2014-02-12T10:39:55-06:00 2013-06-30 521186096 RUBINO & COMPANY CHARTERED 6903 ROCKLEDGE DRIVE SUITE 1200 BETHESDA MD 20817 990 2012-07-01 521744337 INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE INST 7036829320 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD NO 900 ARLINGTON VA 22203 WILLIAM H MELLOR 7036829320 2014-02-12 1 JENNY E HERRERA CPA P00252755 3015643636 2012 2015-11-30 17:44:51Z WILLIAM H MELLOR 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD NO 900 ARLINGTON VA 22203 19583971 0 X WWW.IJ.ORG X 1991 DC TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERICANS. 11 10 94 25 0 0 18582104 18598848 1117146 167000 81986 162819 0 0 19781236 18928667 0 0 0 0 8023101 8652438 11793 4500 931217 4547644 4155170 12582538 12812108 7198698 6116559 36118336 42372492 629471 650223 35488865 41722269 X 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. 0 0 10670468 167000 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. 10670468 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 45 0 1 94 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 11 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 AL AK AR CA CT FL GA HI IL KS KY ME MD MA MI MN MS NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC TN UT VA WV WI X X STEVEN ANDERSON 7036829320 901 NORTH GLEBE RD SUITE 900 ARLINGTON VA 22203 WILLIAM H MELLOR 40.00 X X 462941 0 217649 DAVID B KENNEDY 1.00 X 0 0 0 MARY STIEFEL 1.00 X 0 0 0 JAMES LINTOTT 1.00 X 0 0 0 ABIGAIL THERNSTROM 1.00 X 0 0 0 ARTHUR DANTCHIK 1.00 X 0 0 0 STEPHEN W MODZELEWSKI 1.00 X 0 0 0 ROBERT GELFOND 1.00 X 0 0 0 WILLIAM DUNN 1.00 X 0 0 0 KEN LEVY 1.00 X 0 0 0 ROBERT A LEVY 1.00 X 0 0 0 DEBORAH SIMPSON 40.00 X 192499 0 27617 STEVEN ANDERSON 40.00 X 153474 0 28517 JOHN KRAMER 40.00 X 257896 0 51949 BETH STEVENS 40.00 X 184332 0 33162 SCOTT BULLOCK 40.00 X 222637 0 37748 DANA BERLINER 40.00 X 219498 0 40066 CLARK NEILY 40.00 X 189387 0 33499 JEFFREY ROWES 40.00 X 180045 0 30141 STEVEN SIMPSON 40.00 X 202995 0 45449 2265704 0 545797 22 0 1 0 APPLIED INTELLIGENCE GROUP 5005 N 14TH STREET ARLINGTON VA 22205 IT CONSULTING 146899 GORDONARATAMCCOLLAMDUPLANTIS&EAGANLL 201 STCHARLES AVE NEW ORLEANS LA 70170 LAW FIRM-LOCAL COUNSEL 118029 2 18598848 573427 18598848 ATTORNEY FEES 541100 116621 116621 MISCELLANEOUS 900099 45469 45469 HONORARIA 541900 4910 4910 167000 161654 161654 652502 3967 649187 6117 3315 -2150 1165 1165 18928667 167000 0 162819 1851615 1499375 100791 251449 5483557 4849723 404380 229454 440772 366865 53865 20042 423750 356753 39422 27575 452744 392797 32213 27734 243640 229064 14576 64980 64980 4500 4500 710516 571683 133572 5261 79266 78308 390 568 924811 512794 176562 235455 3236 881 2355 1124731 948896 96633 79202 497788 474442 14869 8477 57410 48202 6673 2535 1808 1808 329015 277119 28846 23050 117969 63566 53064 1339 12812108 10670468 1210423 931217 2671 3171 12483015 18599628 5681940 5478892 10915 11649 184824 171212 2915854 2101345 872371 814509 16817294 17246038 65306 47393 36118336 42372492 395922 461331 233549 188892 629471 650223 X 28620247 35891338 6868618 5830931 35488865 41722269 36118336 42372492 6116559 116845 0 X X 0 1 X 1 0 X 15666509 12109095 18305447 18582104 18598848 83262003 15666509 12109095 18305447 18582104 18598848 83262003 21238918 62023085 385623 181289 54026 85201 161654 867793 84129796 3275785 0.73720 0.76700 X RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED 15644 43373 59017 12753091 12812108 790605 197651 0 0 623427 695991 779127 790605 2889150 4333725 39007 52876 32430 59017 183330 155857 173998 194782 197651 722288 1083432 7840 10693 12261 15644 46438 1243813 1007339 236474 1672041 1094006 578035 814509 DEFERRED RENT 162865 CAPITAL LEASE LIABILITY 26027 188892 19045512 116845 116845 18928667 0 18928667 