICE SEIZED ABOUT $9,000 FROM TERRY ABBOTT. HE ORIGINALLY HIRED AN ATTORNEY TO DEFEND AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT'S FORFEITURE LAWSUIT. BUT HE COULD NOT AFFORD THE MOUNTING LEGAL FEES, SO HE CONTINUED WITHOUT COUNSEL. HE ASKED FOR THE HELP OF A COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY, BUT THE TRIAL COURT REJECTED HIS REQUEST AND DECIDED THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD GET TO KEEP HIS MONEY. ON APPEAL, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAD JUMPED THE GUN AND THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE ITS CASE AT TRIAL. THE COURT OF APPEALS ALSO HELD THAT ABBOTT SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE SOME OF THE SEIZED FUNDS TO HIRE DEFENSE COUNSEL. IT IS HIS MONEY UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT PROVES ITS CASE, IF IT EVEN MANAGES TO DO SO. NOW, INDIANA IS ASKING THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT TO TAKE ON THE CASE, ARGUING THAT ABBOTT MUST GO TO TRIAL WITHOUT A LAWYER. IJ IS REPRESENTING ABBOTT ON APPEAL AND URGING THE SUPREME COURT TO DENY THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW. 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DRUG ENFORCEMENT UNIT V. TRAVIS GREEN IN JULY 2020, IJ INTERVENED ON BEHALF OF TRAVIS GREEN, A SOUTH CAROLINA MAN FROM WHOM OFFICIALS AND PROSECUTORS SEIZED AND ATTEMPTED TO PERMANENTLY TAKE MONEY. INITIALLY, AFTER HEARING ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES, A JUDGE RULED THAT THE STATUTES PROSECUTORS TRIED TO USE TO FORFEIT TRAVIS' MONEY VIOLATED DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM EXCESSIVE FINES. THE PROSECUTORS APPEALED THE DECISION TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT, AND IJ PARTNERED WITH TRAVIS TO DEFEND HIS VICTORY AND PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR SOUTH CAROLINIANS. WE AWAIT A DECISION. |
| 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." FOR OVER TWO YEARS, THE AGENCY HELD GERARDO'S TRUCK WITHOUT EVER TAKING ITS CASE BEFORE A JUDGE WHILE GERARDO CONTINUED TO MAKE HIS MONTHLY CAR PAYMENTS. IN OCTOBER 2017, GERARDO JOINED WITH IJ TO FILE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST CBP. THE AGENCY TRIED TO MOOT HIS CASE BY RETURNING HIS TRUCK. BUT THE TRIAL COURT AND APPEALS COURT HELD THAT THE CASE WAS NOT MOOT - AS GERARDO COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH CLASS ACTION CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF ALL U.S. CITIZENS WHO HAVE HAD VEHICLES SEIZED AT THE BORDER. STILL, HAVING REJECTED THE GOVERNMENT'S ATTEMPT TO MOOT THE CASE, BOTH COURTS HELD THAT DUE PROCESS DOES NOT REQUIRE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE A PROMPT POST-SEIZURE HEARING AFTER SEIZING AUTOMOBILES. IJ APPEALED THE CASE TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN DECEMBER 2020, BUT THE COURT DENIED REVIEW OF THE CASE. PAUL SNITKO, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. USING CIVIL FORFEITURE, THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS SEEKING TO PERMANENTLY TAKE THE CONTENTS OF HUNDREDS OF SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES, INCLUDING OVER $85 MILLION IN CASH AND PRECIOUS METALS, JEWELRY, AND OTHER VALUABLES WORTH MILLIONS MORE. BUT THE BOXES' OWNERS HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OF ANY CRIME AND HAVE NOT BEEN TOLD WHAT THE GOVERNMENT THINKS THEY DID WRONG. IN MAY 2021, SEVERAL OF THOSE OWNERS JOINED WITH IJ TO STOP THE GOVERNMENT'S FORFEITURE PLANS IN THEIR TRACKS. JUST A MONTH LATER, WE SECURED A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT PREVENTS IT FROM MOVING FORWARD WITH FORFEITURE ACTIONS AGAINST OUR CLIENTS WHILE THE LITIGATION CONTINUES. RAINWATERS AND HOLLINGSWORTH V. TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY, ET AL. TERRY RAINWATERS AND HUNTER HOLLINGSWORTH OWN RURAL PROPERTIES IN TENNESSEE, WHICH THEY USE FOR HUNTING AND OTHER ACTIVITIES. 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. THE TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS STATE OFFICIALS FROM BARGING IN WHENEVER THEY WISH. TERRY AND HUNTER TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO SUE TWRA IN TENNESSEE STATE COURT TO VINDICATE THE RIGHT OF ALL TENNESSEANS TO BE FREE FROM UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEARCHES. CATHERINE H. BARBER MEMORIAL SHELTER, INC. V. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWN OF NORTH WILKESBORO ET AL. IN NORTH WILKESBORO, NORTH CAROLINA, THE CATHERINE H. BARBER MEMORIAL SHELTER WORKS CLOSELY WITH LOCAL SOCIAL SERVICES TO TEMPORARILY SHELTER THOSE IN NEED. AFTER OPERATING FOR 30 YEARS, THE SHELTER SOUGHT A LARGER, MORE PERMANENT SPACE, SO IT APPLIED FOR A PERMIT. BUT THE TOWN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENIED THE APPLICATION BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE "HARMONIOUS" WITH ITS NEIGHBORS. IT IS ILLEGAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO USE ITS ZONING POWER TO PENALIZE OR ARBITRARILY RESTRICT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF CERTAIN KINDS OF PEOPLE OR CERTAIN TYPES OF PLACES. FOR THESE REASONS, THE BARBER SHELTER PARTNERED WITH IJ IN OCTOBER 2020 TO CHALLENGE THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND DEFEND THE SHELTER'S RIGHT TO OFFER PRIVATE CHARITY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. JOSEPH CORSINI V. CITY OF NEW YORK THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS (DOB) IMPOSES FINES FOR VIOLATIONS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THE CITY AND ITS INHABITANTS. TOO OFTEN THOUGH, IT PENALIZES PROPERTY OWNERS OVER TRIVIAL ISSUES AND LEAVES THEM OWING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, AS IT DID WITH JOE CORSINI. JOE IS A PIGEON KEEPER - A COMMON HOBBY IN THE CITY. HE DECIDED TO BUILD A SMALL PIGEON COOP ON THE ROOF OF HIS HOME BUT DID NOT REALIZE HE NEEDED TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT. HE SOON RECEIVED $3,000 IN FINES AND AN ORDER THAT HE BRING HIS COOP INTO COMPLIANCE BY OBTAINING A PERMIT. WHILE ENGAGING WITH THE DOB, HE AMASSED APPROXIMATELY $11,000 IN FINES. EVENTUALLY, HE CONCEDED AND TOOK DOWN THE COOP. BUT THIS PROCESS DID NOT SIT WELL WITH JOE, AND HE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FIGHT BACK. PENALIZING A HOMEOWNER WITH FINES THAT CAN RANGE UP TO $25,000 PER VIOLATION AND FAILING TO PROVIDE A RECOURSE TO APPEAL SIMPLY RAISES MONEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND DEPRIVES PROPERTY OWNERS OF DUE PROCESS. JOE IS FIGHTING TO CHANGE THIS SYSTEM AND ENSURE THAT HOMEOWNERS ARE TREATED WITH DIGNITY AND DUE PROCESS. AMANDA ROOT ET AL. V. CITY OF SIERRA VISTA AMANDA ROOT HAS CALLED SIERRA VISTA, IN SOUTHEAST ARIZONA, HOME FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS. IN THE LATE '90S, AMANDA ACQUIRED A SMALL LOT IN THE THEN CLOUD 9 MOBILE HOME PARK. SADLY, IN 2016, AMANDA'S MOBILE HOME BURNED TO THE GROUND, LEAVING HER TEMPORARILY HOMELESS. BUT IN 2017, AMANDA WAS GIVEN A PARK TRAILER TO PUT ON HER PROPERTY AND LIVE IN. THEN IN JULY 2020 - DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC - THE CITY TRIED TO KICK AMANDA AND HER NEIGHBORS OUT OF THEIR HOMES AND OFF THEIR PROPERTY. THE CITY GAVE THEM JUST 30 DAYS TO LEAVE. THERE WAS NO HEARING OR APPEAL OFFERED. THE CITY SAYS THAT AMANDA LIVES IN AN "RV" INSTEAD OF A "MANUFACTURED HOME." TO BE CLEAR, IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL TO LIVE IN AN RV IN SIERRA VISTA. THE CITY JUST SAYS AMANDA CANNOT HAVE AN RV ON THE PROPERTY SHE OWNS BECAUSE OF THE TECHNICALITIES OF THE CITY'S ZONING LAWS. NO ONE SHOULD BE MADE HOMELESS IN THE NAME OF ZONING, SO AMANDA AND HER NEIGHBORS TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO SUE THE CITY AND PROTECT THEIR RV HOMES. ZENAIDA "SANDY" MARTINEZ V. CITY OF LANTANA, FLORIDA, ET AL. THE CITY OF LANTANA, FLORIDA, FINED SANDY MARTINEZ MORE THAN $165,000 FOR MINOR PROPERTY CODE VIOLATIONS - INCLUDING A $100,000 FINE FOR PARKING HER CARS IN HER DRIVEWAY IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE TIRES ON ONE SIDE OF THE CAR WERE ON THE EDGE OF THE LAWN INSTEAD OF ON THE PAVED DRIVEWAY. THE CITY ALSO FINED HER FOR A STORM-DAMAGED FENCE AND CRACKS IN HER DRIVEWAY. THE FINES ADD UP TO MORE THAN HALF THE VALUE OF HER HOME. EVEN AFTER SANDY MOVED HER CAR, THE CITY CONTINUED TO ASSESS DAILY FINES BECAUSE, SUPPOSEDLY, SHE DID NOT INFORM SOMEONE SHE HAD MOVED HER CAR'S WHEELS SO THAT THEY WERE NO LONGER ON ANY GRASS IN HER FRONT YARD. BUT THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT LOCK YOU INTO A LIFETIME OF DEBT AND CRIPPLE YOU FINANCIALLY BECAUSE YOUR DRIVEWAY IS TOO NARROW AND YOUR FENCE FELL IN A HURRICANE. BY TRYING TO IMPOSE RUINOUS FINES ON SANDY FOR SUCH MINOR INFRACTIONS, LANTANA IS VIOLATING SANDY'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM EXCESSIVE FINES. TO FIGHT BACK, SHE TEAMED UP WITH IJ IN FEBRUARY 2021 TO FILE A LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA STATE COURT TO HOLD THE CITY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEHAVIOR. VICKI BAKER V. CITY OF MCKINNEY, TEXAS IN MARCH 2021, IJ PARTNERED WITH VICKI BAKER TO DEFEND HER PRIVATE PROPERTY AFTER A NIGHTMARISH EXPERIENCE THAT ENDED WITH HER HOME DESTROYED AND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN DAMAGES. LAST SUMMER, A FUGITIVE TOOK REFUGE IN A HOME THAT VICKI OWNED AND HAD SPENT A YEAR FIXING UP TO SELL. A SWAT TEAM STORMED THE HOUSE, LAUNCHED TEAR-GAS GRENADES THROUGH WINDOWS, KNOCKED DOWN DOORS, AND LEVELED A FENCE WITH AN ARMORED VEHICLE. THE INSURANCE COMPANY REFUSED TO PAY FOR THE LION'S SHARE OF THE REPAIR, AND THE CITY ITSELF ALSO REFUSED TO COVER THE COSTS. THE SWAT TEAM STUCK VICKI WITH OVER $80,000 IN REPAIRS. THE CONSTITUTION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT INTENTIONALLY DESTROYS PRIVATE PROPERTY IT MUST PAY FOR IT. THAT IS WHY VICKI JOINED WITH IJ TO FILE A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF MCKINNEY WHERE HER HOME IS LOCATED. DALANEA TAYLOR ET AL. V PASCO COUNTY SHERIFF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA USES "PREDICTIVE POLICING," A PROGRAM THAT USES A CRUDE COMPUTER ALGORITHM TO CREATE A LIST OF PEOPLE THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE THINKS COULD COMMIT CRIMES IN THE FUTURE. DEPUTIES THEN ARE SENT OUT TO MONITOR, INTIMIDATE, AND HARASS PEOPLE ON THE LIST. THEY SHOW UP AT RESIDENTS' HOMES UNANNOUNCED, INTERROGATE NOT JUST THE PEOPLE ON THE LIST BUT THEIR FAMILIES AS WELL, AND EVEN WRITE CITATIONS WHEN THEY BELIEVE SOMEONE IS NOT COOPERATING. OUR CLIENTS IN THIS CASE ARE ROBERT JONES, TAMMY HEILMAN, AND DALANEA TAYLOR. SINCE BOTH ROBERT'S AND TAMMY'S SONS WERE PLACED ON THIS LIST, THEY HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO THIS HARASSMENT. WORSE, ROBERT HAS BEEN ARRESTED SEVERAL TIMES EVEN THOUGH HE DID NOTHING WRONG. AND DALANEA - WHO WAS INCARCERATED AS A TEENAGER - HAS BEEN UNABLE TO ESCAPE THE HARASSMENT FOR YEARS EVEN THOUGH SHE HAS TURNED HER LIFE AROUND. ONCE YOU ARE ON THIS LIST, THERE IS NOWHERE TO GO TO ARGUE YOUR NAME SHOULD BE REMOVED. THAT IS WHY ALL THREE HAVE PARTNERED WITH IJ TO SUE THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND END THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE. |
