INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE: Form 990, tax year 2013
View the entire original 990 at ProPublica ↗
- Organization
- INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE (EIN 52-1744337)
- Tax period
- 2013-07-01 to 2014-06-30
- Filed
- 2015-02-04
- IRS object ID
- 201520359349301357
- Schema version
- 2013v4.0
- 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 J
- Schedule L
- Schedule M
- Schedule O
Return header ReturnHeader
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Return | 2015-02-04T16:10:22-06:00 | ReturnTs |
| Tax Period End | 2014-06-30 | TaxPeriodEndDt |
Preparer Firm PreparerFirmGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Preparer Firm EIN | 521186096 | PreparerFirmEIN |
Preparer Firm Name PreparerFirmName
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Business Name Line1 | RUBINO AND COMPANY CHARTERED | BusinessNameLine1 |
Preparer US Address PreparerUSAddress
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Address Line1 | 6903 ROCKLEDGE DRIVE | AddressLine1 |
| City | BETHESDA | City |
| State | MD | State |
| ZIP Code | 208171818 | ZIPCode |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Return Type | 990 | ReturnTypeCd |
| Tax Period Begin | 2013-07-01 | 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 | BusinessNameLine1 |
| 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 NO 900 | AddressLine1 |
| City | ARLINGTON | City |
| State | VA | State |
| ZIP Code | 22203 | ZIPCode |
Business Officer BusinessOfficerGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Person | WILLIAM H MELLOR | PersonNm |
| Person Title | PRESIDENT | PersonTitleTxt |
| Phone | 7036829320 | PhoneNum |
| Signature | 2015-02-04 | SignatureDt |
| Discuss With Paid Preparer | Yes (1) | DiscussWithPaidPreparerInd |
Preparer Person PreparerPersonGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Preparer Person | JENNY E HERRERA CPA | PreparerPersonNm |
| PTIN | P00252755 | PTIN |
| Phone | 3015643636 | PhoneNum |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Tax | 2013 | TaxYr |
| Build TS | 2016-02-25 16:41:14Z | BuildTS |
Form 990 IRS990
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Principal Officer | WILLIAM H MELLOR | PrincipalOfficerNm |
US Address USAddress
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Address Line1 | 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD NO 900 | AddressLine1 |
| City | ARLINGTON | City |
| State | VA | State |
| ZIP Code | 22203 | ZIPCode |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Gross Receipts | $27,387,248 | 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 | 11 | VotingMembersGoverningBodyCnt |
| Voting Members Independent | 10 | VotingMembersIndependentCnt |
| Total Employee | 103 | TotalEmployeeCnt |
| Total Volunteers | 50 | TotalVolunteersCnt |
| Total Gross UBI | $0 | TotalGrossUBIAmt |
| Net Unrelated Bus Txbl Incm | $0 | NetUnrelatedBusTxblIncmAmt |
| PY Contributions Grants | $18,598,848 | PYContributionsGrantsAmt |
| CY Contributions Grants | $23,917,519 | CYContributionsGrantsAmt |
| PY Program Service Revenue | $167,000 | PYProgramServiceRevenueAmt |
| CY Program Service Revenue | $514,651 | CYProgramServiceRevenueAmt |
| PY Investment Income | $162,819 | PYInvestmentIncomeAmt |
| CY Investment Income | $181,417 | CYInvestmentIncomeAmt |
| PY Other Revenue | $0 | PYOtherRevenueAmt |
| CY Other Revenue | $0 | CYOtherRevenueAmt |
| PY Total Revenue | $18,928,667 | PYTotalRevenueAmt |
| CY Total Revenue | $24,613,587 | CYTotalRevenueAmt |
| PY Grants And Similar Paid | $0 | PYGrantsAndSimilarPaidAmt |
| CY Grants And Similar Paid | $0 | CYGrantsAndSimilarPaidAmt |
| PY Benefits Paid To Members | $0 | PYBenefitsPaidToMembersAmt |
| CY Benefits Paid To Members | $0 | CYBenefitsPaidToMembersAmt |
| PY Salaries Comp Emp Bnft Paid | $8,652,438 | PYSalariesCompEmpBnftPaidAmt |
| CY Salaries Comp Emp Bnft Paid | $9,545,871 | CYSalariesCompEmpBnftPaidAmt |
| PY Total Prof Fndrsng Expns | $4,500 | PYTotalProfFndrsngExpnsAmt |
| CY Total Prof Fndrsng Expns | $0 | CYTotalProfFndrsngExpnsAmt |
| CY Total Fundraising Expense | $1,082,044 | CYTotalFundraisingExpenseAmt |
| PY Other Expenses | $4,155,170 | PYOtherExpensesAmt |
| CY Other Expenses | $4,542,454 | CYOtherExpensesAmt |
| PY Total Expenses | $12,812,108 | PYTotalExpensesAmt |
| CY Total Expenses | $14,088,325 | CYTotalExpensesAmt |
| PY Revenues Less Expenses | $6,116,559 | PYRevenuesLessExpensesAmt |
| CY Revenues Less Expenses | $10,525,262 | CYRevenuesLessExpensesAmt |
| Total Assets BOY | $42,372,492 | TotalAssetsBOYAmt |
| Total Assets EOY | $54,270,467 | TotalAssetsEOYAmt |
| Total Liabilities BOY | $650,223 | TotalLiabilitiesBOYAmt |
| Total Liabilities EOY | $1,025,842 | TotalLiabilitiesEOYAmt |
| Net Assets Or Fund Balances BOY | $41,722,269 | NetAssetsOrFundBalancesBOYAmt |
| Net Assets Or Fund Balances EOY | $53,244,625 | 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, SCHOOL 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 | $11,625,757 | ExpenseAmt |
| Revenue | $514,651 | RevenueAmt |
| Desc | TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERICANS THROUGH LITIGATION; EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ABOUT ISSUES VITAL TO LIBERTY THROUGH MEDIA RELATIONS AND OUTREACH EVENTS; TRAIN LAWYERS AND STUDENTS TO PRESERVE CIVIL LIBERTIES.SEE SCHEDULE O FOR A LIST OF CASES IN LITIGATION. | Desc |
| Total Program Service Expenses | $11,625,757 | 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 |
| Temp Or Permanent Endowments | 0 | TempOrPermanentEndowmentsInd |
| 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 | 0 | 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 | 0 | 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 | Yes (1) | BusinessRlnWithFamMemInd |
| Business Rln With Officer Ent | 0 | BusinessRlnWithOfficerEntInd |
| 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 | 37 | IRPDocumentCnt |
| IRP Document W2 G | 0 | IRPDocumentW2GCnt |
| Backup Wthld Compliance | Yes (1) | BackupWthldComplianceInd |
| Employee | 103 | EmployeeCnt |
| Employment Tax Returns Filed | Yes (1) | EmploymentTaxReturnsFiledInd |
| Unrelated Bus Incm Over Limit | 0 | UnrelatedBusIncmOverLimitInd |
| Foreign Financial Account | 0 | ForeignFinancialAccountInd |
| 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 |
| Info In Schedule O Part VI | Yes (X) | InfoInScheduleOPartVIInd |
| Governing Body Voting Members | 11 | GoverningBodyVotingMembersCnt |
| Independent Voting Member | 10 | 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 | CT | 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 | 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 | 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 | STEVEN ANDERSON | BusinessNameLine1 |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Phone | 7036829320 | PhoneNum |
US Address USAddress
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Address Line1 | 901 NORTH GLEBE RD SUITE 900 | AddressLine1 |
| City | ARLINGTON | City |
| State | VA | State |
| ZIP Code | 22203 | ZIPCode |
Form990 Part VII Section A Form990PartVIISectionAGrp (21 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WILLIAM H MELLOR | ||||||||
| PRES. & GENERAL COUNSEL | 40.00 | Yes (X) | Yes (X) | $474,108 | $0 | $145,174 | ||
| DAVID B KENNEDY | ||||||||
| DIRECTOR & CHAIRMAN | 1.00 | Yes (X) | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| MARY STIEFEL | ||||||||
| DIRECTOR | 1.00 | Yes (X) | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| JAMES LINTOTT | ||||||||
| DIRECTOR | 1.00 | Yes (X) | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| ABIGAIL THERNSTROM | ||||||||
| DIRECTOR | 1.00 | Yes (X) | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| ARTHUR DANTCHIK | ||||||||
| DIRECTOR | 1.00 | Yes (X) | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| STEPHEN W MODZELEWSKI | ||||||||
| DIRECTOR | 1.00 | Yes (X) | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| ROBERT GELFOND | ||||||||
| DIRECTOR | 1.00 | Yes (X) | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| WILLIAM DUNN | ||||||||
| DIRECTOR | 1.00 | Yes (X) | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| KEN LEVY | ||||||||
| DIRECTOR | 1.00 | Yes (X) | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| ROBERT A LEVY | ||||||||
| DIRECTOR | 1.00 | Yes (X) | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| STEVEN ANDERSON | ||||||||
| MANAGING VP-CFO/SECRETARY/TREASURER | 40.00 | Yes (X) | $183,407 | $0 | $30,003 | |||
| DEBORAH SIMPSON | ||||||||
| VP OF STATE OFFICES | 40.00 | $184,971 | $0 | $34,312 | Yes (X) | |||
| JOHN KRAMER | ||||||||
| VP FOR COMMUNICATIONS | 40.00 | $261,143 | $0 | $52,924 | Yes (X) | |||
| DANA BERLINER | ||||||||
| LITIGATION DIRECTOR | 40.00 | $236,983 | $0 | $38,857 | Yes (X) | |||
| BETH STEVENS | ||||||||
| VP FOR DEVELOPMENT | 40.00 | $187,976 | $0 | $35,864 | Yes (X) | |||
| SCOTT BULLOCK | ||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | 40.00 | $237,517 | $0 | $37,628 | Yes (X) | |||
| CLARK NEILY | ||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | 40.00 | $195,605 | $0 | $35,241 | Yes (X) | |||
| JEFFREY ROWES | ||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | 40.00 | $192,408 | $0 | $33,141 | Yes (X) | |||
| ROBERT GALL | ||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | 40.00 | $194,639 | $0 | $32,803 | Yes (X) | |||
| RICHARD KOMER | ||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | 40.00 | $162,588 | $0 | $26,925 | Yes (X) | |||
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Reportable Comp From Org | $2,511,345 | TotalReportableCompFromOrgAmt |
| Tot Reportable Comp Rltd Org | $0 | TotReportableCompRltdOrgAmt |
| Total Other Compensation | $502,872 | TotalOtherCompensationAmt |
| Indiv Rcvd Greater Than100 K | 24 | IndivRcvdGreaterThan100KCnt |
| Former Ofcr Employees Listed | 0 | FormerOfcrEmployeesListedInd |
| Total Comp Greater Than150 K | Yes (1) | TotalCompGreaterThan150KInd |
| Compensation From Other Srcs | 0 | CompensationFromOtherSrcsInd |
Contractor Compensation ContractorCompensationGrp
Contractor Name ContractorName
Business Name BusinessName
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Business Name Line1 | APPLIED INTELLIGENCE GROUP | BusinessNameLine1 |
Contractor Address ContractorAddress
US Address USAddress
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Address Line1 | 5005 N 14TH STREET | AddressLine1 |
| City | ARLINGTON | City |
| State | VA | State |
| ZIP Code | 22205 | ZIPCode |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Services | IT CONSULTING | ServicesDesc |
| Compensation | $143,635 | CompensationAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Cntrct Rcvd Greater Than100 K | 1 | CntrctRcvdGreaterThan100KCnt |
| All Other Contributions | $23,917,519 | AllOtherContributionsAmt |
| Noncash Contributions | $1,432,963 | NoncashContributionsAmt |
| Total Contributions | $23,917,519 | TotalContributionsAmt |
Program Service Revenue ProgramServiceRevenueGrp (2 entries)
| DescDesc | BusinessBusinessCd | Total Revenue ColumnTotalRevenueColumnAmt | Related Or Exempt Func IncomeRelatedOrExemptFuncIncomeAmt |
|---|---|---|---|
| ATTORNEY FEES | 541100 | $503,954 | $503,954 |
| MISCELLANEOUS | 900099 | $10,697 | $10,697 |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Program Service Revenue | $514,651 | TotalProgramServiceRevenueAmt |
Investment Income InvestmentIncomeGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Revenue Column | $173,350 | TotalRevenueColumnAmt |
| Exclusion | $173,350 | ExclusionAmt |