12812108 0 12812108 0 12812108 X X X X X 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 WILLIAM H MELLOR 392741 0 70200 0 0 0 200000 0 17649 0 680590 0 0 0 DEBORAH SIMPSON 187499 0 5000 0 0 0 26881 0 736 0 220116 0 0 0 STEVEN ANDERSON 145974 0 7500 0 0 0 22257 0 6260 0 181991 0 0 0 JOHN KRAMER 232896 0 25000 0 0 0 34300 0 17649 0 309845 0 0 0 BETH STEVENS 164332 0 20000 0 0 0 26501 0 6661 0 217494 0 0 0 SCOTT BULLOCK 207637 0 15000 0 0 0 30966 0 6782 0 260385 0 0 0 DANA BERLINER 204498 0 15000 0 0 0 33283 0 6783 0 259564 0 0 0 CLARK NEILY 179887 0 9500 0 0 0 27105 0 6394 0 222886 0 0 0 JEFFREY ROWES 167545 0 12500 0 0 0 23598 0 6543 0 210186 0 0 0 STEVEN SIMPSON 197995 0 5000 0 0 0 27832 0 17617 0 248444 0 0 0 PART I, LINE 4B A $75,000 CONTRIBUTION TO A SEC. 457(F) PLAN FOR WILLIAM H. MELLOR WAS AUTHORIZED IN FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2012 AND FUNDED IN FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2013. AN ADDITIONAL $75,000 WAS AUTHORIZED AND FUNDED IN FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2013 FOR A TOTAL OF $150,000. 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. STEVEN SIMPSON HUSBAND OF DEBORAH SIMPSON, MANAGING VP/SECRETARY 248444 REGULAR EMPLOYEE OF THE INSTITUTE 0 X 28 573427 FMV 0 1 1 THIRD PARTY USE: PART I, LINE 32B: THE INSTITUTE UTILIZES A BROKERAGE FIRM TO SELL DONATED SECURITIES AND OTHER INVESTMENT VEHICLES. 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. CASE UPDATE ST. JOSEPH ABBEY V. CASTILLE IN AN IMPORTANT VICTORY FOR ECONOMIC LIBERTY, THE 5TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED A UNANIMOUS DECISION IN MARCH IN OUR CASE ON BEHALF OF THE BENEDICTINE MONKS OF SAINT JOSEPH ABBEY IN COVINGTON, LA. THE MONKS SIMPLY WANT TO SUPPORT THEIR MODEST NEEDS BY SELLING HANDMADE WOODEN CASKETS, BUT THE STATE FUNERAL BOARD SHUT THEM DOWN BECAUSE IT WAS ILLEGAL IN LOUISIANA FOR ANYONE WITHOUT A FUNERAL DIRECTOR'S LICENSE TO SELL CASKETS. THE CASE IS PART OF IJ'S MULTI-YEAR, MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR CAMPAIGN FOR ECONOMIC LIBERTY AND HAS DRAWN WIDESPREAD MEDIA COVERAGE IN OUTLETS RANGING FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL TO NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO. IN ITS DECISION, THE COURT RULED THAT THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS THE GOVERNMENT FROM RESTRICTING INTRA-STATE COMMERCE TO PROTECT FAVORED INTERESTS. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PRECEDENT WE CAN USE IN FUTURE ECONOMIC LIBERTY CASES. UNITED STATES V. 434 MAIN STREET, TEWKSBURY, MASS. IN A DECISION THAT WILL HELP PROPERTY OWNERS NATIONWIDE, A FEDERAL JUDGE IN JANUARY 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 WEREN'T 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 DOESN'T DIFFERENTIATE THE PROPERTY FROM ANY OTHER HOTEL OR MOTEL IN THE COUNTRY, BUT AS A SMALL, FAMILY-RUN OUTFIT WITH A MORTGAGE-FREE 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. IN APRIL WE SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR $559,668 TO COVER THE COST OF LITIGATING THIS CASE. MEREDITH V. DANIELS IJ SCORED A LANDMARK VICTORY FOR PARENTS AND CHILDREN IN MARCH WHEN THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT ISSUED A UNANIMOUS DECISION AFFIRMING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THAT STATE'S CHOICE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM, WHICH PROVIDES PUBLICLY FUNDED SCHOLARSHIPS TO ALLOW CHILDREN IN QUALIFYING FAMILIES TO ATTEND PRIVATE SCHOOL. THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT'S RULING HAS IMPORTANT IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIANA AS WELL AS THE NATION AS A WHOLE. UPWARDS OF 62 PERCENT OF INDIANA FAMILIES ARE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE SCHOLARSHIPS, POTENTIALLY MAKING THE CHOICE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM THE LARGEST SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM IN THE COUNTRY. PLUS, THE WELL-REASONED AND CLEARLY ARTICULATED DECISION WILL BE HIGHLY PERSUASIVE TO OTHER STATE COURTS CONSIDERING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SCHOOL CHOICE AND ENCOURAGE OTHER STATES TO PURSUE PROGRAMS THAT GIVE PARENTS A GREATER SAY IN HOW THEIR CHILDREN ARE EDUCATED. 