| ERICA BREWER AND ZACHARY MALLORY V. TOWN OF EAGLE ET AL.; ANNALYSE AND | JOSEPH VICTOR V. TOWN OF EAGLE ET AL. IJ REPRESENTS ANNALYSE AND JOSEPH VICTOR IN ONE LAWSUIT AND ERICA BREWER AND ZACH MALLORY IN ANOTHER AGAINST THE TOWN OF EAGLE, WISCONSIN. THE TOWN IMPOSED $87,900 IN FINES AND FEES ON ANNALYSE AND JOSEPH VICTOR FOR A VARIETY OF VIOLATIONS RELATED TO A FEW TRUCKS THAT WERE PARKED ON THEIR NEARLY 10 ACRES OF RURAL PROPERTY. SIMILARLY, THE TOWN TARGETED ERICA AND ZACH MALLORY AFTER ERICA SPOKE IN SUPPORT OF A NEIGHBOR AT THE TOWN MEETING. SOON, THE TOWN THREATENED THEM WITH $20,000 IN FINES AND FEES FOR VIOLATIONS LIKE AN UNPERMITTED FLOWER PLANTER, TALL GRASS, AND THE LOCATION OF A BARN THAT WAS ON THE PROPERTY WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE LAND. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CANNOT LEVY DISPROPORTIONATE FINES TO RAISE MONEY OR TARGET PEOPLE AS RETALIATION, SO WE ARE FIGHTING IN COURT TO STOP THIS ABUSE. BEAN, ET AL. V. SEATTLE, ET AL. 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. THE CITY RESPONDED BY THREATENING FINES UPWARDS OF $500 PER DAY IF THE LANDLORDS DID NOT COERCE THEIR TENANTS TO ALLOW THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL INSPECTION. ALL THREE RESIDENTS, THEIR LANDLORDS, AND A GROUP OF OTHER RENTERS PARTNERED WITH IJ IN DECEMBER 2018 TO FILE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST SEATTLE ASKING THE COURTS TO SHUT DOWN SEATTLE'S WARRANTLESS INSPECTIONS PROGRAM. UNFORTUNATELY, THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE CASE, AND IJ HAS TAKEN IT TO THE WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS. ORAL ARGUMENT WAS HELD ON JUNE 2, 2021. WE AWAIT THE COURT'S DECISION. AMANDA WINK, ET AL. V. CITY OF ORANGE CITY, ET AL. ORANGE CITY, IOWA, ALSO HAS A RENTAL INSPECTION LAW THAT FORCES LANDLORDS AND TENANTS TO OPEN THEIR PROPERTIES AND HOMES TO SUBMIT TO INTRUSIVE INSPECTIONS. THIS ORDINANCE ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO ENTER THE MOST INTIMATE CONFINES OF TENANTS' HOMES, EVEN WHEN LANDLORDS AND TENANTS OBJECT. ORDINARILY, WHEN A PERSON DOES NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO ENTER THEIR HOME, THEY CAN REQUEST A WARRANT SUPPORTED BY SOME EVIDENCE THAT A VIOLATION OF THE LAW HAS OCCURRED. BUT IN ORANGE CITY, THE GOVERNMENT CAN GO TO COURT AND READILY OBTAIN AN "ADMINISTRATIVE" WARRANT, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANYTHING IS WRONG WITH THE HOME. THE U.S. AND IOWA CONSTITUTIONS GUARANTEE STRONG PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THE HOME, MEANING THAT THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS VOLUNTARY CONSENT OR PROBABLE CAUSE TO ENTER YOUR HOME. ORANGE CITY'S INSPECTION SCHEME DEFIES THESE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES, SO IN MAY 2021, WE TEAMED UP WITH ORANGE CITY TENANTS AMANDA WINK, BRYAN SINGER, AND ERIKA NORDYKE, AND THEIR LANDLORDS, TO FILE A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE GOVERNMENT'S USE OF ADMINISTRATIVE WARRANTS. DOROTHY RIVERA ET AL. V. BOROUGH OF POTTSTOWN AND KEITH A. PLACE POTTSTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA, HAS A SIMILAR RENTAL INSPECTION LAW THAT FORCES LANDLORDS AND TENANTS TO OPEN THEIR PROPERTIES AND HOMES TO SUBMIT TO INTRUSIVE INSPECTIONS SEARCHING FOR HOUSING CODE VIOLATIONS EVEN IF A LANDLORD OR TENANT OBJECTS. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION GUARANTEE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THE HOME. THAT IS WHY IJ TEAMED UP WITH A POTTSTOWN LANDLORD AND HIS TENANTS TO CHALLENGE THE GOVERNMENT'S USE OF ADMINISTRATIVE WARRANTS TO SEARCH HOMES WITHOUT VOLUNTARY CONSENT OR A WARRANT BASED UPON TRADITIONAL PROBABLE CAUSE. LOZANO, ET AL. V. ZION IN ZION, ILLINOIS, THE CITY 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. YOUR HOME IS YOUR CASTLE, WHETHER YOU RENT OR OWN, SO 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. DAVID AND PEGGY SCHROEDER V. CITY OF WILMINGTON, ET AL. AFTER RETIRING, DAVID AND PEG SCHROEDER BOUGHT A TOWNHOME IN WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA, TO STAY AT WHEN THEY VISITED FAMILY. TO AFFORD THE TOWNHOME, THEY PLANNED ALSO TO OFFER IT AS A VACATION RENTAL WHEN THEY WERE NOT LIVING THERE. BUT AFTER SPENDING ABOUT $75,000 IN RENOVATION COSTS, THE CITY PASSED A ZONING ORDINANCE THAT CREATED A HARD CAP ON HOW MANY PROPERTIES WERE ALLOWED TO ENGAGE IN VACATION RENTALS. ANY PROPERTY THAT FELL WITHIN 400 FEET OF ANOTHER VACATION RENTAL WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM OPERATING AS A VACATION RENTAL. TO DECIDE WHICH PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD RETAIN THEIR RIGHT TO OFFER VACATION RENTALS, THE CITY DEVISED A RANDOMIZED LOTTERY PROCESS THAT THE SCHROEDERS LOST. THEN THE CITY GAVE PROPERTIES THAT DID NOT WIN THE LOTTERY ONE YEAR TO RECOUP THEIR LOSSES. THIS, ACCORDING TO THE CITY, WOULD ABSOLVE THE CITY OF HAVING TO PAY THE SCHROEDERS "JUST COMPENSATION." BUT IF THE CITY WANTS TO TAKE THE SCHROEDERS' PROPERTY RIGHTS, IT HAS TO PAY THEM. IJ PARTNERED WITH DAVID AND PEG TO SUE THE CITY, ARGUING THAT THE STATE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THEIR RIGHT TO RENT, AND IT PROHIBITS THE CITY FROM GRANTING EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES AND CREATING RENTAL MONOPOLIES THAT PROHIBIT EVERYONE ELSE FROM RENTING. IN SEPTEMBER 2020, A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE RULED THE CITY'S LAW VIOLATED A STATEWIDE LAW, BUT THE CITY APPEALED THE DECISION SO THE CASE CONTINUES. 