Gross Amount Sales Assets GrossAmountSalesAssetsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Securities | $2,696,105 | SecuritiesAmt |
| Other | $85,623 | OtherAmt |
Less Cost Oth Basis Sales Expnss LessCostOthBasisSalesExpnssGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Securities | $2,684,593 | SecuritiesAmt |
| Other | $89,068 | OtherAmt |
Gain Or Loss GainOrLossGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Securities | $11,512 | SecuritiesAmt |
| Other | -$3,445 | OtherAmt |
Net Gain Or Loss Investments NetGainOrLossInvestmentsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Revenue Column | $8,067 | TotalRevenueColumnAmt |
| Exclusion | $8,067 | ExclusionAmt |
Total Revenue TotalRevenueGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Revenue Column | $24,613,587 | TotalRevenueColumnAmt |
| Related Or Exempt Func Income | $514,651 | RelatedOrExemptFuncIncomeAmt |
| Unrelated Business Revenue | $0 | UnrelatedBusinessRevenueAmt |
| Exclusion | $181,417 | ExclusionAmt |
Comp Current Ofcr Directors CompCurrentOfcrDirectorsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $1,931,340 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $1,586,640 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $99,025 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $245,675 | FundraisingAmt |
Other Salaries And Wages OtherSalariesAndWagesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $6,107,843 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $5,364,213 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $480,188 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $263,442 | FundraisingAmt |
Pension Plan Contributions PensionPlanContributionsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $530,227 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $435,097 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $61,737 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $33,393 | FundraisingAmt |
Other Employee Benefits OtherEmployeeBenefitsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $488,564 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $399,862 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $53,042 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $35,660 | FundraisingAmt |
Payroll Taxes PayrollTaxesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $487,897 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $418,070 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $40,473 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $29,354 | FundraisingAmt |
Fees For Services Legal FeesForServicesLegalGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $152,526 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $138,698 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Fundraising | $13,828 | FundraisingAmt |
Fees For Services Accounting FeesForServicesAccountingGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $74,140 | TotalAmt |
| Management And General | $74,140 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
Fees For Services Lobbying FeesForServicesLobbyingGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $2,021 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $2,021 | ProgramServicesAmt |
Fees For Services Other FeesForServicesOtherGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $576,950 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $539,275 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $30,185 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $7,490 | FundraisingAmt |
Advertising AdvertisingGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $181,869 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $180,759 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $1,110 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
Office Expenses OfficeExpensesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $1,031,504 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $566,138 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $148,758 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $316,608 | FundraisingAmt |
Information Technology InformationTechnologyGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $181,433 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $23,317 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $156,740 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $1,376 | FundraisingAmt |
Occupancy OccupancyGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $1,193,714 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $958,380 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $138,304 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $97,030 | FundraisingAmt |
Travel TravelGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $582,587 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $563,220 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $5,325 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $14,042 | FundraisingAmt |
Conferences Meetings ConferencesMeetingsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $109,865 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $103,865 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $6,000 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
Interest InterestGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $2,498 | TotalAmt |
| Management And General | $2,498 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
Depreciation Depletion DepreciationDepletionGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $302,206 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $250,317 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $29,577 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $22,312 | FundraisingAmt |
Insurance InsuranceGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $121,376 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $66,120 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $53,422 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $1,834 | FundraisingAmt |
Other Expenses OtherExpensesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Desc | FILING & COURT FEES | Desc |
| Total | $29,765 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $29,765 | ProgramServicesAmt |
Total Functional Expenses TotalFunctionalExpensesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | $14,088,325 | TotalAmt |
| Program Services | $11,625,757 | ProgramServicesAmt |
| Management And General | $1,380,524 | ManagementAndGeneralAmt |
| Fundraising | $1,082,044 | FundraisingAmt |
Cash Non Interest Bearing CashNonInterestBearingGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $3,171 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $1,400 | EOYAmt |
Savings And Temp Cash Invst SavingsAndTempCashInvstGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $18,599,628 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $24,339,803 | EOYAmt |
Pledges And Grants Receivable PledgesAndGrantsReceivableGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $5,478,892 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $3,646,257 | EOYAmt |
Accounts Receivable AccountsReceivableGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $11,649 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $12,097 | EOYAmt |
Prepaid Expenses Defrd Charges PrepaidExpensesDefrdChargesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $171,212 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $230,055 | EOYAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Land Bldg Equip Cost Or Other Bss | $3,076,574 | LandBldgEquipCostOrOtherBssAmt |
| Land Bldg Equip Accum Deprec | $2,317,928 | LandBldgEquipAccumDeprecAmt |
Land Bldg Equip Basis Net LandBldgEquipBasisNetGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $814,509 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $758,646 | EOYAmt |
Investments Pub Traded Sec InvestmentsPubTradedSecGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $17,246,038 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $20,156,625 | EOYAmt |
Investments Other Securities InvestmentsOtherSecuritiesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| EOY | $4,960,861 | EOYAmt |
Other Assets Total OtherAssetsTotalGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $47,393 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $164,723 | EOYAmt |
Total Assets TotalAssetsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $42,372,492 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $54,270,467 | EOYAmt |
Accounts Payable Accr Expnss AccountsPayableAccrExpnssGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $461,331 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $739,393 | EOYAmt |
Deferred Revenue DeferredRevenueGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| EOY | $25,137 | EOYAmt |
Other Liabilities OtherLiabilitiesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $188,892 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $261,312 | EOYAmt |
Total Liabilities TotalLiabilitiesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $650,223 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $1,025,842 | EOYAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Organization Follows SFAS117 | Yes (X) | OrganizationFollowsSFAS117Ind |
Unrestricted Net Assets UnrestrictedNetAssetsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $35,891,338 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $49,103,431 | EOYAmt |
Temporarily Rstr Net Assets TemporarilyRstrNetAssetsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $5,830,931 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $4,141,194 | EOYAmt |
Total Net Assets Fund Balance TotalNetAssetsFundBalanceGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $41,722,269 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $53,244,625 | EOYAmt |
Tot Liab Net Assets Fund Balance TotLiabNetAssetsFundBalanceGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| BOY | $42,372,492 | BOYAmt |
| EOY | $54,270,467 | EOYAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Reconcilation Revenue Expnss | $10,525,262 | ReconcilationRevenueExpnssAmt |
| Net Unrlzd Gains Losses Invst | $997,094 | 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 | $12,109,095 | CurrentTaxYearMinus4YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus3 Years | $18,305,447 | CurrentTaxYearMinus3YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus2 Years | $18,582,104 | CurrentTaxYearMinus2YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus1 Year | $18,598,848 | CurrentTaxYearMinus1YearAmt |
| Current Tax Year | $23,917,519 | CurrentTaxYearAmt |
| Total | $91,513,013 | TotalAmt |
Total Calendar Year170 TotalCalendarYear170Grp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Current Tax Year Minus4 Years | $12,109,095 | CurrentTaxYearMinus4YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus3 Years | $18,305,447 | CurrentTaxYearMinus3YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus2 Years | $18,582,104 | CurrentTaxYearMinus2YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus1 Year | $18,598,848 | CurrentTaxYearMinus1YearAmt |
| Current Tax Year | $23,917,519 | CurrentTaxYearAmt |
| Total | $91,513,013 | TotalAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Substantial Contributors Tot | $22,179,108 | SubstantialContributorsTotAmt |
| Public Support Total170 | $69,333,905 | PublicSupportTotal170Amt |