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 GOVERNMENT'S 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 DINA'S THAT DON'T INTEND TO RAISE OUTSIDE FUNDS. IJ TOOK UP HER CASE AND WON A FIRST-ROUND VICTORY PREVENTING THE GOVERNMENT FROM ENFORCING THE LAW AGAINST HER. WE NOW AWAIT ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT. MILE HIGH CAB, INC. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN APRIL, THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT ISSUED A UNANIMOUS RULING IN FAVOR OF IJ CLIENT MILE HIGH CAB, WHICH HAS BEEN FIGHTING A YEARS-LONG BATTLE WITH THE STATE'S PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (PUC) OVER THE COMPANY'S EFFORTS TO PROVIDE LOW-COST, HIGH-QUALITY TAXI SERVICE IN DENVER. MILE HIGH FIRST FILED ITS APPLICATION TO OPERATE IN SEPTEMBER 2008, BUT THE PUC REFUSED TO GRANT THE COMPANY A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, WHICH THE STATE REQUIRES BEFORE TAXI BUSINESSES CAN OPERATE IN DENVER, DESPITE FINDING THAT MILE HIGH WAS BOTH OPERATIONALLY AND FINANCIALLY FIT TO OPERATE AS A TAXI BUSINESS. UPON LEARNING OF THE COURT'S RULING, MILE HIGH TREASURER MEKONNEN GIZAW SAID, "WE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR MORE THAN 1,600 DAYS JUST FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S PERMISSION TO START A BUSINESS. TODAY'S VICTORY IS A LONG-AWAITED RELIEF." VERLIN STOLL, ET AL. V. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MORTUARY SCIENCE SECTION, ET AL. IN ST. PAUL, IJ CLIENT VERLIN STOLL WANTS 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 DOES NOT WANT, DOES NOT NEED, AND WILL NEVER USE. THE LAW SERVES ONLY ONE PURPOSE: TO PROTECT THE BIG, FULL-AMENITY FUNERAL HOME BUSINESSES FROM INNOVATORS LIKE VERLIN. WE ARGUED THE CASE IN MARCH AND NOW AWAIT THE JUDGE'S DECISION. A VICTORY HERE WILL NOT ONLY FREE VERLIN AND HIS CUSTOMERS FROM AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT ON THEIR ECONOMIC LIBERTY, BUT ALSO ESTABLISH A USEFUL PRECEDENT THAT WILL HELP PROTECT ENTREPRENEURS FROM POINTLESS LAWS AND BUREAUCRACY. LOVING V. IRS IJ IS CHALLENGING THE IRS'S NEW LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOME TAX RETURN PREPARERS. EFFECTIVE IN 2012, THE IRS IS REQUIRING ALL PAID TAX RETURN PREPARERS-EXCEPT FOR ATTORNEYS, CPAS, AND SEVERAL CATEGORIES OF POLITICALLY POWERFUL "ENROLLED AGENTS" WHO WERE ABLE TO WIN EXEMPTIONS-TO BECOME "REGISTERED TAX RETURN PREPARERS" BY PAYING EXTRA FEES, PASSING A GOVERNMENT EXAM, AND TAKING 15 HOURS OF CONTINUING EDUCATION CLASSES EVERY YEAR. THE REGULATIONS PLACE A DISPROPORTIONATE BURDEN ON INDEPENDENT PREPARERS LIKE OUR CLIENT ELMER KILIAN, WHO HAS BEEN PREPARING TAX RETURNS FOR THE PEOPLE OF EAGLE, WISC., FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS. IJ BELIEVES THAT TAXPAYERS-NOT THE IRS-SHOULD BE THE ONES WHO DECIDE WHO PREPARES THEIR TAXES. A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT STRUCK DOWN THE LAW IN JANUARY, BUT THE GOVERNMENT HAS APPEALED. CLAYTON V. STEINAGEL IJ CLIENT JESTINA CLAYTON IS A COLLEGE GRADUATE, WIFE, MOTHER OF TWO, AND REFUGEE FROM THE SIERRA LEONE CIVIL WAR. SHE HAS BEEN BRAIDING HAIR FOR MOST OF HER LIFE, BUT THE UTAH STATE GOVERNMENT IRRATIONALLY CLAIMED THAT SHE MAY NOT