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 14TH AMENDMENT'S GUARANTEE OF DUE PROCESS. HAKEEM MEADE, MARSHALL SOOKRAM, AND TOO MANY OTHERS IN NEW ORLEANS WERE ORDERED TO SUBMIT TO ANKLE MONITORING BY A JUDGE WHO HAD 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 THE JUDGE AND CANCEL ANY REMAINING FEES. IN SEPTEMBER 2020, WE WON AN EARLY VICTORY WHEN A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE DENIED OUR OPPOSITION'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE. 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 IN A LAWSUIT TO ENSURE THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL COURT, AND SIMILAR HOUSING COURTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, PROVIDE THE DUE PROCESS THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES AND THAT THE COURT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR MAKING BOTH OF THEM HOMELESS. MORALES V. CITY OF INDIO, ET AL. LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN INDIO, CALIFORNIA, TEAMED UP WITH A PRIVATE LAW FIRM TO CHARGE PROPERTY OWNERS 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 UN-MOWED GRASS OR "SUN-DAMAGED" ADDRESS NUMBERS WAS MONEY IN THE BANK FOR THE CITY AND 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 LAWSUIT 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. THE CASE WILL OFFICIALLY CONCLUDE ONCE THE COURT GRANTS FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT. |
| NWAORIE V. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION | ANTHONIA NWAORIE IS A REGISTERED NURSE AND AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO WAS ON HER WAY 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. IN AUGUST 2019, A DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE CASE, BUT WE HAVE APPEALED THE DISMISSAL TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 5TH CIRCUIT. 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. DORAVILLE HOMEOWNER HILDA BRUCKER WAS FINED AND SENTENCED TO SIX MONTHS OF PROBATION FOR HAVING CRACKS IN HER DRIVEWAY. HILDA'S NEIGHBOR JEFF THORNTON WAS FINED $1,000 FOR HAVING A STACK OF FIREWOOD IN HIS BACKYARD. IN MAY 2018, HILDA, JEFF, AND TWO OTHERS PARTNERED WITH IJ TO STOP DORAVILLE'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL RELIANCE ON FINES AND FEES INCOME. IJ SECURED A FIRST-ROUND VICTORY IN APRIL 2019 AND A SECOND WIN THAT JULY. BUT IN DECEMBER 2020, A FEDERAL JUDGE RULED AGAINST OUR CLIENTS, UPHOLDING THE TOWN'S FINES AND FEES. WE HAVE APPEALED THAT DECISION AND ARE AWAITING NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT. VALANCOURT BOOKS, LLC V. CLAGGETT, ET AL. VALANCOURT IS A SMALL PUBLISHING COMPANY OPERATED OUT OF THE RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, HOME OF JAMES JENKINS, WHO REVIVES AND POPULARIZES RARE, NEGLECTED, AND OUT-OF-PRINT FICTION. VALANCOURT HAS PUBLISHED MORE THAN 300 BOOKS, ALL OF WHICH IT HAS 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 WITHOUT PROVIDING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH TWO FREE COPIES. VALANCOURT BOOKS JOINED WITH IJ IN AUGUST 2018 TO FILE A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE AND THE 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. 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. 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 SAGE'S CHARITY. IJ JOINED WITH SAGE IN OCTOBER 2018 TO VINDICATE THE RIGHT TO CARRY ON THIS WORK BY KEEPING VULNERABLE PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS. IN APRIL 2020, THE OHIO SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO HEAR OUR CASE. BUT OUR SUIT AGAINST THE CITY ZONING BOARD CONTINUES. WE PLAN TO APPEAL OUR LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY'S ZONING BOARD AFTER THE CITY CONTINUED TO REFUSE TO ALLOW SAGE TO OPERATE HIS SHELTER ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. 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. 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 IT SPENT LOSING RON'S CASE. RON IS EFFECTIVELY BEING PUNISHED FOR SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDING HIS PROPERTY RIGHTS AGAINST GOVERNMENT OVERREACH. 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. UNFORTUNATELY, IN MARCH 2021, THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO HEAR HIS APPEAL, BUT IJ WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT ALONGSIDE RON IN DEFENSE OF HIS PROPERTY RIGHTS. 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. IN JUNE 2020, THE MAYOR OF CHICAGO PROPOSED REFORMS TO THE IMPOUND PROGRAM THAT WOULD FIX SOME OF THE GLARING CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS. THEN, IN AUGUST 2020, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE REJECTED SEVERAL OF THE CITY'S REQUESTS TO DISMISS THE CASE, SO THE CASE CONTINUES. 