Gross Investment Income170 GrossInvestmentIncome170Grp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Current Tax Year Minus4 Years | $181,289 | CurrentTaxYearMinus4YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus3 Years | $54,026 | CurrentTaxYearMinus3YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus2 Years | $85,201 | CurrentTaxYearMinus2YearsAmt |
| Current Tax Year Minus1 Year | $161,654 | CurrentTaxYearMinus1YearAmt |
| Current Tax Year | $173,350 | CurrentTaxYearAmt |
| Total | $655,520 | TotalAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Support | $92,168,533 | TotalSupportAmt |
| Gross Receipts Rltd Activities | $3,073,878 | GrossReceiptsRltdActivitiesAmt |
| Public Support CY170 | 0.75230 | PublicSupportCY170Pct |
| Public Support PY170 | 0.73720 | 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 | $5,383 | FilingOrganizationsTotalAmt |
Total Direct Lobbying TotalDirectLobbyingGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Filing Organizations Total | $33,334 | FilingOrganizationsTotalAmt |
Total Lobbying Expend TotalLobbyingExpendGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Filing Organizations Total | $38,717 | FilingOrganizationsTotalAmt |
Other Exempt Purpose Expend OtherExemptPurposeExpendGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Filing Organizations Total | $14,049,608 | FilingOrganizationsTotalAmt |
Total Exempt Purpose Expend TotalExemptPurposeExpendGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Filing Organizations Total | $14,088,325 | FilingOrganizationsTotalAmt |
Lobbying Nontaxable Amount LobbyingNontaxableAmountGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Filing Organizations Total | $854,416 | FilingOrganizationsTotalAmt |
Grassroots Nontaxable GrassrootsNontaxableGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Filing Organizations Total | $213,604 | 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 | $695,991 | CurrentYearMinus3Amt |
| Current Year Minus2 | $779,127 | CurrentYearMinus2Amt |
| Current Year Minus1 | $790,605 | CurrentYearMinus1Amt |
| Current Year | $854,416 | CurrentYearAmt |
| Total | $3,120,139 | TotalAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Lobbying Ceiling | $4,680,209 | LobbyingCeilingAmt |
Avg Total Lobbying Expend AvgTotalLobbyingExpendGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Current Year Minus3 | $52,876 | CurrentYearMinus3Amt |
| Current Year Minus2 | $32,430 | CurrentYearMinus2Amt |
| Current Year Minus1 | $59,017 | CurrentYearMinus1Amt |
| Current Year | $38,717 | CurrentYearAmt |
| Total | $183,040 | TotalAmt |
Avg Grassroots Nontaxable AvgGrassrootsNontaxableGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Current Year Minus3 | $173,998 | CurrentYearMinus3Amt |
| Current Year Minus2 | $194,782 | CurrentYearMinus2Amt |
| Current Year Minus1 | $197,651 | CurrentYearMinus1Amt |
| Current Year | $213,604 | CurrentYearAmt |
| Total | $780,035 | TotalAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Grassroots Ceiling | $1,170,053 | GrassrootsCeilingAmt |
Avg Grassroots Lobbying Expend AvgGrassrootsLobbyingExpendGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Current Year Minus3 | $10,693 | CurrentYearMinus3Amt |
| Current Year Minus2 | $12,261 | CurrentYearMinus2Amt |
| Current Year Minus1 | $15,644 | CurrentYearMinus1Amt |
| Current Year | $5,383 | CurrentYearAmt |
| Total | $43,981 | TotalAmt |
Schedule D IRS990ScheduleD
Leasehold Improvements LeaseholdImprovementsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Other Cost Or Other Basis | $1,243,813 | OtherCostOrOtherBasisAmt |
| Depreciation | $1,092,412 | DepreciationAmt |
| Book Value | $151,401 | BookValueAmt |
Equipment EquipmentGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Other Cost Or Other Basis | $1,671,929 | OtherCostOrOtherBasisAmt |
| Depreciation | $1,225,516 | DepreciationAmt |
| Book Value | $446,413 | BookValueAmt |
Other Land Buildings OtherLandBuildingsGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Other Cost Or Other Basis | $160,832 | OtherCostOrOtherBasisAmt |
| Book Value | $160,832 | BookValueAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Book Value Land Buildings | $758,646 | TotalBookValueLandBuildingsAmt |
Other Securities OtherSecuritiesGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Desc | HEDGE FUND | Desc |
| Book Value | $4,960,861 | BookValueAmt |
| Method Valuation | F | MethodValuationCd |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Book Value Securities | $4,960,861 | TotalBookValueSecuritiesAmt |
Other Liabilities Org OtherLiabilitiesOrgGrp (3 entries)
| DescDesc | AmtAmt |
|---|---|
| DEFERRED RENT | $108,117 |
| CAPITAL LEASE LIABILITY | $27,363 |
| GIFT ANNUITY | $125,832 |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Liability | $261,312 | TotalLiabilityAmt |
| Total Rev Etc Audited Fincl Stmt | $25,610,681 | TotalRevEtcAuditedFinclStmtAmt |
| Net Unrealized Gains Invst | $997,094 | NetUnrealizedGainsInvstAmt |
| Revenue Not Reported | $997,094 | RevenueNotReportedAmt |
| Revenue Subtotal | $24,613,587 | RevenueSubtotalAmt |
| Revenue Not Reported Fincl Stmt | $0 | RevenueNotReportedFinclStmtAmt |
| Total Revenue Per Form990 | $24,613,587 | TotalRevenuePerForm990Amt |
| Tot Expns Etc Audited Fincl Stmt | $14,088,325 | TotExpnsEtcAuditedFinclStmtAmt |
| Expenses Not Reported | $0 | ExpensesNotReportedAmt |
| Expenses Subtotal | $14,088,325 | ExpensesSubtotalAmt |
| Expenses Not Rpt Fincl Stmt | $0 | ExpensesNotRptFinclStmtAmt |
| Total Expenses Per Form990 | $14,088,325 | TotalExpensesPerForm990Amt |
Schedule F IRS990ScheduleF
Account Activities Outside US AccountActivitiesOutsideUSGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Region | CAYMAN ISLANDS | RegionTxt |
| Offices | 0 | OfficesCnt |
| Employee | 0 | EmployeeCnt |
| Type Of Activities Conducted | INVESTMENTS | TypeOfActivitiesConductedTxt |
| Region Total Expenditures | $4,960,861 | RegionTotalExpendituresAmt |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Subtotal Offices | 0 | SubtotalOfficesCnt |
| Subtotal Employees | 0 | SubtotalEmployeesCnt |
| Continutation Total Office | 0 | ContinutationTotalOfficeCnt |
| Continutation Total Employee | 0 | ContinutationTotalEmployeeCnt |
| Total Office | 0 | TotalOfficeCnt |
| Total Employee | 0 | TotalEmployeeCnt |
| Subtotal Spent | $4,960,861 | SubtotalSpentAmt |
| Continuation Spent | $0 | ContinuationSpentAmt |
| Total Spent | $4,960,861 | TotalSpentAmt |
| Transfer To Foreign Corp | Yes (1) | 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 |
Schedule J IRS990ScheduleJ
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Compensation Committee | Yes (X) | CompensationCommitteeInd |
| Independent Consultant | Yes (X) | IndependentConsultantInd |
| Form990 Of Other Organizations | Yes (X) | Form990OfOtherOrganizationsInd |
| Compensation Survey | Yes (X) | CompensationSurveyInd |
| Board Or Committee Approval | Yes (X) | BoardOrCommitteeApprovalInd |
| Severance Payment | 0 | SeverancePaymentInd |
| Supplemental Nonqual Rtr Plan | Yes (1) | SupplementalNonqualRtrPlanInd |
| Equity Based Comp Arrngm | 0 | EquityBasedCompArrngmInd |
| Comp Based On Revenue Of Flng Org | 0 | CompBasedOnRevenueOfFlngOrgInd |
| Comp Bsd On Rev Related Orgs | 0 | CompBsdOnRevRelatedOrgsInd |
| Comp Bsd Net Earns Flng Org | 0 | CompBsdNetEarnsFlngOrgInd |
| Comp Bsd Net Earns Rltd Orgs | 0 | CompBsdNetEarnsRltdOrgsInd |
| Any Non Fixed Payments | Yes (1) | AnyNonFixedPaymentsInd |
| Initial Contract Exception | 0 | InitialContractExceptionInd |
Rltd Org Officer Trst Key Empl RltdOrgOfficerTrstKeyEmplGrp (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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WILLIAM H MELLOR | ||||||||||||||
| PRES. & GENERAL COUNSEL | $402,108 | $0 | $72,000 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $126,000 | $0 | $19,174 | $0 | $619,282 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| STEVEN ANDERSON | ||||||||||||||
| MANAGING VP-CFO/SECRETARY/TREASURER | $168,407 | $0 | $15,000 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $23,369 | $0 | $6,634 | $0 | $213,410 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| DEBORAH SIMPSON | ||||||||||||||
| VP OF STATE OFFICES | $184,971 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $27,237 | $0 | $7,075 | $0 | $219,283 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| JOHN KRAMER | ||||||||||||||
| VP FOR COMMUNICATIONS | $246,143 | $0 | $15,000 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $33,750 | $0 | $19,174 | $0 | $314,067 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| DANA BERLINER | ||||||||||||||
| LITIGATION DIRECTOR | $231,983 | $0 | $5,000 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $31,508 | $0 | $7,349 | $0 | $275,840 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| BETH STEVENS | ||||||||||||||
| VP FOR DEVELOPMENT | $172,976 | $0 | $15,000 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $28,641 | $0 | $7,223 | $0 | $223,840 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| SCOTT BULLOCK | ||||||||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | $227,517 | $0 | $10,000 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $30,280 | $0 | $7,348 | $0 | $275,145 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| CLARK NEILY | ||||||||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | $185,605 | $0 | $10,000 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $28,468 | $0 | $6,773 | $0 | $230,846 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| JEFFREY ROWES | ||||||||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | $182,408 | $0 | $10,000 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $25,935 | $0 | $7,206 | $0 | $225,549 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| ROBERT GALL | ||||||||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | $184,639 | $0 | $10,000 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $25,592 | $0 | $7,211 | $0 | $227,442 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| RICHARD KOMER | ||||||||||||||
| SENIOR ATTORNEY | $157,588 | $0 | $5,000 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $19,907 | $0 | $7,018 | $0 | $189,513 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Supplemental Information Detail SupplementalInformationDetail (2 entries)
| Form And Line ReferenceFormAndLineReferenceDesc | ExplanationExplanationTxt |
|---|---|
| PART I, LINE 4B | A $75,000 CONTRIBUTION TO A SEC. 457(F) PLAN FOR WILLIAM H. MELLOR WAS AUTHORIZED AND FUNDED IN THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2014. |
| PART I, LINE 7 | THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE DETERMINES, ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, THE BONUS TO BE AWARDED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE INSTITUTE. FOR ALL OTHERS, BONUSES ARE DETERMINED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE INSTITUTE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. ALL BONUSES ARE BASED UPON A BOARD APPROVED BUDGET. |
Schedule L IRS990ScheduleL
Bus Tr Involve Interested Prsn BusTrInvolveInterestedPrsnGrp
Name Of Interested NameOfInterested
Business Name BusinessName
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Business Name Line1 | STEVEN SIMPSON | BusinessNameLine1 |
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Relationship Description | HUSBAND OF DEBORAH SIMPSON, VP OF STATE OFFICES | RelationshipDescriptionTxt |
| Transaction | $123,946 | TransactionAmt |
| Transaction | REGULAR EMPLOYEE OF THE INSTITUTE | TransactionDesc |
| Sharing Of Revenues | 0 | SharingOfRevenuesInd |
Schedule M IRS990ScheduleM
Securities Publicly Traded SecuritiesPubliclyTradedGrp
