INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE: Form 990, tax year 2011

View the entire original 990 at ProPublica ↗

Organization: INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE (EIN 52-1744337)
Tax period: 2011-07-01 to 2012-06-30
Filed: 2013-02-14
IRS object ID: 201320459349300767
Schema version: 2011v1.2
Source: Download XML · Original 990 at ProPublica

Every field in the e-filed return. Faint text is the IRS element name, for citing.

Return header
Form 990
Schedule A
Schedule B
Schedule C
Schedule D
Schedule J
Schedule L
Schedule M
Schedule O

Return header ReturnHeader

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Timestamp	2013-02-14T09:35:04-06:00	Timestamp
Tax Period End Date	2012-06-30	TaxPeriodEndDate

Preparer Firm PreparerFirm

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
EIN	521186096	EIN

Preparer Firm Business Name PreparerFirmBusinessName

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Business Name Line1	RUBINO & COMPANY CHARTERED	BusinessNameLine1

Preparer Firm US Address PreparerFirmUSAddress

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Address Line1	6903 ROCKLEDGE DRIVE SUITE 1200	AddressLine1
City	BETHESDA	City
State	MD	State
ZIP Code	20817	ZIPCode

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Return Type	990	ReturnType
Tax Period Begin Date	2011-07-01	TaxPeriodBeginDate

Filer Filer

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
EIN	521744337	EIN

Name Name

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Business Name Line1	INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE	BusinessNameLine1

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Name Control	INST	NameControl
Phone	7036829320	Phone

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

Officer Officer

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Name	WILLIAM H MELLOR	Name
Title	PRESIDENT	Title
Phone	7036829320	Phone
Date Signed	2013-02-07	DateSigned
Authorize Third Party	1	AuthorizeThirdParty

Preparer Preparer

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Name	JENNY E HERRERA CPA	Name
PTIN	P00252755	PTIN
Phone	3015643636	Phone

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Tax Year	2011	TaxYear
Build TS	2016-03-07 17:11:31Z	BuildTS

Form 990 IRS990

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Name Of Principal Officer Person	WILLIAM H MELLOR	NameOfPrincipalOfficerPerson