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 FINED 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, THE FINES 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. BUT JIM AND IJ WON ROUND ONE WHEN A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE DENIED THE CITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS JIM'S LAWSUIT. UNFORTUNATELY, AFTER THE CASE PROCEEDED AND ORAL ARGUMENT WAS HELD LAST NOVEMBER, ANOTHER DISTRICT COURT JUDGE RULED AGAINST JIM BY UPHOLDING THE CITY'S OUTRAGEOUS FINE. THE DECISION TEES UP SEVERAL IMPORTANT ISSUES FOR REVIEW BY THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 11TH CIRCUIT, WHERE WE CURRENTLY ARE LITIGATING THE CASE. BRUMIT V. CITY OF GRANITE CITY CITY OFFICIALS IN GRANITE CITY, ILLINOIS, 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 DOES NOT WANT TO EVICT THEM. THAT IS WHY DEBI AND ANDY TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO SUE GRANITE CITY TO AFFIRM 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 THE LAWSUIT PROCEEDS. |
| WILLIAMS V. SHERWOOD | FOR NEARLY 20 YEARS, THE CITY OF SHERWOOD, ARKANSAS, ARRESTED, FINED, AND JAILED TAMATRICE WILLIAMS, ALL BECAUSE SHE WROTE FOUR BAD CHECKS TO PAY FOR GROCERIES AND OTHER NECESSITIES. SHE FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY, BUT A PANEL ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDED THE CITY COULD NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE THE CITY'S ACTIONS OCCURRED THROUGH STATE (NOT CITY) COURTS AND BECAUSE TAMATRICE DID NOT ALLEGE THAT CITY POLICYMAKERS HAD DIRECTED CITY OFFICIALS TO BEHAVE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY. AFTER THIS DECISION, TAMATRICE PARTNERED WITH IJ TO APPEAL HER CASE. UNFORTUNATELY, HER APPEALS WERE DENIED, WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECLINING THE CASE IN OCTOBER 2020. DAVID AND AMY CARSON V. COMMISSIONER OF THE MAINE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IN IJ'S 2020 HISTORIC VICTORY IN ESPINOZA V. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT LEFT FOR ANOTHER DAY WHETHER STATES MAY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE RELIGIOUS STATUS OF AN ORGANIZATION RECEIVING MONEY THROUGH A PUBLIC PROGRAM AND THE SO-CALLED RELIGIOUS USE OF THAT MONEY. IN OCTOBER 2020, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 1ST CIRCUIT USED THIS DISTINCTION TO UPHOLD A LAW WE ARE CHALLENGING IN MAINE THAT BANS RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS FROM ITS TUITION PROGRAM. WE HAVE APPEALED THIS DECISION TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND AWAIT WORD AS TO WHETHER THE COURT WILL HEAR THE CASE. IF IT DOES, WE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STRIKE DOWN THE STATE LAW AND ESTABLISH NATIONWIDE PRECEDENT. 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 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. IN FEBRUARY 2021, THE TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT AGREED TO HEAR OUR CASE, AND ORAL ARGUMENT WAS HELD IN JUNE. WE AWAIT THE COURT'S DECISION. KELLY, ET AL., V. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ET AL. PASSED INTO LAW IN 2013, THE OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM (OSP) PROVIDES SCHOLARSHIPS TO OVER 12,000 K-12 STUDENTS IN NORTH CAROLINA WHO USE THE PROGRAM TO ATTEND 451 PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS. THE OSP HAS GROWN EVERY YEAR SINCE ITS INCEPTION, AND IT HAS EMPOWERED THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES TO PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEIR CHILDREN. BUT DESPITE THESE ACCOMPLISHMENTS, THE OSP IS NOW IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE - AND NOT FOR THE FIRST TIME. IN 2015, THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE OSP, BUT IN JULY 2020, A NEW COALITION OF PLAINTIFFS FILED A NEW LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THIS PREVIOUSLY UPHELD PROGRAM. THE NEW LAWSUIT ALLEGES MANY OF THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS CONSIDERED - AND REJECTED - BY THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT IN ITS 2015 DECISION. ALONG WITH A COALITION OF NORTH CAROLINA PARENTS, IJ IS ONCE AGAIN FIGHTING TO SECURE THE OPPORTUNITIES THE OSP HAS BROUGHT. MICHAEL AND NANCY VALENTE ET AL. V. VERMONT AGENCY OF EDUCATION ET AL. SINCE 1869, VERMONT HAS GIVEN PARENTS A CHOICE: IF THEIR LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT DOES NOT PROVIDE INSTRUCTION FOR THEIR CHILD'S GRADE-LEVEL, THEN THE STATE GIVES PARENTS A STIPEND TO SPEND AT ANY SCHOOL, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, EXCEPT PRIVATE RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS. BUT IN IJ'S VICTORY IN ESPINOZA V. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE IN JUNE 2020, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED THAT A STATE CANNOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS. BECAUSE VERMONT SCHOOLS CONTINUE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST FAMILIES THAT CHOOSE PRIVATE RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS FOR THEIR CHILDREN, THREE VERMONT FAMILIES HAVE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FILE A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE STATE'S POLICY. DENNIS AND CATHERINE GRIFFIN V. NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DENNIS AND CATHY GRIFFIN LIVE IN THE SMALL TOWN OF CROYDON, NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND ARE RAISING THEIR GRANDSON CLAYTON. BECAUSE CROYDON IS SO SMALL, IT DOES NOT OPERATE A MIDDLE SCHOOL AND INSTEAD PAYS STUDENTS' TUITION AT NEARBY PRIVATE OR PUBLIC SCHOOLS. BUT THE GRIFFINS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THAT ASSISTANCE BECAUSE THEY SELECTED A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL, TO WHICH THE STATE PROHIBITS TUITIONING TOWNS FROM PAYING TUITION. SUCH DISCRIMINATION IS BOTH UNFAIR AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IJ'S VICTORY IN ESPINOZA V. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE IN JUNE 2020 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT EXCLUDING RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS FROM EDUCATIONAL CHOICE PROGRAMS VIOLATES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. THE GRIFFINS JOINED FORCES WITH IJ TO ASK THE NEW HAMPSHIRE COURTS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS IMPORTANT PRECEDENT AND STRIKE DOWN THE STATE'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXCLUSION OF RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS. COUNCIL FOR BETTER EDUCATION, INC., ET AL. V. KENTUCKY FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION CABINET, ET AL. IN JUNE 2021, IJ FILED A LAWSUIT IN KENTUCKY TO PROTECT THE STATE'S NEW EDUCATIONAL CHOICE PROGRAM, THE EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY ACCOUNT PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM GIVES THOUSANDS OF LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIES IN KENTUCKY INCREASED FREEDOM AND IS FUNDED ENTIRELY BY PRIVATE DONATIONS. BUT THE COUNCIL FOR BETTER EDUCATION, A GROUP REPRESENTING KENTUCKY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS, FILED A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PROGRAM. IJ INTERVENED ON BEHALF OF AKIA MCNEARY AND NANCY DEATON, A PARENT AND GREAT-GRANDPARENT, TO DEFEND THE PROGRAM. WE ARGUE THAT THE PROGRAM IS FUNDED BY PRIVATE DONATIONS NOT PUBLIC DOLLARS AND THAT IT FUNDS FAMILIES RATHER THAN SCHOOLS. THUS, THE CLAIMS OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY ARE INVALID. MORENCY, ET AL. V. STATE OF NEVADA, ET AL. NEVADA 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 HAVE APPEALED THIS DECISION TO THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT AND CURRENTLY AWAIT THE COURT'S RULING. DEL CASTILLO V. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IN 2014, HEATHER DEL CASTILLO STARTED 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 COULD NOT 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 HAVE APPEALED THE DECISION TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 11TH CIRCUIT. |
| ELIZABETH BROKAMP V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; ELIZABETH BROKAMP V. ATTORNEY | GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ET AL. IN DECEMBER 2020, IJ LAUNCHED A CASE ON BEHALF OF ELIZABETH BROKAMP, A PROFESSIONAL COUNSELOR LOCATED AND LICENSED IN VIRGINIA. NORMALLY, ELIZABETH MET WITH CLIENTS FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., IN PERSON. DURING THE PANDEMIC ELIZABETH TRANSITIONED TO PROVIDING THERAPY ONLINE. BUT D.C. DOES NOT ALLOW THERAPISTS TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE UNLESS THEY ARE LICENSED IN D.C. NOT ONLY HAS ELIZABETH BEEN UNABLE TO HELP CLIENTS SHE SAW PREVIOUSLY, BUT SHE ALSO HAS HAD TO TURN AWAY NEW CLIENTS FROM THE DISTRICT. IN APRIL, IJ FILED ANOTHER SUIT ON BEHALF OF ELIZABETH, THIS TIME CHALLENGING A SIMILAR LAW IN NEW YORK. D.C.'S AND NEW YORK'S RESTRICTIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PUNISH PEOPLE WHO SPEAK FOR A LIVING. WE ARGUE THAT THE TECHNOLOGY THAT ALLOWS OUR CLIENT TO HELP PATIENTS ACROSS STATE LINES SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS THAT VIOLATE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. 360 VIRTUAL DRONE SERVICES LLC AND MICHAEL JONES V. NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS ET AL. IN MARCH 2021, IJ SUED ON BEHALF OF MICHAEL JONES AFTER THE NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS INTIMIDATED HIM WITH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES. MICHAEL USES A DRONE TO TAKE PHOTOS OF LAND AND CREATE MAPS FOR CUSTOMERS TO MONITOR PROPERTY. MICHAEL DOES NOT PRACTICE SURVEYING, A MORE FORMAL PROFESSION THAT MARKS THE LEGAL BOUNDARIES OF PROPERTY. EVEN SO, THE BOARD ACCUSED HIM OF PROVIDING UNLICENSED SURVEYING SERVICES, AND, IN RESPONSE TO THE BOARD'S THREATS, MICHAEL SHUT DOWN HIS BUSINESS. ULTIMATELY, THE STATE'S LICENSING LAWS STIFLE INNOVATION AND RESTRICT FREE SPEECH SINCE YOU DO NOT NEED THE GOVERNMENT'S PERMISSION TO TAKE AND EDIT PICTURES. MICHAEL PARTNERED WITH IJ TO SUE THE BOARD IN FEDERAL COURT TO DISASSEMBLE THE STATE'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS AND OPEN THE DOOR FOR OTHER ENTREPRENEURS TO CREATIVELY USE TECHNOLOGY TO PROVIDE CHEAPER, MORE CONVENIENT SERVICES. WAYNE NUTT V. NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS WAYNE NUTT PRACTICED ENGINEERING FOR FOUR DECADES. BECAUSE HE DID NOT BUILD FOR PUBLIC WORKS, HE WAS EXEMPT FROM NORTH CAROLINA'S LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR ENGINEERS. NOW THAT WAYNE IS RETIRED, HE NO LONGER WANTS TO PRACTICE ENGINEERING, HE ONLY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT. HE HAS FOUND HIMSELF DEPLOYING HIS HARD-WON EXPERTISE TO TESTIFY AT TOWN COUNCIL MEETINGS AND WRITE LETTERS TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. HE ALSO WANTS TO TESTIFY IN OTHER LAWSUITS RELATED TO HIS AREA OF EXPERTISE - HYDRAULICS. THE TROUBLE IS THAT ALL OF THIS IS A CRIME ACCORDING