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Non Cash Checkbox | Yes (X) | NonCashCheckboxInd |
| Contribution | 33 | ContributionCnt |
| Noncash Contributions Rpt F990 | $1,432,963 | 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
| Field | Value | IRS element (for citing) |
|---|---|---|
| Form And Line Reference | PART I, LINE 32B: | FormAndLineReferenceDesc |
| Explanation | THE INSTITUTE UTILIZES A BROKERAGE FIRM TO SELL DONATED SECURITIES AND OTHER INVESTMENT VEHICLES. | ExplanationTxt |
Schedule O IRS990ScheduleO
Supplemental Information Detail SupplementalInformationDetail (15 entries)
| Form And Line ReferenceFormAndLineReferenceDesc | ExplanationExplanationTxt |
|---|---|
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION A, LINE 1 | WILLIAM H. MELLOR SERVES AS PRESIDENT & GENERAL COUNSEL AND IS EMPLOYED BY THE ORGANIZATION. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11 | 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 | THE PRESIDENT/GENERAL COUNSEL'S COMPENSATION IS SET BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AT THE FALL BOARD MEETING. THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PROVIDES THE BOARD'S COMPENSATION COMMITTEE WITH PRESENT AND PAST COMPENSATION AMOUNTS FOR THE PRESIDENT/GENERAL COUNSEL, AS WELL AS COMPARABLE DATA FROM THE MOST RECENTLY AVAILABLE FORM 990 FOR SIMILARLY SITUATED NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. THE CFO ALSO ANNUALLY ENGAGES AN OUTSIDE VENDOR TO PROVIDE AN INDEPENDENT COMPENSATION SURVEY. THE FULL BOARD (EXCEPT FOR THE PRESIDENT/GENERAL COUNSEL, WHO IS RECUSED) THEN VOTES TO DETERMINE COMPENSATION AND THE DECISION IS CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RECORDED AND COMMUNICATED TO THE CFO BY THE CHAIRMAN AND PLACED IN THE PRESIDENT/GENERAL COUNSEL'S CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT FILE. 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. IN DETERMINING THE FISCAL YEAR BUDGET, THE COMPENSATION AMOUNTS OF OTHER OFFICERS AND KEY EMPLOYEES ARE DETERMINED IN COMPARISON TO SIMILARLY SITUATED OFFICERS AND KEY EMPLOYEES AT SIMILARLY SITUATED NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. SUCH DETERMINATION IS CONTEMPORANEOUSLY SUBSTANTIATED THROUGH RECORDATION OF THE PASSAGE OF THE BUDGET. THE COMPENSATION DETERMINATION IS PLACED IN THE OFFICER OR OTHER KEY EMPLOYEE'S CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT FILE. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 | THE INSTITUTE'S 990 AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ON ITS AND OTHER WEBSITES. THE INSTITUTE'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 | GHALEB IBRAHIM V. CITY OF MILWAUKEE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE CLIENT GHALEB IBRAHIM IS A MILWAUKEE ENTREPRENEUR WHO SIMPLY WANTED TO OWN AND DRIVE HIS OWN TAXI CAB. BUT MILWAUKEE LIMITED THE NUMBER OF TAXI PERMITS TO 321 FOR THE ENTIRE CITY, AND THE ONLY WAY TO GET A PERMIT WAS TO PURCHASE ONE FROM AN EXISTING PERMIT HOLDER. THE COST? MORE THAN $150,000, WHICH IS HIGHER THAN THE COST OF AN AVERAGE HOME IN MILWAUKEE. THE LAW DID NOTHING BUT FUNNEL MONEY TO A SMALL GROUP OF ENTRENCHED BUSINESSES AT THE EXPENSE OF ENTREPRENEURS AND CONSUMERS. MEDIA RANGING FROM THE FINANCIAL TIMES OF LONDON TO THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL COVERED THE CASE, AND IN APRIL 2013, A MILWAUKEE COUNTY JUDGE RULED THE CAP UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE CITY DECIDED NOT TO APPEAL, SO THE CASE IS NOW CLOSED. THIS RULING WILL BE HELPFUL AS OTHER CITIES AND TOWNS ACROSS THE COUNTRY CONSIDER SIMILAR MEASURES THAT RESTRICT THE RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING. WE SOUGHT AND RECOVERED $2,694 IN COSTS FROM THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE. EDWARDS V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN A RESOUNDING VICTORY FOR FREE SPEECH, IN JUNE THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STRUCK DOWN WASHINGTON, D.C.S TOUR-GUIDE LICENSING SCHEME IN RESPONSE TO IJS LAWSUIT. UNDER THE LAW, TOUR GUIDES FACED FINES AND 90 DAYS IN JAIL UNLESS THEY PASSED A CITY-MANDATED HISTORY TEST. THE COURT TOOK ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT THE REGULATIONS, WHICH IMPOSED SERIOUS BURDENS ON PEOPLE WHO WANT TO TALK TO TOUR GROUPS, WERE WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED BY EVIDENCE. WE REPRESENT BILL MAIN AND TONIA EDWARDS, WHO OPERATE A SEGWAY RENTAL AND TOUR COMPANY AND WANTED THE RIGHT TO TALK TO THEIR CUSTOMERS WITHOUT FIRST SEEKING GOVERNMENT APPROVAL. AS THE WASHINGTON POST EDITORIALIZED, THE RULING "AFFIRMED THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, AND IT STRUCK A BLOW FOR COMMON SENSE. WE NOW WAIT TO SEE IF THE CITY WILL APPEAL. NIEHAUS V. HUPPENTHAL IN MARCH, THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO REVIEW OUR UNANIMOUS COURT OF APPEALS DECISION THAT DECLARED ARIZONAS EMPOWERMENT SCHOLARSHIP ACCOUNT PROGRAM CONSTITUTIONAL. THIS PROGRAM ALLOWS ELIGIBLE FAMILIES TO APPLY FOR A PUBLICLY FUNDED EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNT THAT CAN BE USED TO PAY FOR A WIDE VARIETY OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES, INCLUDING TUTORING, HOME-SCHOOL CURRICULUM, PRIVATE SCHOOL TUITION, AND TEXTBOOKS. OUR CLIENT CRYSTAL FOX CREDITS THE PROGRAM WITH SAVING HER SON AUSTINS LIFE. AUSTIN HAS ASPERGERS SYNDROME AND WAS READY TO DROP OUT OF HIS PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL IN 10TH GRADE. BUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ESA PROGRAM AND CHOOSE A SCHOOL FOR HIMSELF CONVINCED AUSTIN TO STAY IN SCHOOL. HIS NEW-FOUND ACADEMIC SUCCESS AND HIGH SAT AND ACT SCORES MEANT HE WAS COLLEGE-BOUND UPON GRADUATION. THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION JOINS A GROWING LIST OF STATE COURTS TO VINDICATE THE PARENTAL RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT THAT BEST SUITS THEIR CHILDS UNIQUE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS. U.S. V. 2601 W. BALL ROAD, ANAHEIM, CA IJ CLIENT TONY JALALI FLED IRAN IN 1978 TO ESCAPE TYRANNY AND ENJOY THE PROTECTIONS THE RULE OF LAW AFFORDS. ALTHOUGH TONY HAS NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME, THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TEAMED UP WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DO AN END-RUN AROUND STATE LAW TO TAKE HIS $1.5 MILLION OFFICE BUILDING THROUGH CIVIL FORFEITURE BECAUSE HE LEASED SPACE TO TWO MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES-BUSINESSES THAT ARE PERFECTLY LEGAL IN THE STATE. TONYS ONLY CRIME WAS HAVING SOMETHING THE GOVERNMENT WANTED: A MORTGAGE-FREE PROPERTY THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD SELL IN ORDER TO KEEP THE PROCEEDS TO PAD ITS BUDGET. IN OCTOBER 2013, AFTER A YEAR-LONG FIGHT IN FEDERAL COURT, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT DROPPED ITS FORFEITURE ACTION, GIVING UP ITS ATTEMPT TO TAKE TONYS BUILDING. CIVIL FORFEITURE SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A PUNISHMENT FOR PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAVE COMMITTED NO CRIME. AS TONY SAID, "I DID NOT WANT TO BE BULLIED AND STOOD UP TO THE GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT MY PROPERTY AND MY REPUTATION. LOVING V. IRS IN MAY 2014, IJS VICTORY OVER THE IRS BECAME FINAL AFTER THE AGENCY DECLINED TO FILE A PETITION SEEKING REVIEW FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THE CASE AROSE WHEN THE IRS, FOLLOWING SEVERAL FAILURES TO SECURE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION, UNILATERALLY IMPOSED SWEEPING NEW REGULATIONS THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED ALL TAX-RETURN PREPARERS TO OBTAIN A LICENSE AND SUBMIT TO ONGOING, MANDATORY IRS-APPROVED EDUCATION. THE BURDEN WOULD HAVE FALLEN ON CONSUMERS AND SMALL ENTREPRENEURS LIKE OUR CLIENT ELMER KILIAN, WHO HAS BEEN PREPARING TAX RETURNS FOR THE PEOPLE OF EAGLE, WISC., FOR 30 YEARS. MEANWHILE, POWERFUL INDUSTRY INSIDERS STOOD TO REAP THE BENEFITS OF DECREASED COMPETITION. AS THE WALL STREET JOURNAL SAID, "BIG-FOOT TAX PREPARERS LIKE H&R BLOCK AND JACKSON HEWITT LOBBIED FOR THE REGULATION AND HAVE BEEN EXPLICIT IN HOPING IT WILL SQUEEZE LOWER-PRICED COMPETITION. IJ BELIEVES THAT TAXPAYERS-NOT THE IRS-SHOULD BE THE ONES WHO DECIDE WHO PREPARES THEIR TAXES. ST. JOSEPH ABBEY V. CASTILLE IN AN IMPORTANT VICTORY FOR ECONOMIC LIBERTY, THE 5TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REJECTED ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM AS A LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST WHEN IT ISSUED A UNANIMOUS DECISION RULING THAT THE BENEDICTINE MONKS OF SAINT JOSEPH ABBEY IN COVINGTON, LA., DO NOT NEED TO OBTAIN A FUNERAL DIRECTORS LICENSE IN ORDER TO SELL THEIR HANDMADE CASKETS. THE DECISION WILL BENEFIT MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ACROSS THE COUNTRY STRUGGLING TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING UNDER THE WEIGHT OF GOVERNMENT LICENSING RULES THAT CREATE BARRIERS TO ENTRY AND SUPPRESS COMPETITION. AS IJ CLIENT ABBOT JUSTIN BROWN SAID, "KNOWING THAT NOT ONLY HAS OUR ECONOMIC LIBERTY BEEN PROTECTED FOREVER, BUT THAT WE ALSO HELPED TO SECURE THE SAME RIGHTS FOR OTHERS MAKES THIS YEARS-LONG BATTLE WORTH IT. |
| VERLIN STOLL, ET AL. V. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MORTUARY | SCIENCE SECTION, ET AL. IJ CLIENT VERLIN STOLL WANTED TO EXPAND HIS LOW-COST FUNERAL HOME BUSINESS BY ADDING A NEW LOCATION, BUT THE STATE OF MINNESOTA EFFECTIVELY FORECLOSED THIS OPTION BY FORCING VERLIN TO WASTE $30,000 BUILDING ANOTHER EMBALMING ROOM HE DID NOT WANT, DID NOT NEED, AND WOULD NEVER USE. THE LAW SERVED ONLY ONE PURPOSE: TO PROTECT THE BIG, FULL-AMENITY FUNERAL HOME BUSINESSES FROM INNOVATORS LIKE VERLIN. IN OCTOBER 2013, A STATE COURT RULED THE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL, SAYING IT "CONSTITUTES AN IRRATIONAL EXERCISE OF THE STATES POLICE POWER. VICTORIES LIKE THESE SHOW THAT JUDGES ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE INCREASINGLY ENGAGED IN PROTECTING ECONOMIC LIBERTY, AND IJ WILL USE THE DECISION TO OPEN DOORS FOR ENTREPRENEURS IN OTHER AREAS WHO ARE CRUSHED BY POINTLESS GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. WE RECEIVED $4,851 IN COSTS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR THIS CASE. ASTRAMECKI V. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MINNESOTA PERMITS PEOPLE TO SELL CERTAIN FOODS (LIKE BAKED GOODS AND JAMS) MADE IN THE HOME, BUT IT PROHIBITS THE SALE OF SUCH "COTTAGE FOODS ANYWHERE OTHER THAN FARMERS MARKETS AND COMMUNITY EVENTS. THAT MEANS NO SALES FROM A GOURMET FOOD SHOP, JOBSITE, OR ONLINE. WORSE YET, THE STATE LIMITS A COTTAGE FOOD PRODUCERS REVENUES TO JUST $5,000 ANNUALLY-AND THATS GROSS RECEIPTS, NOT PROFITS. IJ CLIENT JANE ASTRAMECKI STARTED HER HOME-BAKING BUSINESS AFTER SUFFERING AN INJURY THAT MADE WORKING OUTSIDE THE HOME IMPRACTICAL. HER HOMEMADE CAKES, COOKIES, SCONES, AND JAMS ARE A HIT WITH HER CUSTOMERS AND ALLOW HER TO EARN MONEY TO SUPPORT HER FAMILY. BUT UNDER MINNESOTAS LAW, JANE REGULARLY HAS TO TURN DOWN REQUESTS FOR HER TREATS OR FACE FINES OR EVEN JAIL TIME. MINNESOTAS LAW SIMPLY MAKES NO SENSE. A COOKIE IS A COOKIE. IF ITS SAFE TO SELL AT A FARMERS MARKET, ITS SAFE TO SELL AT A SHOP OR FOOD STAND. SO JANE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FIGHT BACK AND FILED A LAWSUIT DESIGNED TO HELP FOOD ENTREPRENEURS ACROSS THE COUNTRY FIGHT BACK AGAINST SIMILAR RESTRICTIVE LAWS. PATEL V. TEXAS DEPT OF LICENSING AND REGULATION EYEBROW THREADING IS BOOMING ACROSS THE COUNTRY AS A CHEAPER, FASTER, AND LESS PAINFUL ALTERNATIVE TO WAXING. BUT THE STATE OF TEXAS REQUIRES EYEBROW THREADERS, WHO ARE PREDOMINANTLY INDIAN IMMIGRANTS, TO OBTAIN BETWEEN 750 AND 1,500 HOURS OF WESTERN-STYLE COSMETOLOGY TRAINING AT A COST OF APPROXIMATELY $15,000, BUT THE TRAINING DOESNT TEACH THREADING. AS WITH MOST LICENSING LAWS, THIS ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH PROTECTING INDUSTRY INSIDERS FROM COMPETITION. OUR CLIENTS INCLUDE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND EYEBROW THREADERS WHO HAVE BEEN FINED $2,000 AND TOLD THAT THEY MUST STOP WORKING UNTIL THEY OBTAIN COSMETOLOGY LICENSES. WE FILED SUIT IN 2009 AND CURRENTLY ARE ON APPEAL WITH THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT. A VICTORY HERE WILL SEND A MESSAGE TO STATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY CONSIDERING SIMILAR ANTI-COMPETITIVE LICENSING SCHEMES. |