Address Principal Officer US AddressPrincipalOfficerUS

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	20618817	GrossReceipts
Group Return For Affiliates	0	GroupReturnForAffiliates
Organization501c3	X	Organization501c3
Web Site	WWW.IJ.ORG	WebSite
Type Of Organization Corporation	X	TypeOfOrganizationCorporation
Year Formation	1991	YearFormation
State Legal Domicile	DC	StateLegalDomicile
Activity Or Mission Description	TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERICANS.	ActivityOrMissionDescription
Nbr Voting Members Governing Body	10	NbrVotingMembersGoverningBody
Nbr Independent Voting Members	9	NbrIndependentVotingMembers
Total Nbr Employees	89	TotalNbrEmployees
Total Nbr Volunteers	25	TotalNbrVolunteers
Total Gross UBI	0	TotalGrossUBI
Net Unrelated Business Txbl Income	0	NetUnrelatedBusinessTxblIncome
Contributions Grants Prior Year	18305447	ContributionsGrantsPriorYear
Contributions Grants Current Year	18582104	ContributionsGrantsCurrentYear
Program Service Revenue Prior Year	455078	ProgramServiceRevenuePriorYear
Program Service Revenue CY	1117146	ProgramServiceRevenueCY
Investment Income Prior Year	50190	InvestmentIncomePriorYear
Investment Income Current Year	81986	InvestmentIncomeCurrentYear
Other Revenue Prior Year	0	OtherRevenuePriorYear
Other Revenue Current Year	0	OtherRevenueCurrentYear
Total Revenue Prior Year	18810715	TotalRevenuePriorYear
Total Revenue Current Year	19781236	TotalRevenueCurrentYear
Grants And Similar Amnts Prior Year	0	GrantsAndSimilarAmntsPriorYear
Grants And Similar Amnts CY	0	GrantsAndSimilarAmntsCY
Benefits Paid To Members Prior Year	0	BenefitsPaidToMembersPriorYear
Benefits Paid To Members CY	0	BenefitsPaidToMembersCY
Salaries Etc Prior Year	6773449	SalariesEtcPriorYear
Salaries Etc Current Year	8023101	SalariesEtcCurrentYear
Total Prof Fundrsng Exp Prior Year	14568	TotalProfFundrsngExpPriorYear
Total Prof Fundrsng Exp CY	11793	TotalProfFundrsngExpCY
Total Fundrsng Exp Current Year	886120	TotalFundrsngExpCurrentYear
Other Expense Prior Year	4131802	OtherExpensePriorYear
Other Expenses Current Year	4547644	OtherExpensesCurrentYear
Total Expenses Prior Year	10919819	TotalExpensesPriorYear
Total Expenses Current Year	12582538	TotalExpensesCurrentYear
Revenues Less Expenses Prior Year	7890896	RevenuesLessExpensesPriorYear
Revenues Less Expenses CY	7198698	RevenuesLessExpensesCY
Total Assets BOY	28922117	TotalAssetsBOY
Total Assets EOY	36118336	TotalAssetsEOY
Total Liabilities BOY	534917	TotalLiabilitiesBOY
Total Liabilities EOY	629471	TotalLiabilitiesEOY
Net Assets Or Fund Balances BOY	28387200	NetAssetsOrFundBalancesBOY
Net Assets Or Fund Balances EOY	35488865	NetAssetsOrFundBalancesEOY
Info In Schedule O Part III	X	InfoInScheduleOPartIII
Mission Description	THROUGH STRATEGIC LITIGATION, TRAINING, COMMUNICATION, ACTIVISM AND RESEARCH, THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 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.	MissionDescription
Significant New Program Services	0	SignificantNewProgramServices
Significant Change	0	SignificantChange
Expense	10514435	Expense
Revenue	1117146	Revenue
Description	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.	Description
Total Program Service Expense	10514435	TotalProgramServiceExpense
Described In501 C3	1	DescribedIn501C3
Schedule B Required	1	ScheduleBRequired
Political Activities	0	PoliticalActivities
Lobbying Activities	1	LobbyingActivities
Subject To Proxy Tax	0	SubjectToProxyTax
Donor Advised Funds	0	DonorAdvisedFunds
Conservation Easements	0	ConservationEasements
Collections Of Art	0	CollectionsOfArt
Credit Counseling	0	CreditCounseling
Term Or Permanent Endowments	0	TermOrPermanentEndowments
Report Land Bldg Equip	1	ReportLandBldgEquip
Report Invest Oth Securities	0	ReportInvestOthSecurities
Report Prog Rel Invest	0	ReportProgRelInvest
Report Other Assets	0	ReportOtherAssets
Report Other Liabilities	1	ReportOtherLiabilities
Report Fin48 Footnote	0	ReportFin48Footnote
Independent Audit Financial Stmt	1	IndependentAuditFinancialStmt
Consolidated Audit Financial Stmt	0	ConsolidatedAuditFinancialStmt
School	0	School
Foreign Office	0	ForeignOffice
Foreign Activities	0	ForeignActivities
More Than5000 K To Organizations	0	MoreThan5000KToOrganizations
More Than5000 K To Individuals	0	MoreThan5000KToIndividuals
Professional Fundraising	0	ProfessionalFundraising
Fundraising Activities	0	FundraisingActivities
Gaming	0	Gaming
Hospital	0	Hospital
Grants To Organizations	0	GrantsToOrganizations
Grants To Individuals	0	GrantsToIndividuals
Schedule J Required	1	ScheduleJRequired
Tax Exempt Bonds	0	TaxExemptBonds
Excess Benefit Transaction	0	ExcessBenefitTransaction
Prior Excess Benefit Transaction	0	PriorExcessBenefitTransaction
Loan To Officer Or DQP	0	LoanToOfficerOrDQP
Grant To Related Person	0	GrantToRelatedPerson
Bsnss Rltnshp With Organization	0	BsnssRltnshpWithOrganization
Bsnss Rltnshp Thru Family Member	1	BsnssRltnshpThruFamilyMember
Officer Entity With Bsnss Rltnshp	0	OfficerEntityWithBsnssRltnshp
Deductible Non Cash Contributions	1	DeductibleNonCashContributions
Deductible Contributions Of Art	0	DeductibleContributionsOfArt
Terminated	0	Terminated
Partial Liquidation	0	PartialLiquidation
Disregarded Entity	0	DisregardedEntity
Related Entity	0	RelatedEntity
Related Org Controlled Entity	0	RelatedOrgControlledEntity
Transaction Related Entity	0	TransactionRelatedEntity
Transfers To Exempt Non Chrtbl Org	0	TransfersToExemptNonChrtblOrg
Activities Conducted Partnership	0	ActivitiesConductedPartnership
Schedule O Required	1	ScheduleORequired
Number Forms Transmitted With1096	47	NumberFormsTransmittedWith1096
Number W2 G Included	0	NumberW2GIncluded
Compliance With Backup Witholding	1	ComplianceWithBackupWitholding
Number Of Employees	89	NumberOfEmployees
Employment Tax Returns Filed	1	EmploymentTaxReturnsFiled
Unrelated Business Income	0	UnrelatedBusinessIncome
Foreign Financial Account	0	ForeignFinancialAccount
Prohibited Tax Shelter Trans	0	ProhibitedTaxShelterTrans
Taxable Party Notification	0	TaxablePartyNotification
Non Deductible Contributions	0	NonDeductibleContributions
Quid Pro Quo Contributions	0	QuidProQuoContributions
Form8282 Property Disposed Of	0	Form8282PropertyDisposedOf
Funds To Pay Premiums	0	FundsToPayPremiums
Premiums Paid	0	PremiumsPaid
Indoor Tanning Services	0	IndoorTanningServices
Info In Schedule O Part VI	X	InfoInScheduleOPartVI
Nbr Voting Governing Body Members	10	NbrVotingGoverningBodyMembers
Number Independent Voting Members	9	NumberIndependentVotingMembers
Family Or Business Relationship	0	FamilyOrBusinessRelationship
Delegation Of Management Duties	0	DelegationOfManagementDuties
Changes To Organizing Docs	0	ChangesToOrganizingDocs
Material Diversion Or Misuse	0	MaterialDiversionOrMisuse
Members Or Stockholders	0	MembersOrStockholders
Election Of Board Members	0	ElectionOfBoardMembers
Decisions Subject To Approval	0	DecisionsSubjectToApproval
Minutes Of Governing Body	1	MinutesOfGoverningBody
Minutes Of Committees	1	MinutesOfCommittees
Officer Mailing Address	0	OfficerMailingAddress
Local Chapters	1	LocalChapters
Policies Reference Chapters	1	PoliciesReferenceChapters
Form990 Provided To Governing Body	1	Form990ProvidedToGoverningBody
Conflict Of Interest Policy	1	ConflictOfInterestPolicy
Annual Disclosure Covered Persons	1	AnnualDisclosureCoveredPersons
Regular Monitoring Enforcement	1	RegularMonitoringEnforcement
Whistleblower Policy	1	WhistleblowerPolicy
Document Retention Policy	1	DocumentRetentionPolicy
Compensation Process CEO	1	CompensationProcessCEO
Compensation Process Other	1	CompensationProcessOther
Investment In Joint Venture	0	InvestmentInJointVenture
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	AL	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	AK	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	AZ	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	CO	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	CT	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	FL	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	KS	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	KY	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	ME	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	MD	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	MA	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	MI	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	MN	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	MS	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	NH	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	NJ	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	NM	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	NC	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	ND	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	OH	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	OK	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	OR	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	PA	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	RI	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	IN	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	UT	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	WA	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	WV	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	WI	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	NY	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	SC	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	VA	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	IL	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
States Where Copy Of Return Is Filed	MO	StatesWhereCopyOfReturnIsFiled
Own Website	X	OwnWebsite
Upon Request	X	UponRequest