TO THE NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS. IN THE GOVERNMENT'S VIEW, ONLY LICENSED ENGINEERS CAN TALK ABOUT ENGINEERING, EVEN IF UNLICENSED ENGINEERS CAN DO ACTUAL ENGINEERING. WAYNE CAN EITHER GET A LICENSE OR STOP TALKING. BUT HE DOES NOT WANT TO BE A LICENSED ENGINEER BECAUSE, AT 77, HE IS NOT LOOKING TO START A BRAND-NEW CAREER. SO HE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FILE A FEDERAL LAWSUIT TO STRIKE DOWN THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION ON PROFESSIONAL SPEECH. KIMBERLY BILLUPS, ET AL. V. CITY OF CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA PREVIOUSLY, BEFORE SOMEONE COULD GIVE YOU A TOUR OF CHARLESTON, THEY HAD TO OBTAIN THE CITY'S APPROVAL. CHARLESTON LAW MADE IT ILLEGAL TO TELL STORIES TO TOUR GROUPS WITHOUT FIRST PASSING TWO DIFFERENT EXAMINATIONS COVERING THE THINGS CITY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THINK ARE IMPORTANT, OR, IN SOME CASES, ACTUALLY GETTING THE GOVERNMENT TO APPROVE YOUR SCRIPT IN ADVANCE. PEOPLE WHO TALKED TO PAYING TOUR GROUPS WITHOUT THE CITY'S APPROVAL FACED FINES AND EVEN JAIL TIME. THIS VIOLATED THE FIRST AMENDMENT. TOUR GUIDES ARE STORYTELLERS, AND THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE IN THE BUSINESS OF DECIDING WHAT STORIES ARE IMPORTANT OR WHO IS ALLOWED TO TELL THEM. THAT IS WHY IN JANUARY 2016, THREE WOULD-BE CHARLESTON TOUR GUIDES JOINED FORCES WITH IJ TO FILE A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY'S TOUR-GUIDE LICENSING SCHEME. IN AUGUST 2020, A U.S. DISTRICT COURT STRUCK DOWN THE LICENSING REQUIREMENT AS A VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. CHARLESTON APPEALED THE DECISION TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 4TH CIRCUIT AND LOST AGAIN IN JUNE 2020. THE CITY CHOSE NOT TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT, LEAVING TOUR GUIDES FREE TO OFFER THEIR SERVICES WITHOUT A LICENSE. IJ RECEIVED FROM THE CITY OF CHARLESTON $500,000 IN ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS IN THIS CASE. KILLEEN, ET AL. V. YAVAPAI COUNTY, ET AL. JOSHUA AND EMILY KILLEEN MOVED FROM CALIFORNIA AND BOUGHT UNDEVELOPED DESERT PROPERTY IN YAVAPAI COUNTY, 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 IJ TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE ABOUT THEIR FUTURE BUSINESS AND TO WELCOME THEIR FRIENDS ONTO THEIR PROPERTY FOR FOOD, FELLOWSHIP, AND EXERCISE. UNFORTUNATELY, THE PANDEMIC PREVENTED THEM FROM TAKING THE LAST STEPS NECESSARY TO GET FULLY UP AND RUNNING. THIS DISRUPTION MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO PURSUE THEIR LEGAL CLAIMS, AND SO WE VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED THEIR CHALLENGE. UPTON'S NATURALS CO., ET AL. V. OKLAHOMA GOVERNOR AND OKLAHOMA COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE IN 2020, AT THE MEAT LOBBY'S PROMPTING, OKLAHOMA LAW FORCED PLANT-BASED FOOD BUSINESSES TO COMPLETELY OVERHAUL THEIR LABELS WITH MANDATORY, OVERSIZED DISCLAIMERS. THIS COMPELLED-SPEECH REQUIREMENT WOULD HAVE HARMED COMPANIES LIKE UPTON'S NATURALS - AN INDEPENDENTLY OWNED, CHICAGO-BASED MANUFACTURER OF VEGAN FOODS. UNSURPRISINGLY, UPTON'S NATURAL'S LABELS PROUDLY STATE THAT ITS FOODS ARE "100% VEGAN." BUT UNDER OKLAHOMA'S SO-CALLED "MEAT CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT" THESE AND SIMILAR LABELS ARE ILLEGAL, WITH POTENTIAL FINES AND EVEN CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS. OKLAHOMA'S LAW HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROTECTING CONSUMERS AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH PROTECTING THE MEAT INDUSTRY FROM HONEST COMPETITION. UPTON'S NATURALS HAS A RIGHT TO ADVERTISE ITS FOODS TO THOSE CONSUMERS USING THE PLAIN LANGUAGE THAT CONSUMERS UNDERSTAND. THAT IS WHY UPTON'S NATURALS - AND THE PLANT BASED FOODS ASSOCIATION (PBFA) OF WHICH IT'S A MEMBER - TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FILE A FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE. AFTER AN INITIAL LOSS, THE CASE WAS HEADED TO THE APPELLATE COURT. PBFA THEN DECIDED TO TAKE A DIFFERENT APPROACH AND NOT FOCUS ON FREE SPEECH ISSUES. SINCE OUR INVOLVEMENT HAD BEEN DUE TO OUR FIRST AMENDMENT EXPERTISE, WE WERE REPLACED BY A DIFFERENT LAWYERS WHO WERE MORE SUITED TO THE NEW STRATEGY. REGULUS BOOKS, LLC, V. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND DIVERS; HART V. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, 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 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, SO 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 THE TAXES' CONSTITUTIONALITY UNDER THE FIRST AND 14TH AMENDMENTS. IN JANUARY 2021, WE SUCCESSFULLY DISMANTLED THE TAX LEVIED BY THE CITY, WHILE OUR LAWSUIT AGAINST THE COUNTY CONTINUES. PCHS, ET A. 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 HAD NOT GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL. BOB COULD NOT ACCEPT STUDENTS WHO DID NOT HAVE A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION. CALIFORNIA'S LAW VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT, SO BOB, A POTENTIAL STUDENT, AND IJ CHALLENGED IT IN COURT. IN JUNE 2020, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 9TH CIRCUIT RULED THAT CALIFORNIA RESTRICTED SPEECH BY PLACING CONDITIONS ON TEACHING HORSESHOEING. THE APPELLATE COURT SENT THE CASE BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT, WHERE THE LITIGATION CONTINUES. |