| NIVEA EARL V. NATHANAEL SMITH; NDIOBA NIANG V. EMILY | CARROLL; AND SYLLA V. KOHLER IN JUNE, IJ LAUNCHED THREE CASES ON THE SAME DAY TO VINDICATE THE RIGHTS OF AFRICAN HAIR BRAIDERS IN ARKANSAS, MISSOURI, AND WASHINGTON STATE. HAIR BRAIDING IS A TIME-TESTED, SAFE PRACTICE THAT IS DEEPLY ROOTED IN AFRICAN CULTURAL HERITAGE AND CARRIES WITH IT SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE. BUT ACROSS THE COUNTRY, STATE GOVERNMENTS MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR BRAIDERS TO MAKE MONEY FROM THEIR BRAIDING SKILLS UNLESS THEY FIRST SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND ATTEND HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS, OF HOURS OF GOVERNMENT-MANDATED COSMETOLOGY TRAINING THAT DOESNT EVEN TEACH THEM TO BRAID HAIR. THE RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF OUR NATIONS PROMISE OF OPPORTUNITY, AND WITH THESE LAWSUITS, IJ WILL STRENGTHEN THAT RIGHT FOR BRAIDERS AND OTHER ENTREPRENEURS NATIONWIDE. BRANTLEY V. KUNTZ IJ CLIENT ISIS BRANTLEY IS A WIDELY RECOGNIZED EXPERT ON AFRICAN HAIRBRAIDING WHO WANTS TO TEACH PEOPLE TO BRAID HAIR FOR A LIVING IN DALLAS. BUT EVEN WITH HER DECADES OF EXPERIENCE, TEXAS IS TELLING ISIS SHE MUST NOW CONVERT HER MODEST HAIRBRAIDING SCHOOL INTO A LARGE BARBER COLLEGE, AND BECOME A STATE-LICENSED BARBER INSTRUCTOR, BEFORE SHE CAN TEACH THE NEXT GENERATION OF AFRICAN HAIRBRAIDERS. WHEN THE STATE OF TEXAS BEGAN REGULATING HAIRBRAIDERS IN 2007, IT WEDGED TEXAS' HAIRBRAIDING LICENSE INTO THE STATES BARBERING STATUTE. THIS MEANS THAT ISIS MUST SPEND 2,250 HOURS IN BARBER SCHOOL, PASS FOUR EXAMS, AND SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON TUITION AND A FULLY EQUIPPED BARBER COLLEGE SHE DOESNT NEED, ALL TO TEACH A 35-HOUR HAIRBRAIDING CURRICULUM. SO ISIS TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FIGHT BACK, NOT ONLY FOR HERSELF BUT FOR THE RIGHTS OF BRAIDERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. WAUGH V. NEVADA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY IN NEVADA, ANYONE CAN PRACTICE MAKEUP ARTISTRY, AND ANYONE SHOULD BE FREE TO TEACH IT. BUT THE STATE REQUIRES PEOPLE LIKE OUR CLIENTS, LISSETTE WAUGH AND WENDY ROBIN, WHO WANT TO TEACH THE ART AND ARTISTRY OF MAKEUP APPLICATION TO FIRST OBTAIN A COSMETOLOGY INSTRUCTORS LICENSE, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE RECOGNIZES THAT MAKEUP ARTISTS ARE DIFFERENT FROM COSMETOLOGISTS, WHO FOCUS ON CUTTING AND STYLING HAIR AND CLEANSING AND CARING FOR THE SKIN AND NAILS. THE RULE MEANS THAT LISSETTE AND WENDY WOULD NEED TO SPEND HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS AND AN ADDITIONAL 700 HOURS OF TRAINING IN SUBJECTS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MAKEUP ARTISTRY, A SEVERE INFRINGEMENT ON THEIR RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING. SO THEY TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO CHALLENGE THIS LAW TO PROTECT THIS RIGHT FOR THEMSELVES AND OTHERS ACROSS THE STATE. MEMBRENO V. CITY OF HIALEAH STREET VENDORS ARE A CORE PART OF THE AMERICAN DREAM. WHETHER IT IS SELLING NEWSPAPERS IN NEW YORK CITY OR HOT DOGS IN CHICAGO, VENDING PROVIDES A PERFECT MEANS OF ENTERING THE ECONOMIC MAINSTREAM BECAUSE IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A GREAT DEAL OF FINANCIAL CAPITAL OR FORMAL EDUCATION. IN HIALEAH, FLA., WE REPRESENT SILVIO MEMBRENO, WHO CAME TO THE UNITED STATES FROM NICARAGUA AND HAS SUCCESSFULLY EARNED A LIVING AS A FLOWER VENDOR FOR MORE THAN 15 YEARS. BUT THE CITY HAS TRIED TO PUT SILVIO AND HIS FELLOW VENDORS OUT OF BUSINESS BY ENACTING ANTI-COMPETITIVE REGULATIONS THAT ARBITRARILY PROTECT ONE BUSINESS WHILE HARMING ANOTHER. WE WON THE FIRST ROUND OF THIS LITIGATION, WHEN, IN RESPONSE TO IJS LAWSUIT, THE CITY AMENDED ITS LAW TO REMOVE A REQUIREMENT THAT VENDORS REMAIN 300 FEET FROM COMPETING BRICK-AND-MORTAR STORES. BUT THE FIGHT CONTINUES, AS THE CITY MAINTAINS ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON STANDING STILL AND DISPLAYING MERCHANDISE. MILLER V. CITY OF ATLANTA IJ CLIENTS LARRY MILLER AND STANLEY HAMBRICK OWNED TWO WELL-KNOWN VENDING BUSINESSES OUTSIDE THE ATLANTA BRAVES STADIUM. THEIR BUSINESSES CREATED JOBS, OFFERED INEXPENSIVE SNACKS AND SOUVENIRS TO VISITORS, AND MADE THE SIDEWALKS SAFER BY KEEPING AN EYE OUT FOR FANS WHO NEEDED HELP. BUT IN 2009, THE CITY HANDED OVER ALL PUBLIC-PROPERTY VENDING TO A SINGLE COMPANY THAT WOULD HAVE FORCED LARRY AND STANLEY OUT OF BUSINESS BY REQUIRING THEM TO VEND FROM KIOSKS THAT RENT FOR NEARLY $20,000 A YEAR. WE FILED A LAWSUIT ON THEIR BEHALF IN 2011 TO FIGHT THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL USE OF GOVERNMENT POWER. THE COURT AGREED, HOLDING THAT ATLANTA HAD EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY. IT WAS A GREAT VICTORY FOR LARRY, STANLEY, AND COUNTLESS OTHER VENDORS ACROSS ATLANTA. BUT SEVERAL MONTHS LATER, ATLANTAS MAYOR REFUSED TO RENEW OUR CLIENTS VENDING LICENSES OR LET THEM OPERATE. DESPITE A COURT RULING ORDERING THE MAYOR TO FULFILL HIS LEGAL DUTIES, HE STILL REFUSED TO ACT. IJ EXHAUSTED ALL FURTHER LEGAL AVENUES TO PROMPT THE MAYOR TO ACT, ALL TO NO AVAIL. SO WHILE THIS CASE IS NOW CLOSED, WE WILL CONTINUE TO PRESS FOR THE RIGHTS OF VENDORS IN ATLANTA AND NATIONWIDE. BURKE V. CITY OF CHICAGO IJ REPRESENTS CHICAGO FOOD-TRUCK OWNERS IN THEIR CHALLENGE TO THE CITYS REGULATION THAT MAKES IT ILLEGAL FOR FOOD TRUCKS TO OPERATE WITHIN 200 FEET OF ANY FIXED BUSINESS THAT SELLS FOOD, INCLUDING SUPERMARKETS, CONVENIENCE STORES, AND EVEN GAS STATIONS. THE FINES FOR VIOLATING THE RULE ARE UP TO $2,000 - TEN TIMES HIGHER THAN FOR PARKING IN FRONT OF A FIRE HYDRANT. AS THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE SAID, "THE ORDINANCE DOESNT SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE LUNCH-SEEKING PUBLIC. IT BENEFITS THE BRICK-AND-MORTAR EATERIES, WHOSE OWNERS DONT WANT THE COMPETITION." WE WON THE FIRST ROUND OF THE LAWSUIT WHEN THE JUDGE DENIED THE GOVERNMENTS REQUEST TO DISMISS THE CASE AND NOW CONTINUE WITH DISCOVERY. SPEEDS AUTO SERVICES V. PORTLAND IN PORTLAND, ORE., WE ARE CHALLENGING THE CITYS MINIMUM FARE LAW, WHICH PUNISHES SMALL LIMOUSINE AND SEDAN COMPANIES TO PROTECT THE PROFITS OF THE CITYS TAXICAB COMPANIES. THE LAW IMPOSES A $50 MINIMUM FARE FOR LIMOUSINE AND SEDAN RIDES TO OR FROM PORTLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT; IT IMPOSES A CITY-WIDE MINIMUM FARE REQUIRING LIMOS AND SEDANS TO CHARGE AT LEAST 35 PERCENT MORE THAN WHAT TAXIS WOULD CHARGE FOR SERVICE ON THE SAME ROUTE; AND IT FORCES CONSUMERS TO WAIT A MINIMUM OF ONE HOUR BEFORE A LIMO OR SEDAN CAN PICK THEM UP. ITS NOT SURPRISING THAT PORTLANDS TAXICAB COMPANIES REQUESTED THESE REGULATIONS. WHAT IS SURPRISING IS THAT THE CITY AGREED TO IMPOSE THESE COSTS ON CONSUMERS AND SEDAN ENTREPRENEURS. THIS IS HARDLY A WISE OR CONSTITUTIONAL USE OF GOVERNMENT POWER, SO OUR CLIENTS HAVE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FIGHT BACK. HALSNIK V. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SIMILAR TO THE PORTLAND CASE ABOVE, IN TAMPA WE REPRESENT A SEDAN DRIVER AND HIS CUSTOMERS IN THEIR FIGHT AGAINST THE CITYS LAW THAT FORCES LIMO AND SEDAN DRIVERS TO CHARGE CONSUMERS $50 A RIDE, NO MATTER HOW SHORT THE RIDE IS AND EVEN IF THE DRIVERS WANT TO CHARGE LESS. LARGE LIMO AND TAXI COMPANIES LOVE THIS RULE BECAUSE IT PREVENTS COMPETITION FROM SMALLER TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS LIKE OUR CLIENT, THOMAS HALSNIK, AND IT ALLOWS THEM TO DIVVY UP THE MARKET. THE CITYS JOB IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC, NOT PROTECT TAXICAB AND LARGE LIMOUSINE COMPANIES FROM COMPETITION. CONSUMERS NEED PROTECTION FROM PRICES THAT ARE TOO LOW AS MUCH AS THEY NEED PROTECTION FROM PILLOWS THAT ARE TOO SOFT, AND OUR LAWSUIT WILL HELP ADVANCE THE PRINCIPLE THAT ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM HAS NO PLACE UNDER A CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF LAW. ILLINOIS TRANSPORTATION TRADE ASSN V. CITY OF CHICAGO A NEW CLASS OF SMALL-BUSINESS OWNERS HAS BEEN IMPROVING TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS IN MANY CITIES ACROSS AMERICA BY WORKING WITH TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES LIKE SIDECAR, LYFT, AND UBERX. ARMED WITH LITTLE MORE THAN A SMARTPHONE AND THEIR CAR, THESE ENTREPRENEURS ARE DRIVING INNOVATION IN AN INDUSTRY THATS BEEN DOMINATED BY ENTRENCHED BUSINESSES AND A REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ORIGINALLY DRAFTED IN THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY. IN CHICAGO, TAXICAB CORPORATIONS SEE THESE NEW DRIVERS AS A THREAT TO THEIR BOTTOM LINE, AND THEYVE TAKEN TO COURT TO DEMAND THAT FEDERAL JUDGES FREEZE CHICAGOS TAXI REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE PERMANENT ECONOMIC PROTECTION FOR TAXICAB OWNERS PREFERRED BUSINESS MODEL. IN MARCH 2014, THREE RIDESHARE DRIVERS PARTNERED WITH IJ TO INTERVENE IN THE TAXI CARTELS UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY AND PROVE THAT ENTRENCHED BUSINESSES HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM. |