The Books Are In Care Of TheBooksAreInCareOf

Name Business NameBusiness

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Business Name Line1	STEVEN ANDERSON	BusinessNameLine1

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Telephone Number	7036829320	TelephoneNumber

Address US AddressUS

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 Form990PartVIISectionA (19 entries)

TitleTitle	Average Hours Per WeekAverageHoursPerWeek	Individual Trustee Or DirectorIndividualTrusteeOrDirector	OfficerOfficer	Reportable Comp From OrganizationReportableCompFromOrganization	Reportable Comp From Related OrgsReportableCompFromRelatedOrgs	Other CompensationOtherCompensation	Key EmployeeKeyEmployee	Highest Compensated EmployeeHighestCompensatedEmployee
WILLIAM H MELLOR
PRES. & GENERAL COUNSEL	40.00	X	X	449739	0	64392
DAVID B KENNEDY
DIRECTOR & CHAIRMAN	1.00	X		0	0	0
ROBERT A LEVY
DIRECTOR	1.00	X		0	0	0
JAMES LINTOTT
DIRECTOR	1.00	X		0	0	0
ABIGAIL THERNSTROM
DIRECTOR	1.00	X		0	0	0
ARTHUR DANTCHIK
DIRECTOR	1.00	X		0	0	0
STEPHEN W MODZELEWSKI
DIRECTOR	1.00	X		0	0	0
ROBERT GELFOND
DIRECTOR	1.00	X		0	0	0
WILLIAM DUNN
DIRECTOR	1.00	X		0	0	0
KEN LEVY
DIRECTOR	1.00	X		0	0	0
DEBORAH SIMPSON
MANAGING VP & SECRETARY	40.00		X	181498	0	25276
STEVEN ANDERSON
CFO & TREASURER	40.00		X	158843	0	26031
JOHN KRAMER
VP FOR COMMUNICATIONS	40.00			235450	0	47976	X
BETH STEVENS
VP FOR DEVELOPMENT	40.00			172960	0	28304	X
SCOTT BULLOCK
SR. ATTORNEY	40.00			202375	0	31801		X
DANA BERLINER
SR. ATTORNEY	40.00			202491	0	32406		X
CLARK NEILY
SR. ATTORNEY	40.00			171374	0	30596		X
STEVEN SIMPSON
SR. ATTORNEY	40.00			194226	0	43049		X
JEFFREY ROWES
SR. ATTORNEY	40.00			161230	0	26328		X