| 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 ONLINE, MOSTLY TO THOSE WHO LACKED ACCESS TO VETERINARIANS AND OFTEN FOR FREE. 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 HIS 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 ADOPTED IJ'S ARGUMENTS ON THIS TYPE OF SPEECH AND AFFIRMED THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS IT, SO RON AND IJ FILED A NEW LAWSUIT TO VINDICATE HIS RIGHT TO GIVE VETERINARY ADVICE TO PET OWNERS. IN DECEMBER 2020, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 5TH CIRCUIT CHANGED ITS PRIOR RULING AND INSTEAD HELD THAT RESTRICTING DR. HINES' ONLINE PET ADVICE CURBED HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THE APPELLATE DECISION WILL PROTECT SPEAKERS THROUGHOUT TEXAS, AND THE CASE CONTINUES IN THE DISTRICT COURT. 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. CATO TEAMED UP WITH IJ 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 COULD NOT CHALLENGE THE SEC'S POLICY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT REGULATE CATO DIRECTLY. AFTER APPEALING THIS RULING, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT UPHELD THE DISMISSAL OF OUR CASE, AND IJ IS PLANNING NEXT STEPS ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD. BROWNBACK V. KING IN 2014, JAMES KING, AN INNOCENT COLLEGE STUDENT, WAS MISTAKEN FOR A PETTY THIEF BY PLAINCLOTHES OFFICERS ACTING AS PART OF A JOINT FEDERAL-STATE TASK FORCE. WHEN THEY TOOK HIS WALLET, JAMES THOUGHT HE WAS BEING MUGGED AND TRIED TO FLEE. THE OFFICERS TACKLED HIM, BRUTALLY BEAT HIM, AND CHOKED HIM UNCONSCIOUS. WHEN THE OFFICERS RESPONSIBLE REALIZED THEIR MISTAKE, THEY CHARGED JAMES WITH SEVERAL VIOLENT FELONIES. EVENTUALLY, JAMES WAS FULLY ACQUITTED ON ALL CHARGES BY A JURY. BUT THE PROCESS OF CLEARING HIS NAME COST JAMES YEARS OF HIS LIFE AND HIS FAMILY'S ENTIRE SAVINGS. IN 2016, HE FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS. BUT GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY DOCTRINES MADE JAMES' OPTIONS EXTREMELY LIMITED AND PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. HE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO VINDICATE HIS RIGHTS AND ENSURE THAT OTHER AMERICANS COULD HOLD THE GOVERNMENT TO ACCOUNT WHEN IT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION. IN FEBRUARY 2021, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ISSUED ITS DECISION REJECTING THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST TO CREATE A NEW KIND OF IMMUNITY FOR THE OFFICERS. THE DECISION WAS MIXED IN THAT IT DIDN'T CATEGORICALLY RULE FOR POLICE VICTIMS EITHER. INSTEAD, IT SENT THE CASE BACK TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 6TH CIRCUIT TO RESOLVE AN ISSUE ABOUT WHETHER POLICE VICTIMS CAN BRING A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CLAIMS IN A SINGLE SUIT. THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION HAS CREATED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR IJ TO ARGUE THE CASE BASED SOLELY ON ITS MERITS RATHER THAN DEFENDING IT FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIMS THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AT ALL. JOSE OLIVA V. MARIO NIVAR, ET AL. IN 2016, JOSE OLIVA, A 75-YEAR-OLD VIETNAM WAR VETERAN, VISITED THE EL PASO, TEXAS, VETERANS AFFAIRS HOSPITAL FOR A DENTIST APPOINTMENT. HE MADE HIS WAY TO THE SECURITY CHECKPOINT AND EMPTIED HIS POCKETS JUST AS YOU DO AT AN AIRPORT. AMONG THE ITEMS HE PLACED IN THE PLASTIC BIN WAS HIS IDENTIFICATION. WHEN AN OFFICER REPEATEDLY ASKED JOSE WHERE HIS ID WAS, HE RESPONDED, "IT'S IN THE BIN." THE OFFICER THEN CAME AROUND THE SECURITY CHECKPOINT, PULLED OUT HIS HANDCUFFS, FORCED JOSE TO THE GROUND, AND ARRESTED HIM. THREE OTHER OFFICERS AIDED IN HIS ARREST AND INJURED JOSE'S SHOULDER SO BADLY THAT HE NEEDED SURGERY TO REPAIR THE DAMAGE. THE OFFICIALS CHARGED JOSE WITH DISORDERLY CONDUCT, CHARGES THAT WERE LATER DISMISSED. IN FACT, JOSE DID NOTHING WRONG. BUT WHEN HE SUED THE OFFICERS WHO HAD ASSAULTED HIM, THE GOVERNMENT INVOKED QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. INITIALLY, THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE OFFICERS' CLAIM. THE OFFICERS APPEALED THE DECISION, AND THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 5TH CIRCUIT REVERSED IT, RENDERING JOSE UNABLE TO SEEK JUSTICE. IN JANUARY 2021, JOSE PARTNERED WITH IJ TO APPEAL THE 5TH CIRCUIT'S DECISION TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. IN MAY, THE SUPREME COURT REJECTED OUR PETITION ON BEHALF OF JOSE AND OUR PETITION TO RECONSIDER. AMICUS BRIEFS FILED FY 21 (JULY 1, 2020 JUNE 30, 2021) WILLIAM FREY V. TOWN OF JACKSON, ET AL. SHARON MOTLEY V. HAL TAYLOR DR. THOMASENA ADAMS, ET AL. V. GOVERNOR HENRY MCMASTER, ET AL. CHIKE UZUEGBUNAM, ET AL. V. STANLEY C. PRECZEWSKI PRISCILLA VILLARREAL V. CITY OF LAREDO, ET AL. MAGGY HURCHALLA V. LAKE POINT PHASE I, ET AL. ST. AMBROSE ACADEMY, ET AL. V. JOSEPH T. PARISI, ET AL. STEPHEN NICHOLS V. WAYNE COUNTY, MI, ET AL. TAJUDDIN ASHAHEED V. THOMAS E. CURRINGTON CEDAR POINT NURSERY, ET AL. V. VICTORIA HASSID, ET AL. JAVIAR AGUILA, ET AL. V. DOUG DUCEY, ET AL. CITY OF SEATTLE V. STEVEN G. LONG ROXANA BECK V. ELMORE COUNTY, ET AL. SAI V. PEKOSKE NICOLE K., ET AL. V. TERRY J. STIGDON, ET AL. CHARLES COE V. U.S.A., ET AL. MARCUS MITCHELL V. MORTON COUNTY SHERIFF KYLE KIRCHMEIER, ET AL. LUIS A. RIOS JR. V. FNU REDDING, ET AL. LARRY THOMPSON V. POLICE OFFICER PAGIEL CLARK DEBRA BLAKE, ET AL. V. CITY OF GRANTS PASS |
Comments