BE PAID TO BRAID UNLESS SHE FIRST SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND 2,000 HOURS ON GOVERNMENT-MANDATED COSMETOLOGY TRAINING, NOT ONE HOUR OF WHICH ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE TAUGHT HER TO BRAID HAIR. WE CHALLENGE LAWS LIKE THESE BECAUSE RATHER THAN PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY-AS SUCH LAWS ARE SUPPOSED TO DO-THEY SIMPLY PROTECT INDUSTRY INSIDERS FROM COMPETITION. THE RESULT IS HIGHER PRICES AND LESS CHOICE FOR CONSUMERS, WHILE KEEPING NEWCOMERS OUT. A FEDERAL COURT RULED THE REQUIREMENT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, SO NOW JESTINA IS FREE TO SUPPORT HERSELF AND HER FAMILY. THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT APPEAL OUR VICTORY. WE RECOVERED FROM THE STATE OF UTAH $113,439.97 IN FEES AND $2,375.95 IN COSTS. PATEL V. TEXAS DEP'T OF LICENSING AND REGULATION 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 (NONE OF IT RELEVANT TO THREADING) AT A COST OF APPROXIMATELY $15,000. 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. 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 THE PAST 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 IN JANUARY, WHEN, IN RESPONSE TO IJ'S 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 LARRY MILLER AND STANLEY HAMBRICK OWN TWO WELL-KNOWN VENDING BUSINESSES OUTSIDE THE ATLANTA BRAVES' STADIUM. THEIR BUSINESSES CREATE JOBS, OFFER INEXPENSIVE SNACKS AND SOUVENIRS TO VISITORS, AND MAKE THE SIDEWALKS SAFER BY KEEPING AN EYE OUT FOR FANS WHO NEED 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. IN DECEMBER, THE COURT RULED THAT ATLANTA HAD EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY IN HANDING ONE COMPANY THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO VEND ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. THE FIGHT ISN'T OVER YET, THOUGH, BECAUSE ATLANTA CONTINUES TO DENY PERMITS TO VEND. BURKE V. CITY OF CHICAGO WE REPRESENT FOOD-TRUCK OWNERS GREG BURKE AND LAURA PEKARIK IN THEIR CHALLENGE TO CHICAGO'S 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 DOESN'T SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE LUNCH-SEEKING PUBLIC. IT BENEFITS THE BRICK-AND-MORTAR EATERIES, WHOSE OWNERS DON'T WANT THE COMPETITION." WE WON THE FIRST ROUND OF THE LAWSUIT IN JUNE WHEN THE JUDGE DENIED THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST TO DISMISS THE CASE. WE NOW PROCEED WITH DISCOVERY. GHALEB IBRAHIM V. CITY OF MILWAUKEE GHALEB IBRAHIM IS A MILWAUKEE ENTREPRENEUR WHO WANTS TO OWN AND DRIVE HIS OWN TAXI CAB. BUT MILWAUKEE LIMITS THE NUMBER OF PERMITS TO 321 FOR THE ENTIRE CITY, AND THE ONLY WAY TO GET A PERMIT IS 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 DOES 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 HAVE COVERED THE CASE. IN APRIL, THE COURT RULED THE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WE NOW WAIT TO SEE IF THE GOVERNMENT WILL APPEAL. SPEED'S AUTO SERVICES V. PORTLAND IN PORTLAND, ORE., WE ARE CHALLENGING THE CITY'S MINIMUM FARE LAW, WHICH PUNISHES SMALL LIMOUSINE AND SEDAN COMPANIES TO PROTECT THE PROFITS OF THE CITY'S TAXICAB COMPANIES. THE LAW IMPOSES A $50 MINIMUM FARE FOR LIMOUSINE AND SEDAN RIDES TO OR FROM PORTLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT IN ADDITION TO 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. IN MAY, THE COURT REJECTED THE CITY'S ATTEMPTS TO THROW OUT THE CASE, SO WE NOW PROCEED WITH DISCOVERY. BOKHARI V. NASHVILLE IN JANUARY, IJ WENT BEFORE A JURY FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER TO DEFEND THE RIGHT OF ALI BOKHARI AND OTHER NASHVILLE TRANSPORTATION ENTREPRENEURS TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING. SPURRED ON BY HIGH-END LIMOUSINE