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total Reportable Comp From Org	2130186	TotalReportableCompFromOrg
Total Reportable Comp Frm Rltd Orgs	0	TotalReportableCompFrmRltdOrgs
Total Other Compensation	356159	TotalOtherCompensation
Number Individuals GT100 K	19	NumberIndividualsGT100K
Formers Listed	0	FormersListed
Total Comp GT150 K	1	TotalCompGT150K
Compensation From Other Sources	0	CompensationFromOtherSources

Contractor Compensation ContractorCompensation (2 entries)

Address Line1AddressOfContractor/AddressUS/AddressLine1	CityAddressOfContractor/AddressUS/City	StateAddressOfContractor/AddressUS/State	ZIP CodeAddressOfContractor/AddressUS/ZIPCode	Description Of ServicesDescriptionOfServices	CompensationCompensation
RAND CONTRUCTION GROUP
515 M ST SE SUITE 102	WASHINGTON	DC	20003	CONSTRUCTION	138744
APPLIED INTELLIGENCE GROUP
5005 N 14TH STREET	ARLINGTON	VA	22203	IT CONSULTING	130506

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Number Of Contractors GT100 K	2	NumberOfContractorsGT100K
All Other Contributions	18582104	AllOtherContributions
Noncash Contributions	1340419	NoncashContributions
Total Contributions	18582104	TotalContributions

Program Service Revenue ProgramServiceRevenue (2 entries)

DescriptionDescription	Business CodeBusinessCode	Total Revenue ColumnTotalRevenueColumn	Related Or Exempt Function IncomeRelatedOrExemptFunctionIncome
ATTORNEY FEES	541100	1112935	1112935
HONORARIA	541900	4211	4211

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total Program Service Revenue	1117146	TotalProgramServiceRevenue

Investment Income InvestmentIncome

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total Revenue Column	85201	TotalRevenueColumn
Exclusion	$85,201	ExclusionAmount

Gross Amount Sales Assets GrossAmountSalesAssets

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Securities	834366	Securities

Less Cost Oth Basis Sales Expenses LessCostOthBasisSalesExpenses

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Securities	837581	Securities

Gain Or Loss GainOrLoss

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Securities	-3215	Securities

Net Gain Or Loss Investments NetGainOrLossInvestments

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total Revenue Column	-3215	TotalRevenueColumn
Exclusion	-$3,215	ExclusionAmount

Total Revenue TotalRevenue

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total Revenue Column	19781236	TotalRevenueColumn
Related Or Exempt Function Income	1117146	RelatedOrExemptFunctionIncome
Unrelated Business Revenue	0	UnrelatedBusinessRevenue
Exclusion	$81,986	ExclusionAmount

Comp Current Officers Directors CompCurrentOfficersDirectors

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total	1519818	Total
Program Services	1227345	ProgramServices
Management And General	112022	ManagementAndGeneral
Fundraising	180451	Fundraising

Other Salaries And Wages OtherSalariesAndWages

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total	5216925	Total
Program Services	4671995	ProgramServices
Management And General	336013	ManagementAndGeneral
Fundraising	208917	Fundraising

Pension Plan Contributions PensionPlanContributions

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total	486985	Total
Program Services	422181	ProgramServices
Management And General	37294	ManagementAndGeneral
Fundraising	27510	Fundraising

Other Employee Benefits OtherEmployeeBenefits

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total	378811	Total
Program Services	322180	ProgramServices
Management And General	31088	ManagementAndGeneral
Fundraising	25543	Fundraising