| SENSATIONAL SMILES LLC D/B/A SMILE BRIGHT V. DR. JEWEL | MULLEN, ET AL. IN CONNECTICUT, WE ARE REPRESENTING WOULD-BE ENTREPRENEURS WHO WANT TO CAPITALIZE ON THE GROWING POPULARITY OF TEETH WHITENING. TEETH-WHITENING SERVICES INCREASINGLY ARE AVAILABLE AT SPAS, SALONS, AND SHOPPING MALLS AND OFTEN AT A MUCH LOWER COST THAN DENTISTS TYPICALLY CHARGE. BUT THE CONNECTICUT DENTAL COMMISSION RULED THAT IT IS A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY UP TO FIVE YEARS IN JAIL OR $25,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FOR ANYONE BUT A LICENSED DENTIST TO OFFER TEETH-WHITENING SERVICES, EVEN IF CUSTOMERS APPLY THE PRODUCT TO THEIR OWN TEETH. THERE IS NO HEALTH OR SAFETY REASON FOR THE RULE: ANYONE, EVEN A CHILD, CAN PURCHASE THESE PRODUCTS AND APPLY THEM WITHOUT ANY SPECIAL TRAINING OR INSTRUCTION. IN MARCH 2014, A FEDERAL JUDGE LIMITED THE SCOPE OF THE DENTAL COMMISSIONS' RULING, ALLOWING OUR CLIENTS TO GO BACK TO WORK, THOUGH THEY MAY NOT POSITION LED WHITENING LIGHTS FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS. WESTPHAL V. NORTHCUTT SIMILAR TO THE CONNECTICUT CASE ABOVE, WE ARE CHALLENGING A RECENT AMENDMENT TO ALABAMAS DENTAL PRACTICE ACT THAT HAS MADE IT A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY ONE YEAR IN JAIL AND A $5,000 FINE FOR ANYONE BUT A LICENSED DENTIST TO OFFER TEETH-WHITENING SERVICES. DENTISTS ROUTINELY CHARGE FOUR TIMES AS MUCH (OR EVEN MORE) THAN NON-DENTISTS FOR THESE SERVICES. SO RATHER THAN TRYING TO COMPETE BY LOWERING PRICES OR IMPROVING THEIR SERVICES, THE DENTAL CARTEL HAS TEAMED UP WITH THE GOVERNMENT TO PUT THEIR COMPETITION OUT OF BUSINESS. WE HAVE TEAMED UP WITH TEETH-WHITENING ENTREPRENEURS KEITH WESTPHAL AND JOYCE OSBORN TO VINDICATE THEIR RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING FREE FROM UNREASONABLE REGULATIONS DESIGNED SOLELY TO BENEFIT SPECIAL INTERESTS. ECK V. BATTLE WE ALSO ARE LITIGATING A SIMILAR CASE IN GEORGIA, WHERE ENTREPRENEURS WHO OFFER TEETH-WHITENING SERVICES CAN BE CHARGED WITH A FELONY, IMPRISONED FOR FIVE YEARS, AND FINED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. THEIR CRIME IS THE SAME ONE AS IN THE CASES DESCRIBED ABOVE: SELLING THE EXACT SAME TEETH-WHITENING PRODUCT SOLD IN STORES AND ONLINE. THE FDA REGULATES TEETH-WHITENING PRODUCTS AS COSMETICS, BUT THE GEORGIA DENTAL BOARD, WHICH INCLUDES EIGHT DENTISTS, BANS NON-DENTISTS FROM OFFERING TEETH-WHITENING SERVICES. THATS NOT JUST BAD POLICY, ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND IJ FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT IN APRIL 2014 TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THESE ENTREPRENEURS. BURRIS V. COBB IN ARKANSAS, WE REPRESENT DR. BEN BURRIS, A LICENSED ORTHODONTIST AND FULLY LICENSED DENTIST WHO WANTED TO OFFER LOW-COST DENTAL CLEANINGS TO LOW-INCOME FAMILIES AT A FRACTION OF WHAT OTHER DENTISTS CHARGE FOR THE SAME SERVICE. BUT WITHIN WEEKS OF STARTING THE SERVICE, DR. BEN WAS TOLD BY THE ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS THAT ARKANSAS PROHIBITS LICENSED DENTAL SPECIALISTS LIKE ORTHODONTISTS FROM DOING WORK OUTSIDE THEIR SPECIALTY, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE QUALIFIED TO PRACTICE GENERAL DENTISTRY. THESE KINDS OF RESTRICTIONS ARBITRARILY LIMIT ACCESS TO CARE AND DRIVE UP PRICES FOR CONSUMERS. SO DR. BEN TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FILE A FEDERAL LAWSUIT IN MAY 2014 TO ELIMINATE THIS PROTECTIONIST LAW AND EXPAND ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE DENTAL AND MEDICAL CARE FOR AMERICANS EVERYWHERE. COURTNEY V. GOLTZ IJ CLIENTS JIM AND CLIFF COURTNEY WANT TO BRING ECONOMIC PROSPERITY TO THEIR SMALL COMMUNITY OF STEHEKIN, WASH. BECAUSE STEHEKIN IS ACCESSIBLE ONLY BY BOAT OR PLANE, THE COURTNEY BROTHERS WANT TO PROVIDE CONVENIENT FERRY SERVICE ACROSS LAKE CHELAN SO MORE PEOPLE CAN ENJOY THE NATURAL BEAUTY AND OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES IN THE COMMUNITY THEIR FAMILY HAS CALLED HOME FOR FOUR GENERATIONS. BUT THE STATE OF WASHINGTON REQUIRES JIM AND CLIFF TO OBTAIN THE EXISTING FERRY COMPANYS PERMISSION TO COMPETE OR TO PROVE IN A TRIAL-LIKE HEARING THAT THE EXISTING COMPANY IS NOT PROVIDING "REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE SERVICE AND THAT A NEW SERVICE IS NECESSARY. THE REQUIREMENT IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT ON THE RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING, SO WE CHALLENGED THE LAW IN FEDERAL COURT. IN DECEMBER 2013, THE 9TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED AGAINST US, AND IN JUNE 2014, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO REVIEW THAT DECISION. FORTUNATELY, THE COURTS LEFT OPEN THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE CONSTITUTION COULD PROTECT THE RIGHT TO OPERATE A MORE LIMITED "PRIVATE FERRY, SO THE COURTNEYS ARE PRESSING ON WITH THEIR LAWSUIT. COLON HEALTH CENTERS OF AMERICA, LLC, ET AL. V. HAZEL, ET AL. |
| IN VIRGINIA, A "CERTIFICATE OF NEED OR "CON PROGRAM MAKES IT ILLEGAL | TO OFFER NEW MEDICAL SERVICES OR PURCHASE CERTAIN TYPES OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A SPECIAL PERMISSION SLIP FROM THE GOVERNMENT. UNDER THE CON PROGRAM, LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS WHO WANT TO PROVIDE NEW SERVICES MUST OFTEN SPEND SEVERAL YEARS AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PROVING TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THAT THERE IS A "NEED FOR THEIR SERVICE. MANY TIMES THE PROCESS FORBIDS NEW SERVICES FROM OPERATING AT ALL, AND THE CON PROGRAM AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN A STATE-GRANTED MONOPOLY FOR POLITICALLY FAVORED BUSINESSES. OUR CLIENTS IN THIS CASE, DR. MARK BAUMEL AND DR. MARK MONTEFERRANTE, HAVE JOINED FORCES WITH IJ TO CHALLENGE THE LAW AND INCREASE VIRGINIANS CHOICES FOR MEDICAL CARE. BECAUSE 35 OTHER STATES HAVE SIMILAR CON REQUIREMENTS, A VICTORY HERE WILL HELP CONSUMERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. IN FY14, WE RECEIVED $706 IN COSTS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. KELLY V. WHITMORE CELESTE KELLY, GRACE GRANATELLI AND STACEY KOLLMAN ARE THREE ARIZONA ENTREPRENEURS WHO DECIDED TO TURN THEIR LOVE OF ANIMALS INTO SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSES. EACH SPENT HUNDREDS OF HOURS LEARNING ABOUT ANIMAL ANATOMY AND DEVELOPING MASSAGE TECHNIQUES TO OBTAIN PRIVATE CERTIFICATIONS IN ANIMAL MASSAGE. BUT THE ARIZONA STATE VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINING BOARD IS THREATENING THEM WITH UP TO SIX MONTHS IN JAIL AND FINES OF $3,500 PER VIOLATION BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT LICENSED VETERINARIANS. MASSAGE THERAPISTS DO NOT NEED A MEDICAL DEGREE TO MASSAGE HUMANS, AND ANIMAL MASSAGE THERAPISTS LIKE OUR CLIENTS SHOULD NOT NEED TO SPEND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON FOUR YEARS OF VET SCHOOL WHERE THEY ARE NOT EVEN REQUIRED TO LEARN MASSAGE. THE VET BOARDS ACTIONS DEMONSTRATE THE OUTRAGEOUS EXTREMES TO WHICH STATE LICENSING BOARDS WILL GO TO PROTECT THEIR OWN FINANCIAL INTERESTS, AND CELESTE, GRACE, AND STACEY HAVE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FIGHT BACK. HINES V. TEXAS STATE BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINERS RON HINES IS A TEXAS VETERINARIAN WHO CAN NO LONGER PRACTICE IN AN OFFICE SETTING DUE TO A PHYSICAL DISABILITY. SO HE TOOK TO THE INTERNET TO PROVIDE ONLINE ADVICE TO PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD TRADITIONAL VETERINARY CARE, THOSE IN REMOTE PARTS OF THE WORLD, AND THOSE WHO HAVE CONFLICTING DIAGNOSES FROM THEIR LOCAL VETS. HIS CLIENTS RAVE ABOUT HIS SERVICE, AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SINGLE COMPLAINT. THE STATE OF TEXAS, HOWEVER, SAYS IT IS A CRIME FOR VETERINARIANS TO GIVE ADVICE OVER THE INTERNET WITHOUT HAVING FIRST PHYSICALLY EXAMINED THE ANIMAL. SO WE FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT ON RONS BEHALF TO DEFEND HIS RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE WITH PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR PETS USING THE INTERNET. THIS CASE RAISES ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS IN FIRST AMENDMENT LAW: WHEN DOES THE GOVERNMENTS POWER TO LICENSE OCCUPATIONS TRUMP FREE SPEECH? THE OUTCOME WILL HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR MEDICINE, LAW, PSYCHOLOGY, AND MANY OTHER OCCUPATIONS THAT OFTEN INVOLVE NOTHING BUT SPEECH IN THE FORM OF ADVICE. COOKSEY V. FUTRELL, ET AL. IJ CLIENT STEVE COOKSEY IS AN INTERNET BLOGGER WHO WAS CENSORED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR OFFERING HIS READERS PERSONAL ADVICE ON DIET AND LIFESTYLE CHOICES. AFTER BEING DIAGNOSED WITH TYPE II DIABETES, STEVE COOKSEY EMBRACED THE LOW-CARB "PALEOLITHIC DIET OF OUR STONE AGE ANCESTORS AND NOTICED THAT IT LED TO A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN HIS HEALTH. HE WANTED TO HELP OTHERS LEAD HEALTHIER LIVES AND STARTED SHARING HIS EXPERIENCES AND LIFESTYLE TIPS THROUGH A DEAR ABBY-STYLE ADVICE COLUMN ON HIS BLOG. BUT THE NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF DIETETICS/NUTRITION QUICKLY FORCED HIM INTO SILENCE. IT CLAIMS THAT STEVES WORK CONSTITUTES THE UNLICENSED, AND THUS CRIMINAL, PRACTICE OF DIETETICS. HOWEVER, UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, CITIZENS LIKE STEVE CANT BE REQUIRED TO GET THE GOVERNMENTS PERMISSION BEFORE OFFERING ORDINARY ADVICE ON HARMLESS THINGS LIKE WHAT FOODS PEOPLE SHOULD BUY AT THE GROCERY STORE. SO WE FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE BOARD ON STEVES BEHALF. ROSEMOND V. CONWAY IN THE SPRING OF 2013, JOHN ROSEMOND - AMERICAS LONGEST RUNNING NEWSPAPER ADVICE COLUMNIST - RECEIVED AN ASTONISHING ORDER FROM THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL: STOP PUBLISHING YOUR ADVICE COLUMN IN THE BLUEGRASS STATE OR FACE FINES AND JAIL. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND KENTUCKYS PSYCHOLOGIST-LICENSING BOARD BELIEVE THAT JOHNS COLUMN, WHICH IS SYNDICATED IN MORE THAN 200 PAPERS NATIONWIDE, CONSTITUTES THE "UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF PSYCHOLOGY IN KENTUCKY WHEN IT APPEARS IN A KENTUCKY NEWSPAPER. KENTUCKYS CRACKDOWN IS PART OF A NATIONAL SURGE IN THE ABUSE OF OCCUPATIONAL-LICENSING LAWS TO CENSOR ADVICE. SO JOHN TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO DEFEND HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS IN COURT. KAGAN V. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS SIMILAR TO THE D.C. CASE ABOVE THAT WE WON IN THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IN NEW ORLEANS WE REPRESENT FOUR TOUR GUIDES WHO ARE CHALLENGING A LOCAL LAW THAT REQUIRES TOUR GUIDES TO GET PERMISSION FROM THE GOVERNMENT BEFORE WORKING OR FACE FINES AND EVEN JAIL TIME. THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF DECIDING WHO IS - AND WHO IS NOT - ALLOWED TO SPEAK ABOUT VARIOUS TOPICS. A VICTORY IN THE CASE WILL HELP PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF COUNTLESS PEOPLE ACROSS THE COUNTRY THAT SPEAK FOR A LIVING - WHETHER THEY SPEAK AS NEWS REPORTERS, STAND-UP COMEDIANS, OR TOUR GUIDES. FEARS V. CITY OF SACRAMENTO FOR YEARS, HUSBAND AND WIFE CARL AND ELIZABETH RELIED ON A SANDWICH BOARD OUTSIDE THEIR COMMERCIAL GYM TO BRING IN CLIENTS. THE GYM IS LOCATED AT A "BLINK-AND-YOULL-MISS-IT BUILDING ON A BUSY STREET; MANY WOULD NOT EVEN KNOW THE GYM IS THERE WITHOUT THE SIGN. BUT IN 2013 THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO THREATENED TO PROSECUTE THE FEARS SIGN WITH FINES SO SEVERE, THEY WOULD DESTROY THEIR BUSINESS. THE RESTRICTION, HOWEVER, DID NOT APPLY TO ALL MESSAGES. FOR INSTANCE, THE FEARS COULD HAVE LEGALLY DISPLAYED THE EXACT SAME SIGN, IN THE EXACT SAME LOCATION, IF IT ADVERTISED REAL ESTATE OR A NON-PROFIT GROUPS EVENT. THE ARBITRARY NATURE OF THE SIGN CODE ISNT JUST BAD PUBLIC POLICY, ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SO THE FEARS TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FIGHT BACK. THREE MONTHS AFTER WE FILED OUR LAWSUIT, THE CITY BACKED DOWN AND AMENDED ITS SIGN CODE TO ALLOW THE FEARS AND OTHER BUSINESSES TO ADVERTISE THEIR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. WE RECEIVED $32,265 IN ATTORNEYS FEES FROM THE CITY FOLLOWING OUR VICTORY. ANDERSON V. COBA IN OREGON, IT WAS PERFECTLY LEGAL FOR SEVENTH-GENERATION FAMILY FARMER CHRISTINE ANDERSON TO SELL HER UNPASTEURIZED OR "RAW MILK AS LONG AS SHE DIDNT TALK ABOUT IT. THAT MEANT THAT CHRISTINE COULDN'T PUT FLYERS ON THE BULLETIN BOARD OF THE LOCAL HEALTH FOOD STORE, PUT PRICE INFORMATION ON HER FARM'S WEBSITE, OR EVEN HAVE A ROADSIDE SIGN AT THE FARM SAYING, "WE'VE GOT RAW MILK." DOING ANY OF THESE THINGS WOULD HAVE SUBJECTED CHRISTINE TO A FINE OF $6,250, CIVIL PENALTIES AS HIGH AS $10,000, AND A YEAR IN JAIL-ALL FOR ADVERTISING HER LAWFUL PRODUCT. SO SHE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FIGHT BACK, AND IN NOVEMBER 2013, WE FILED A FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE IN FEDERAL COURT ON HER BEHALF. SIMILAR TO THE SACRAMENTO CASE ABOVE, JUST A FEW MONTHS AFTER WE FILED THE CASE, THE STATE OF OREGON BACKED DOWN AND AGREED TO STOP ENFORCING ITS BAN ON THE ADVERTISEMENT OF RAW MILK. IT ALSO AGREED TO ASK THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO REPEAL THE LAW. ITS YET ANOTHER IJ VICTORY VINDICATING THE RIGHTS OF SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS TO ADVERTISE THEIR LAWFUL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. NEIGHBORHOOD ENTERPRISES V. CITY OF ST. LOUIS FED UP WITH HIS LOCAL GOVERNMENT ABUSING ITS POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, ST. LOUIS RESIDENT JIM ROOS DECIDED TO FIGHT BACK. HE HAD A LARGE PROTEST MURAL PAINTED ON HIS BUILDING AT 1806 S. 13TH STREET, IN A NEIGHBORHOOD TARGETED FOR REDEVELOPMENT. BUT THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS DIDNT LIKE THE CRITICISM AND INSISTED THAT THE MURAL BE TAKEN DOWN AS A VIOLATION OF LOCAL "SIGN CODES. BUT JIM HAS A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVELY PROTEST GOVERNMENT ABUSE AND BUILD SUPPORT FOR MEANINGFUL REFORM WITHOUT HAVING TO GET GOVERNMENT APPROVAL, SO WE FOUGHT BACK WITH A LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT. WE WON THIS CASE BEFORE THE 8TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN 2011, BUT REMAIN IN DISTRICT COURT ASKING FOR A JUDGMENT DECLARING JIMS RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THE MURAL. CENTRAL RADIO COMPANY V. CITY OF NORFOLK |