COMPANIES, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PASSED A SERIES OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE REGULATIONS IN 2010 AIMED AT SHUTTING INDEPENDENT LIMO AND SEDAN COMPANIES LIKE ALI'S OUT OF THE MARKET. THE REGULATIONS, WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SAFETY, FORCE SEDAN AND INDEPENDENT LIMO COMPANIES TO INCREASE THEIR MINIMUM FARE, PROHIBIT THEM FROM USING LEASED VEHICLES, AND FORBID THEM FROM WAITING FOR CUSTOMERS AT PUBLIC PLACES, AMONG OTHER RESTRICTIONS. AS A RESULT, A NUMBER OF SMALL TRANSPORTATION BUSINESSES WENT OUT OF BUSINESS, AND THE REGULATIONS THREATEN TO DESTROY AFFORDABLE CAR SERVICES IN NASHVILLE. THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT, SO THIS CASE IS NOW COMPLETE. 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 IN JUNE 2011 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. THE COMMISSION'S RULING IS NOTHING MORE THAN A BLATANT ATTEMPT TO PROTECT DENTISTS AT THE EXPENSE OF CONSUMERS AND ENTREPRENEURS. THE CASE IS NOW PROCEEDING THROUGH DISCOVERY. WESTPHAL V. NORTHCUTT SIMILAR TO THE CONNECTICUT CASE ABOVE, WE ARE CHALLENGING A RECENT AMENDMENT TO ALABAMA'S 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 FILED THIS CASE IN APRIL. COURTNEY V. GOLTZ IJ CLIENTS JIM AND CLIFF COURTNEY WANT TO BRING ECONOMIC PROSPERITY TO THEIR SMALL COMMUNITY OF STEHEKIN, WASH., LOCATED ON THE NORTH SHORE OF LAKE CHELAN IN THE CENTER OF THE STATE. 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 COMPANY'S 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 ARE CHALLENGING THE LAW IN FEDERAL COURT. THE CASE IS CURRENTLY ON APPEAL BEFORE THE 9TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. COLON HEALTH CENTERS OF AMERICA, LLC, ET AL. V. HAZEL, ET AL. THIS IS A CHALLENGE TO VIRGINIA'S CERTIFICATE-OF-NEED (CON) PROGRAM, WHICH 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. THERE ARE 35 OTHER STATES THAT HAVE SIMILAR CON REQUIREMENTS, SO A VICTORY HERE WILL HELP CONSUMERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. IN SEPTEMBER, THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED THE STATE'S REQUEST TO DISMISS THE CASE. WE ARE APPEALING TO THE 4TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 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 INSTRUCTOR'S 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. 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. THIS CASE RAISES ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS IN FIRST AMENDMENT LAW: WHEN DOES THE GOVERNMENT'S 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. WE FILED THE CASE IN APRIL. 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 STEVE'S WORK CONSTITUTES THE UNLICENSED, AND THUS CRIMINAL, PRACTICE OF DIETETICS. HOWEVER, UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, CITIZENS LIKE STEVE CAN'T BE REQUIRED TO GET THE GOVERNMENT'S PERMISSION BEFORE OFFERING ORDINARY ADVICE ON HARMLESS THINGS LIKE WHAT FOODS PEOPLE SHOULD BUY AT THE GROCERY STORE. IN JUNE, THE 4TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE TRIAL COURT'S DISMISSAL OF THE CASE, SO WE NOW PREPARE FOR DISCOVERY. EDWARDS V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IJ CLIENTS TONIA EDWARDS AND BILL MAIN OWN SEGS IN THE CITY, WHICH PROVIDES FUN AND EDUCATIONAL SEGWAY TOURS OF OUR NATION'S CAPITAL. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MAKES IT ILLEGAL FOR ANYONE TO "GUIDE OR ESCORT" ANYONE ELSE FOR HIRE WITHOUT FIRST PASSING A TEST AND OBTAINING A SPECIAL LICENSE, TONIA AND BILL ARE CRIMINALS SUBJECT TO UP TO THREE MONTHS IN JAIL FOR MERELY TELLING THEIR CUSTOMERS THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS HOUSED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES. ALL BECAUSE OF CITY BUREAUCRACY, THEY DON'T HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DESCRIBE OUR NATION'S CHARTERS OF FREEDOM WITHOUT GOVERNMENT PERMISSION. SO WE FILED A FEDERAL LEGAL CHALLENGE ON THEIR BEHALF. SIMPLY PUT, GOVERNMENT MAY NOT USE THE GUISE OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING TO IMPOSE BURDENS ON PEOPLE WHO EARN THEIR LIVING BY COMMUNICATING. IN MARCH, AFTER NEARLY 18 MONTHS, THE TRIAL COURT RULED AGAINST US. WE NOW ARE ON APPEAL TO THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. KAGAN V. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS SIMILAR TO THE D.C. CASE ABOVE, WE REPRESENT FOUR NEW ORLEANS TOUR GUIDES IN THEIR CHALLENGE TO A LOCAL LAW THAT REQUIRES TOUR GUIDES TO GET PERMISSION FROM THE GOVERNMENT BEFORE WORKING. PEOPLE WHO GIVE TOURS WITHOUT THE LICENSE 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. WE ARGUED THE CASE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT IN SEPTEMBER AND NOW AWAIT THE JUDGE'S RULING. NEIGHBORHOOD ENTERPRISES V. CITY OF ST. LOUIS FED UP WITH EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE, IJ CLIENT JIM ROOS FOUGHT 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 WANTED THE MURAL TAKEN DOWN. IJ ARGUED THAT IF THE FIRST AMENDMENT MEANS ANYTHING, IT MUST MEAN THAT CITIZENS LIKE JIM ROOS HAVE THE RIGHT TO EFFECTIVELY PROTEST GOVERNMENT ABUSE AND BUILD SUPPORT FOR MEANINGFUL REFORM-WITHOUT HAVING TO GET GOVERNMENT APPROVAL. WE WON THIS CASE BEFORE THE 8TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. OUR OPPONENTS' REQUEST FOR U.S. SUPREME COURT REVIEW WAS DENIED. WE RECEIVED $62,840 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES LAST YEAR BUT REMAIN IN DISTRICT COURT ASKING FOR A JUDGMENT DECLARING JIM'S 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 DOESN'T LIKE. IN EARLY 2012, THE OWNERS OF CENTRAL RADIO COMPANY HUNG A BANNER ON THEIR BUILDING PROTESTING THE GOVERNMENT'S ATTEMPT TO TAKE THEIR PROPERTY THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN. BUT THE CITY TOLD THEM TO TAKE IT DOWN BECAUSE IT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY'S SIGN CODE, EVEN THOUGH OTHER BUSINESSES IN THE AREA HAVE SIGNS AS LARGE OR LARGER THAN CENTRAL RADIO'S. IJ STEPPED IN TO REPRESENT CENTRAL RADIO IN THEIR FIGHT AGAINST THE CITY. WE CURRENTLY ARE ON APPEAL TO THE 4TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. JUSTICE V. HOSEMANN WE REPRESENT FIVE MISSISSIPPI CITIZENS 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 MISSISSIPPI'S HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON POLITICAL SPEECH AND VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IJ IS WORKING TO UNDERMINE THESE RESTRICTIONS SO CITIZENS CAN EFFECTIVELY SPEAK IN ELECTIONS AND CONTRIBUTE TO A ROBUST MARKET OF IDEAS. WE ARGUED THE CASE IN FEBRUARY BEFORE THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI. 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 DON'T 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 THE COURT OF APPEALS REJECTED OUR CHALLENGE. WE ARE PREPARING OUR APPEAL TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. MANY CULTURES, ONE MESSAGE ET AL. V. CLEMENTS WE REPRESENT TWO GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS THAT WANT TO URGE THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS TO TAKE POLITICAL ACTION. BUT UNDER WASHINGTON LAW, IF YOU SPEND MORE THAN $500 IN ONE MONTH OR $1,000 IN THREE MONTHS TO URGE YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS TO CONTACT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, YOU MUST REGISTER WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND REPORT YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION AS WELL AS THE PERSONAL INFORMATION OF ANYONE WHO CONTRIBUTES AS LITTLE AS $25 TO YOUR EFFORT. THE RULE FALLS HARDEST ON SMALL BANDS OF CITIZEN-ACTIVISTS, WHO CANNOT AFFORD THE HIGH COST OF COMPLIANCE, AND LEAVES POLITICS TO PROFESSIONALS, WHO CAN AFFORD THE LAWYERS, TIME, AND TROUBLE THAT THE LAW ENGENDERS. OUR CLIENTS BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO DISCOURAGE POLITICAL SPEECH IN THIS WAY. THE 9TH CIRCUIT UNFORTUNATELY DISAGREED AND DISMISSED THE CASE IN FEBRUARY. THE CASE IS NOW CLOSED. FARRIS V. SEABROOK WE SECURED A VICTORY FOR FREE SPEECH IN NOVEMBER WHEN A FEDERAL COURT RULED IN OUR CLIENTS' FAVOR IN A CASE CHALLENGING A WASHINGTON STATE LAW LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY INDIVIDUALS MAY CONTRIBUTE TO RECALL CAMPAIGNS. 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 AREN'T RECALLED FOR PURELY POLITICAL REASONS, ROBIN ENLISTED THE SERVICES OF TWO LOCAL ATTORNEYS TO HELP HER NAVIGATE THE STATE'S RECALL PROCEDURES PRO BONO. HOWEVER, THEIR IN-KIND DONATION OF LEGAL SERVICES RAN AFOUL OF WASHINGTON'S $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 STATE'S LEGAL HOOPS. LAWS LIKE THESE SERVE NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO PROTECT ENTRENCHED POLITICIANS, AND THE COURT DETERMINED THAT THE LAW WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED AGAINST ROBIN'S RECALL CAMPAIGN. WE RECOVERED $805 IN COSTS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON AND REQUESTED $323,665 IN FEES. THE CASE IS CURRENTLY 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, HOWEVER, THE PDC NOT ONLY CHALLENGED THE FEES IN COURT, BUT ALSO FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST OUR CLIENT, RECALL DALE WASHAM, FOR FAILING TO DISCLOSE IJ'S REPRESENTATION AS AN IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION TO THE CAMPAIGN. CLASSIFYING OUR SERVICES AS A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION COULD PUT THE ABILITY OF GROUPS LIKE IJ AND THE ACLU TO DEFEND THEIR CLIENTS' RIGHTS IN SERIOUS JEOPARDY, SO WE FILED SUIT IN JUNE TO PROTECT THIS IMPORTANT AMERICAN TRADITION. 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 850 LOW-INCOME KIDS STAY OFF THE STREETS, IN SCHOOL, AND ON THE PATH TO LIFE SUCCESS. HOWEVER, RATHER THAN ENCOURAGE THE CYAC'S 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 STILL HOLDS THE TITLE AND HAS NEVER BEEN ACCUSED OF BREAKING ANY LAWS, HE IS REQUIRED TO PETITION THE COURT TO GET HIS TRUCK BACK. THE APPEALS COURT SIDED WITH THE GOVERNMENT IN DECEMBER. IN FEBRUARY, WE PETITIONED THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW. U.S. V. REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 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. TODAY, HE OWNS A WELL-MAINTAINED OFFICE BUILDING IN ANAHEIM, CALIF., THAT HE LEASES TO A DENTIST AND INSURANCE COMPANY, AMONG OTHER TENANTS. ALTHOUGH TONY HAS NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME, THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TEAMED UP TO TAKE HIS $1.5 MILLION PROPERTY THROUGH CIVIL FORFEITURE BECAUSE HE LEASED SPACE TO TWO MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES, BUSINESSES THAT ARE PERFECTLY LEGAL IN THE STATE. TONY'S ONLY CRIME IS HAVING SOMETHING THE GOVERNMENT WANTS: A MORTGAGE-FREE OFFICE BUILDING THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN SELL IN ORDER TO KEEP THE PROCEEDS TO PAD ITS BUDGET. IN MAY, WE TOOK OVER THE CASE TO REPRESENT TONY IN FEDERAL COURT. A VICTORY IN THIS CASE WILL SET IMPORTANT PRECEDENT PROTECTING PROPERTY OWNERS IN CALIFORNIA AND NATIONWIDE. 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 ONE'S 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 DON'T RENT THEM OUT. UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T ARBITRARILY RESTRICT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF SOME BUT NOT OTHERS. THE TRIAL COURT UPHELD THE BAN IN APRIL, SO WE NOW ARE ON APPEAL. 