| SIMILAR TO THE ST. LOUIS CASE ABOVE, IJ IS STANDING UP FOR A THRIVING | SMALL BUSINESS IN NORFOLK, VA., THAT IS NOT ONLY AT RISK OF LOSING ITS PROPERTY THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE, BUT ALSO IS BEING CENSORED FOR EXPRESSING AN OPINION THE GOVERNMENT DOESNT LIKE. IN EARLY 2012, THE OWNERS OF CENTRAL RADIO COMPANY HUNG A BANNER ON THEIR BUILDING PROTESTING THE GOVERNMENTS ATTEMPT TO TAKE THEIR PROPERTY THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN. BUT THE CITY TOLD THEM TO TAKE IT DOWN BECAUSE IT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE CITYS SIGN CODE, EVEN THOUGH OTHER BUSINESSES IN THE AREA HAVE SIGNS AS LARGE OR LARGER THAN CENTRAL RADIOS. IJ STEPPED IN TO REPRESENT CENTRAL RADIO IN THEIR FIGHT AGAINST THE CITY, AND WE CURRENTLY ARE ON APPEAL TO THE 4TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. DINA GALASSINI, V. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA BEFORE ELECTION DAY IN 2011, IJ CLIENT DINA GALASSINI OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZ., SENT AN EMAIL TO A GROUP OF FRIENDS INVITING THEM TO JOIN HER IN A PROTEST AGAINST A $44 MILLION ROAD BOND BY MAKING HOMEMADE SIGNS AND JOINING HER ON A STREET CORNER. WITHIN A WEEK OF SENDING HER EMAIL, DINA RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE TOWN CLERK TELLING HER TO "CEASE ANY CAMPAIGN RELATED ACTIVITIES UNTIL SHE HAD REGISTERED WITH THE TOWN AS A "POLITICAL COMMITTEE UNDER ARIZONA LAW. IN ESSENCE, DINA NEEDED THE GOVERNMENTS PERMISSION TO EXPRESS HER OPINION. POLITICAL COMMITTEES MUST, AMONG OTHER THINGS, REGISTER WITH THE GOVERNMENT, APPOINT A CHAIRMAN AND A TREASURER, AND DESIGNATE A BANK ACCOUNT, EVEN IF THEY ARE INFORMAL GRASSROOTS GROUPS LIKE DINAS THAT DONT INTEND TO RAISE OUTSIDE FUNDS. IJ TOOK UP HER CASE AND WON A RULING IN SEPTEMBER 2013 STRIKING DOWN THE LAW. THE JUDGE SAID IN HIS RULING THAT ARIZONAS DEFINITION OF POLITICAL COMMITTEE IS VAGUE, OVERBROAD, AND UNDULY BURDENSOME. JUSTICE V. HOSEMANN SIMILAR TO THE ARIZONA CASE ABOVE, IN MISSISSIPPI, WE REPRESENT FIVE INDIVIDUALS WHO WANTED TO SPEAK OUT IN FAVOR OF INITIATIVE 31, WHICH PROVIDES PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE STATE WITH GREATER PROTECTION FROM EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE. UNDER MISSISSIPPI LAW, ANY TIME TWO OR MORE PEOPLE JOIN TOGETHER TO SPEND MORE THAN $200 ON THINGS LIKE SIGNS, BUTTONS, AND FLYERS TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A BALLOT ISSUE, THEY BECOME A FULLY REGULATED POLITICAL COMMITTEE. THIS MEANS THEY MUST REGISTER WITH THE STATE; APPOINT A DIRECTOR AND TREASURER; FILE MONTHLY, ANNUAL, AND OTHER PERIODIC REPORTS OF THEIR ACTIVITIES; AND KEEP TRACK OF EVERY DOLLAR THAT IS SPENT OR CONTRIBUTED - INCLUDING THE GAS USED TO DRIVE TO A COPY SHOP TO PICK UP FLYERS. LAWS LIKE THIS HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON POLITICAL SPEECH AND VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IJ IS WORKING IN COURT TO UNDERMINE THESE RESTRICTIONS SO CITIZENS CAN EFFECTIVELY SPEAK IN ELECTIONS AND CONTRIBUTE TO A ROBUST MARKET OF IDEAS. WE WON A RULING STRIKING DOWN THE LAW ON THE SAME DAY WE WON THE ARIZONA CASE ABOVE. WORLEY V. ROBERTS OUR CLIENTS ARE A GROUP OF THREE FLORIDA RESIDENTS WHO WANTED TO URGE THE PUBLIC TO VOTE AGAINST PROPOSED AMENDMENT 4 TO THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION. TO DO THIS, THEY WANTED TO RUN A SIMPLE RADIO AD. SIMILAR TO THE ARIZONA AND MISSISSIPPI CASES DESCRIBED ABOVE, UNDER FLORIDA LAW, IF THEY RAISED OR SPENT MORE THAN $500 FOR THEIR EFFORT, THEY WOULD BECOME A "POLITICAL COMMITTEE. THAT MEANS THEY MUST REGISTER WITH THE STATE, APPOINT A TREASURER, ESTABLISH A SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNT, AND REPORT TO THE STATE ALL ACTIVITY, INCLUDING NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF CONTRIBUTORS. IF OUR CLIENTS DONT OBEY THE RULES, OR IF THEY MAKE A MISTAKE, THEY FACE FINES OF UP TO $1,000 OR EVEN A YEAR IN JAIL. WE LOST IN THE TRIAL COURT, AND THAT DECISION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE 11TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. AS A RESULT, GRASSROOTS GROUPS IN FLORIDA CONTINUE TO BE SUBJECT TO SPEECH-SUPPRESSING LAWS THAT HAVE BEEN HELD UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BURDENSOME FOR CORPORATIONS AND UNIONS. FARRIS V. SEABROOK IJ CLIENT AND RETIRED NAVY OFFICER ROBIN FARRIS GOT INVOLVED IN POLITICS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HER LIFE WHEN SHE STARTED ORGANIZING A CAMPAIGN TO RECALL AN ELECTED OFFICIAL AFTER HEARING ABOUT SERIOUS CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT ON HIS PART. BECAUSE RECALL CAMPAIGNS IN WASHINGTON INVOLVE CONSIDERABLE LITIGATION TO ENSURE THAT ELECTED OFFICIALS ARENT RECALLED FOR PURELY POLITICAL REASONS, ROBIN ENLISTED THE SERVICES OF TWO LOCAL ATTORNEYS TO HELP HER NAVIGATE THE STATES RECALL PROCEDURES PRO BONO. BUT THEIR DONATION OF LEGAL SERVICES RAN AFOUL OF WASHINGTONS $800 LIMIT ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO RECALL CAMPAIGNS. LIMITING CONTRIBUTIONS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY HANDICAPS ORDINARY CITIZENS LIKE ROBIN WHO LACK AN ESTABLISHED BASE OF POLITICAL SUPPORT BUT STILL NEED TO RAISE SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO RUN A VIABLE CAMPAIGN AND JUMP THROUGH THE STATES LEGAL HOOPS. IN A DECISION WELL-TIMED FOR ELECTION DAY, THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED IN NOVEMBER 2012 THAT THE STATE OF WASHINGTON HAD UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ENFORCED THE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS AGAINST THE CAMPAIGN, BUT LEFT OPEN THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE LAW CAN BE CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO OTHER GROUPS SEEKING TO RECALL OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS. WE CURRENTLY ARE ON APPEAL TO THE 9TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE V. STATE OF WASHINGTON AFTER WINNING THE FARRIS CASE ABOVE, IJ SOUGHT ATTORNEYS FEES FROM THE WASHINGTON PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION (PDC) UNDER FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES. SINKING TO A NEW LEVEL OF VINDICTIVENESS, THE PDC NOT ONLY CHALLENGED THE FEES IN COURT, BUT ALSO FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST OUR CLIENT, RECALL DALE WASHAM, FOR FAILING TO DISCLOSE IJS REPRESENTATION AS AN IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION TO THE CAMPAIGN. CLASSIFYING OUR SERVICES AS A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION COULD PUT IN SERIOUS JEOPARDY THE ABILITY OF PUBLIC-INTEREST GROUPS LIKE IJ AND THE ACLU TO DEFEND THEIR CLIENTS RIGHTS, SO WE FILED SUIT TO PROTECT THIS IMPORTANT AMERICAN TRADITION. SEATON V. WEINER MINNESOTA LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY AN INDIVIDUAL CAN DONATE TO A CANDIDATE TO $1,000. BUT ONCE A CANDIDATE RAISES $12,500 IN CONTRIBUTIONS BETWEEN $500 AND $1,000, THAT LIMIT IS ARBITRARILY CUT IN HALF. THAT MEANS THAT IF A CANDIDATE FOR STATE HOUSE ACCEPTS CONTRIBUTIONS OF $1,000 FROM 12 DIFFERENT PEOPLE, THE 13TH DONOR, AND EVERYONE AFTER, MAY CONTRIBUTE ONLY $500 OR LESS. CONTRIBUTING TO CANDIDATES FOR POLITICAL OFFICE IS A WELL-RECOGNIZED FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT THAT SHOULD NOT BE DISHED OUT ON A FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVED BASIS. MINNESOTAS SYSTEM VIOLATES THIS RIGHT, SO WE HAVE TEAMED UP WITH TWO POLITICAL DONORS AND TWO CANDIDATES TO CHALLENGE THIS LAW IN FEDERAL COURT. |
| CASINO REINVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. CHARLES | AND LUCINDA BIRNBAUM ET AL. IJ CLIENT CHARLIE BIRNBAUM IS A CLASSIC AMERICAN STORY. HIS PARENTS - BOTH IMMIGRANTS WHO MET HIDING IN THE FORESTS OF POLAND DURING WORLD WAR II - LEFT HIM MANY THINGS: A LOVE OF THIS COUNTRY, A DEEP PASSION FOR MUSIC, AND A HOME RIGHT NEAR THE BOARDWALK IN ATLANTIC CITY. THAT HOME - HIS PARENTS FOOTHOLD IN THEIR ADOPTED COUNTRY - HAS BEEN A SOURCE OF LOVE, TRAGEDY, AND RENEWAL TO THE BIRNBAUM FAMILY FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS. CHARLIE NOW KEEPS AN APARTMENT AND PIANO STUDIO ON THE GROUND FLOOR; THE TOP TWO FLOORS ARE GIVEN OVER TO LONGTIME TENANTS WHO PAY BELOW-MARKET RENTS; AND THE WHOLE BUILDING IS DEVOTED TO THE MEMORY OF CHARLIES PARENTS. BUT THE CASINO REINVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WANTS TO SEIZE THE PROPERTY USING EMINENT DOMAIN, DESPITE HAVING NO SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR THE PROPERTY. SO CHARLIE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO CHALLENGE THE TAKING AND PRESERVE THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE POLITICALLY AND FINANCIALLY DISENFRANCHISED. COMMUNITY YOUTH ATHLETIC CENTER V. NATIONAL CITY THE COMMUNITY YOUTH ATHLETIC CENTER IS A NON-PROFIT AFTER-SCHOOL FITNESS AND MENTORING PROGRAM IN NATIONAL CITY, CALIF., THAT HELPS HUNDREDS OF LOW-INCOME KIDS STAY OFF THE STREETS, IN SCHOOL, AND ON THE PATH TO LIFE SUCCESS. RATHER THAN ENCOURAGE THE CYACS GOOD WORK ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTED TO APPLY A PHONY "BLIGHT DESIGNATION TO THE CYAC AND NEARLY 700 OTHER PROPERTIES SO IT COULD TRANSFER THEM TO A LUXURY CONDO DEVELOPER. WE DEFEATED THE PLAN IN THE SPRING OF 2011 AND SET IMPORTANT PROPERTY RIGHTS PRECEDENT IN CALIFORNIA IN THE PROCESS. BUT THE CITY APPEALED THE RULING, SENDING US TO THE STATE APPEALS COURT TO DEFEND OUR CLIENTS RIGHT TO THEIR PROPERTY. STATE OF TEXAS V. ONE 2004 CHEVROLET SILVERADO CIVIL FORFEITURE IS A GROWING THREAT TO THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ALL AMERICANS. UNDER CIVIL FORFEITURE, POLICE CAN SEIZE HOMES, CARS, CASH, OR OTHER PROPERTY UPON THE MERE SUSPICION THAT IT HAS BEEN USED OR INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY - NO ARREST OR CONVICTION REQUIRED. IN TEXAS, WE REPRESENT HOUSTON SMALL BUSINESSMAN ZAHER EL-ALI, WHO SOLD A TRUCK TO A MAN WHO PAID HIM ON CREDIT, BUT ALI HELD THE TITLE TO THE VEHICLE UNTIL HE WAS PAID IN FULL. THE PURCHASER WAS FOUND GUILTY IN JULY 2009 OF DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, AND TEXAS POLICE SEIZED THE TRUCK AND FILED THIS CIVIL FORFEITURE ACTION. EVEN THOUGH ALI HAS NEVER BEEN ACCUSED OF BREAKING ANY LAWS, HE IS REQUIRED TO PETITION THE COURT TO GET HIS TRUCK BACK. HE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO CHALLENGE TEXAS CIVIL FORFEITURE STATUTE AS A VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. THE APPEALS COURT SIDED WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND IN MARCH THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO REVIEW THE DECISION, THOUGH IT DID SIGNAL AN INTEREST IN REVIEWING A FUTURE CASE. THE CASE IS NOW CLOSED. DEHKO V. HOLDER; U.S. V. $35,651.11; AND U.S. V. $33,244.86 |
| FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS, TERRY DEHKO AND HIS DAUGHTER SANDY HAVE | SUCCESSFULLY RUN A GROCERY STORE IN FRASER, MICH. IN JANUARY 2013, WITHOUT WARNING, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT USED CIVIL FORFEITURE TO SEIZE ALL OF THE MONEY FROM THE DEHKOS STORE BANK ACCOUNT (MORE THAN $35,000) EVEN THOUGH THEYVE DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG. FEDERAL AGENTS STRUCK AGAIN IN THE SPRING OF 2013 WHEN THEY SEIZED THE BANK ACCOUNT OF MARK ZANIEWSKIS INDEPENDENTLY OWNED GAS STATION (MORE THAN $70,000). NEITHER THE DEHKOS NOR ZANIEWSKI WERE CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME - THE GOVERNMENT MERELY BELIEVED WITHOUT ANY REAL INVESTIGATION THAT THE DEPOSITS OF THE LAWFULLY EARNED MONEY FROM THEIR LEGITIMATE BUSINESSES WERE SUSPICIOUS. SO TERRY, SANDY, AND MARK TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FIGHT BACK IN FEDERAL COURT. WHILE WE WERE ABLE TO SECURE THE RETURN OF THE FUNDS TO OUR CLIENTS BANK ACCOUNTS, THE FIGHT CONTINUES WITH A FEDERAL LAWSUIT BROUGHT AGAINST THE IRS ON BEHALF OF TERRY, SANDY, AND MARK SEEKING TO ENSURE THAT PROPERTY OWNERS RECEIVE A PROMPT COURT HEARING WHEN FEDERAL AGENTS SEIZE THEIR PROPERTY THROUGH CIVIL FORFEITURE. WE RECEIVED FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT $27,967 IN ATTORNEYS FEES FOR THE ORIGINAL DEHKO CASE AND $10,471 FOR THE ORIGINAL ZANIEWSKI CASE. UNITED STATES V. 434 MAIN STREET, TEWKSBURY, MASS. IN A DECISION THAT WILL HELP PROPERTY OWNERS NATIONWIDE, A FEDERAL JUDGE LAST YEAR RULED ON BEHALF OF IJ CLIENTS RUSS AND PATRICIA CASWELL IN THEIR FIGHT TO SAVE THE MOTEL THAT HAS BEEN IN THEIR FAMILY FOR TWO GENERATIONS. THE CASWELLS WERENT ACCUSED OF ANY CRIME, BUT THE LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENT TEAMED UP WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO TAKE THE PROPERTY THROUGH CIVIL FORFEITURE BECAUSE A HANDFUL OF GUESTS OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS COMMITTED ILLEGAL ACTS WHILE STAYING AT THE MOTEL. THIS FACT DOESNT DIFFERENTIATE THE PROPERTY FROM ANY OTHER HOTEL OR MOTEL IN THE COUNTRY, BUT AS A SMALL, FAMILY-RUN OUTFIT WITH NO MORTGAGE ON THE PROPERTY, THE CASWELLS WERE AN EASY TARGET FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS LOOKING TO PAD THEIR BUDGETS WITH THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE MOTEL. THE GOVERNMENT DECIDED NOT TO APPEAL THE DECISION. WE RECEIVED $425,000 IN ATTORNEYS FEES AS A RESULT OF OUR VICTORY. DEAN, ET AL. V. CITY OF WINONA IN THIS CASE, WE ARE FIGHTING AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BAN ON THE NUMBER OF HOMEOWNERS WHO MAY RENT OUT THEIR PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF WINONA, MINN. THE CITY AMENDED ITS ZONING LAWS SO THAT ONLY 30 PERCENT OF HOMES IN EACH BLOCK MAY RECEIVE A RENTAL PERMIT, WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR A HOMEOWNER TO RENT HIS OR HER HOME. THAT MEANS IF 30 PERCENT OF ONES NEIGHBORS HAVE ALREADY SECURED RENTAL PERMITS, THE NEXT HOMEOWNER WHO SEEKS A PERMIT WILL BE TURNED AWAY EVEN IF HIS NEIGHBORS WITH PERMITS LIVE IN THEIR HOMES AND DONT RENT THEM OUT. UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THE GOVERNMENT CANT ARBITRARILY RESTRICT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF SOME BUT NOT OTHERS. THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT HAS AGREED TO HEAR THE CASE. A VICTORY WILL SEND A MESSAGE TO CITIES ACROSS MINNESOTA AND NATIONWIDE THAT RENTAL BANS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND CITIES SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE THEM. RICKETTS V. MIAMI SHORES FOR 17 YEARS, HERMINE RICKETTS AND HER HUSBAND TOM CARROLL USED THEIR FRONT YARD IN MIAMI SHORES, FLA., TO GROW FOOD FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL CONSUMPTION. AND FOR 17 YEARS, NOBODY HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT. BUT IN MAY 2013, THE CITY AMENDED ITS ORDINANCE TO MAKE CLEAR THAT FRONT-YARD VEGETABLE GARDENS WERE PROHIBITED. ONLY VEGETABLES ARE EXPLICITLY BANNED - FLAMINGOES, FRUIT TREES, AND GARDEN GNOMES ARE JUST FINE. UNABLE TO BEAR THE HEFTY FINE OF $50 A DAY, HERMINE AND TOM RELUCTANTLY UPROOTED THEIR GARDEN. BUT THEY TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO CHALLENGE MIAMI SHORES SENSELESS BAN IN COURT. THE CASE AIMS TO VINDICATE THE RIGHT OF ALL AMERICANS TO PEACEFULLY USE THEIR OWN PROPERTY TO SUPPORT THEIR OWN FAMILIES AND IS PART OF IJS NATIONAL FOOD FREEDOM INITIATIVE, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO VINDICATE THE RIGHT OF AMERICANS TO PRODUCE, PROCURE, MARKET, AND CONSUME THE FOODS OF THEIR CHOICE. DUNCAN V. NEW HAMPSHIRE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, THE ACLU AND ITS ALLIES ARE CHALLENGING A PROGRAM OFFERING LOCAL BUSINESSES PARTIAL TAX CREDITS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT FUND EDUCATION SCHOLARSHIPS. QUALIFYING PARENTS MAY USE THE SCHOLARSHIPS TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO TUITION-CHARGING PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN NEIGHBORING SCHOOL DISTRICTS, PAY FOR TUITION AT ANY OF THE STATES PRIVATE OR RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS, OR HOME SCHOOL THEIR CHILDREN. IJ REPRESENTS AFFECTED PARENTS AND NONPROFIT SCHOLARSHIP-GRANTING ORGANIZATIONS. OUR OPPONENTS CLAIM THAT THE TAX CREDIT PROGRAM VIOLATES THE STATE CONSTITUTION BY ALLEGEDLY USING MONEY RAISED BY TAXATION TO COMPEL TAXPAYERS TO SUPPORT RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE PROGRAM RELIES ON PRIVATE FUNDS, PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS, AND PRIVATE DECISION MAKERS, IT COMPLIES ENTIRELY WITH THE STATE CONSTITUTION. WE ARGUED THE CASE BEFORE THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT IN APRIL 2014 AND NOW AWAIT A DECISION. LARUE V. COLORADO BOARD OF EDUCATION WE CONTINUE TO STAND UP FOR PARENTS AND CHILDREN IN DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLO. IN 2011, THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD ENACTED A PILOT PROGRAM OFFERING MODEST SCHOLARSHIPS FOR UP TO 500 STUDENTS TO ENABLE THEM TO ATTEND PRIVATE SCHOOLS. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THE ACLU, AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, AND SEVERAL COLORADO ORGANIZATIONS AND TAXPAYERS SUED TO STOP THE PROGRAM. IJ INTERVENED, REPRESENTING FOUR FAMILIES WHO INTEND TO USE THE SCHOLARSHIPS FOR THEIR CHILDREN. THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE PROGRAM, BESIDES ITS HAVING BEEN ENACTED BY A SCHOOL DISTRICT, IS THAT THE DOUGLAS COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE HIGHLY REGARDED, YET THERE IS AN OVERWHELMING INTEREST IN THE PROGRAM. THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD THE PROGRAM, BUT OUR OPPONENTS HAVE APPEALED TO COLORADO SUPREME COURT. THE COURT ANNOUNCED IN MARCH 2014 THAT IT WILL REVIEW THE CASE, AND WE EXPECT ORAL ARGUMENT LATER THIS YEAR. BOYD V. MAGEE ALABAMA PASSED THE ALABAMA ACCOUNTABILITY ACT IN 2013 TO PROVIDE LOW-INCOME FAMILIES WITH GREATER SCHOOL CHOICE. THE ACT OFFERS A LIFELINE TO FAMILIES THAT WOULD LIKE TO ESCAPE FAILING PUBLIC SCHOOLS BUT HAVE LACKED THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO DO SO UNTIL NOW. BUT THE ALABAMA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION AND ITS ALLIES ARE TRYING DESPERATELY TO SEVER THIS LIFELINE, WITH A LAWSUIT ALLEGING THAT THE ACT VIOLATES SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF THE ALABAMA CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING THE STATES TWO RELIGION CLAUSES. IJ INTERVENED IN THIS CASE LAST FALL ON BEHALF OF PARENTS LIKE IJ CLIENT TEQUILA ROGERS, WHO WISHES TO USE THE PROGRAM TO SEND HER SON CHRISTIAN TO A BETTER SCHOOL. THE TRIAL COURT STRUCK DOWN THE PROGRAM IN MAY 2014, BUT ALLOWED THE PROGRAM TO CONTINUE WHILE THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT REVIEWS THE DECISION. HART V. STATE / RICHARDSON V. STATE IN NORTH CAROLINA, WERE DEFENDING THE OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM, WHICH AWARDS UP TO 2,400 PUBLICLY FUNDED SCHOLARSHIPS TO ENABLE QUALIFYING FAMILIES TO TAKE THEIR CHILDREN OUT OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM AND SEND THEM TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL. THE TEACHERS UNIONS AND SCHOOL BOARDS FILED TWO SEPARATE LAWSUITS TO STOP THE PROGRAM ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION PREVENTS THE STATE FROM FUNDING ANY PRIVATE SCHOOL SCHOLARSHIPS. HOWEVER, THE STATE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO USE ITS GENERAL REVENUE FUND TO CREATE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT NORTH CAROLINA LEGISLATORS DID THROUGH THE OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. WE INTERVENED IN THE CASE ON BEHALF OF CYNTHIA PERRY AND OTHER PARENTS WHO WISH TO USE THE PROGRAM TO SAVE THEIR CHILDREN FROM FAILING PUBLIC SCHOOLS. RAYMOND GADDY V. GA. DEPT. OF REVENUE IN MAY 2014, WE INTERVENED IN A LAWSUIT TO DEFEND GEORGIAS LONG-STANDING SCHOLARSHIP TAX-CREDIT PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM PROVIDES SCHOLARSHIPS TO MORE THAN 13,000 STUDENTS, MAKING IT THE FOURTH LARGEST SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM IN THE COUNTRY. OUR OPPONENTS ARE CHALLENGING THE PROGRAM ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT VIOLATES THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS BAN ON PROVIDING PUBLIC SUPPORT TO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS LIMITED TO SUPPORTING ONLY THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. HOWEVER, THEIR CLAIMS LACK MERIT AS 100 PERCENT OF THE PROGRAM FUNDS ARE RAISED FROM PRIVATE DONORS AND GIVEN TO PARENTS TO SPEND AT A SCHOOL OF THEIR CHOICE - REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY CHOOSE A RELIGIOUS OR NON-RELIGIOUS PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR THEIR CHILDREN. GEORGIAS SCHOLARSHIP TAX-CREDIT PROGRAM OFFERS THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN A PATHWAY TO A BETTER EDUCATION TODAY, NOT AT SOME DISTANT POINT IN THE FUTURE, AND WE WILL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ENSURE THAT IT CONTINUES TO SUCCEED. AMICUS |
| IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED CASES, THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE | ALSO FILED AMICUS BRIEFS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES BETWEEN JULY 1, 2013 AND JUNE 30, 2014: CCEC V. BENNETT FAMILY PAC V. FERGUSON GARCIA-MENDOZA V. 2003 CHEVY TAHOE GESSLER V. COMMON CAUSE KALEY V. UNITED STATES IOWA RIGHT TO LIFE, INC. V. TOOKER MCCULLEN V. COAKLEY MINORITY TELEVISION, INC. V. FCC SANCHEZ V. CITY OF AUSTIN SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST V. DRIEHAUS (CERT. PETITION STAGE) SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST V. DRIEHAUS (MERITS STAGE) TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY V. MT. HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC. UTTER EX REL. STATE V. BIAW (PETITION FOR REVIEW STAGE) UTTER EX REL. STATE V. BIAW (MERITS STAGE) WELCH V. BROWN |
Comments