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. MCCAUGHTRY V. CITY OF RED WING ROBERT MCCAUGHTRY AND A UNIQUE COALITION OF TENANTS AND LANDLORDS FROM RED WING, MINN., OBJECT TO THE CITY'S RENTAL INSPECTION LAW, WHICH ALLOWS CITY OFFICIALS TO CONDUCT HOUSING INSPECTIONS OF ALL RENTED HOMES IN THE CITY. EVEN IF TENANTS AND THEIR LANDLORDS REFUSE TO CONSENT TO THE SEARCH AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE BUILDING, CITY OFFICIALS CAN STILL VIOLATE THE MOST PRIVATE CONFINES OF A PERSON'S HOME. THIS GIVES ORDINARY LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS LESS PROTECTION THAN CRIMINALS. WE ARGUED OUR APPEAL BEFORE THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT IN AUGUST. IN MAY, THE COURT DECIDED NOT TO WEIGH IN BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT A JUDGE WOULD DEMAND THE CITY BRING FORTH ACTUAL EVIDENCE BEFORE ISSUING A WARRANT. WE ARE CONSIDERING A NEW CHALLENGE TO DEFEND A PROPERTY OWNER THE NEXT TIME A WARRANT IS SERVED. NIEHAUS V. HUPPENTHAL WE APPEARED BEFORE THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS IN FEBRUARY TO DEFEND OUR LOWER COURT VICTORY ON BEHALF OF PARENTS AND CHILDREN PARTICIPATING IN THE EMPOWERMENT SCHOLARSHIP ACCOUNT PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM ALLOWS ELIGIBLE ARIZONA 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. THE TEACHERS' UNIONS AND THEIR ALLIES ALLEGE THAT THE PROGRAM PROVIDES SUPPORT TO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION. HOWEVER, BY ENABLING PARENTS TO TAILOR A CUSTOMIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR THEIR CHILD, THE EMPOWERMENT SCHOLARSHIP ACCOUNT PROGRAM BENEFITS INDIVIDUALS, NOT INSTITUTIONS. WE BELIEVE IT WILL PASS CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER. 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 IN FEBRUARY, BUT THE FIGHT IS NOT OVER BECAUSE OUR OPPONENTS HAVE PETITIONED THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW. LOUISIANA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, ET AL. V STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. WE INTERVENED IN THIS CASE IN JULY REPRESENTING PARENTS WHO WISH TO USE STATE-FUNDED SCHOLARSHIPS TO SEND THEIR CHILD TO PRIVATE SCHOOL. UNLIKE MOST OF OUR SCHOOL CHOICE CASES, THE TEACHERS' UNIONS CONTESTED THE PROGRAM ON THE BASIS OF HOW IT WAS FUNDED RATHER THAN RELIGIOUS GROUNDS. IN MAY, THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE PROGRAM COULD NOT BE FUNDED THROUGH THE MECHANISM THE LEGISLATURE CHOSE. DESPITE THE DECISION, THERE IS ROOM FOR OPTIMISM AS THE STATE IS FREE TO RE-ENACT THE PROGRAM WITH A DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCE. 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 STATE'S PRIVATE OR RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS, OR HOME SCHOOL THEIR CHILDREN. 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. IN JUNE, THE TRIAL COURT SUSPENDED THE PROGRAM FOR RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS. WE ARE PREPARING OUR APPEAL TO THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT. AMICUS IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED CASES, THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE ALSO FILED AMICUS BRIEFS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES BETWEEN JULY 1, 2012 AND JUNE 30, 2013: DOLPHY V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS FLORIDA V. HARRIS FREEDOM FOUNDATION V. GREGOIRE KOONTZ V. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT MCBURNEY V. YOUNG HETTINGA V. US NELSON V. CITY OF ROCHESTER US V. WINDSOR HEFFNER V. MURPHY LIBERTY COINS V. GOODMAN MCCUTCHEON V. FEC KALEY V. US