Payroll Taxes PayrollTaxes

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total	420562	Total
Program Services	370470	ProgramServices
Management And General	27323	ManagementAndGeneral
Fundraising	22769	Fundraising

Fees For Services Legal FeesForServicesLegal

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total	259813	Total
Program Services	242044	ProgramServices
Fundraising	17769	Fundraising

Fees For Services Accounting FeesForServicesAccounting

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total	88265	Total
Management And General	88265	ManagementAndGeneral

Fees For Services Prof Fundraising FeesForServicesProfFundraising

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total	11793	Total
Fundraising	11793	Fundraising

Fees For Services Other FeesForServicesOther

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total	702228	Total
Program Services	502336	ProgramServices
Management And General	173064	ManagementAndGeneral
Fundraising	26828	Fundraising

Advertising Advertising

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total	47640	Total
Program Services	47040	ProgramServices
Fundraising	600	Fundraising

Office Expenses OfficeExpenses

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total	1043003	Total
Program Services	621733	ProgramServices
Management And General	180586	ManagementAndGeneral
Fundraising	240684	Fundraising

Information Technology InformationTechnology

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total	41645	Total
Program Services	24912	ProgramServices
Management And General	6950	ManagementAndGeneral
Fundraising	9783	Fundraising

Occupancy Occupancy

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total	1081321	Total
Program Services	922305	ProgramServices
Management And General	80705	ManagementAndGeneral
Fundraising	78311	Fundraising

Travel Travel

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total	507832	Total
Program Services	481147	ProgramServices
Management And General	17413	ManagementAndGeneral
Fundraising	9272	Fundraising

Conferences Meetings ConferencesMeetings

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total	340701	Total
Program Services	331185	ProgramServices
Management And General	7286	ManagementAndGeneral
Fundraising	2230	Fundraising

Interest Interest

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total	2887	Total
Management And General	2887	ManagementAndGeneral

Depreciation Depletion DepreciationDepletion

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total	315845	Total
Program Services	263965	ProgramServices
Management And General	29595	ManagementAndGeneral
Fundraising	22285	Fundraising

Insurance Insurance

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total	116464	Total
Program Services	63597	ProgramServices
Management And General	51492	ManagementAndGeneral
Fundraising	1375	Fundraising

Total Functional Expenses TotalFunctionalExpenses

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total	12582538	Total
Program Services	10514435	ProgramServices
Management And General	1181983	ManagementAndGeneral
Fundraising	886120	Fundraising

Cash Non Interest Bearing CashNonInterestBearing

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
BOY	2671	BOY
EOY	2671	EOY

Savings And Temp Cash Investments SavingsAndTempCashInvestments

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
BOY	8422975	BOY
EOY	12483015	EOY

Pledges And Grants Receivable PledgesAndGrantsReceivable

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
BOY	6497701	BOY
EOY	5681940	EOY

Accounts Receivable AccountsReceivable

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
BOY	10577	BOY
EOY	10915	EOY

Prepaid Expenses Deferred Charges PrepaidExpensesDeferredCharges

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
BOY	164356	BOY
EOY	184824	EOY

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Land Buildings Equipment Basis	2733283	LandBuildingsEquipmentBasis
Land Bldg Equipment Accum Deprec	1860912	LandBldgEquipmentAccumDeprec

Land Buildings Equipment Basis Net LandBuildingsEquipmentBasisNet

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
BOY	950533	BOY
EOY	872371	EOY

Investments Pub Traded Securities InvestmentsPubTradedSecurities

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
BOY	12796013	BOY
EOY	16817294	EOY

Other Assets Total OtherAssetsTotal

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
BOY	77291	BOY
EOY	65306	EOY

Total Assets TotalAssets

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
BOY	28922117	BOY
EOY	36118336	EOY

Accounts Payable Accrued Expenses AccountsPayableAccruedExpenses

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
BOY	298012	BOY
EOY	395922	EOY

Other Liabilities OtherLiabilities

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
BOY	236905	BOY
EOY	233549	EOY

Total Liabilities TotalLiabilities

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
BOY	534917	BOY
EOY	629471	EOY

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Follow SFAS117	X	FollowSFAS117

Unrestricted Net Assets UnrestrictedNetAssets

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
BOY	20131411	BOY
EOY	28620247	EOY

Temporarily Restricted Net Assets TemporarilyRestrictedNetAssets

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
BOY	8255789	BOY
EOY	6868618	EOY

Total Net Assets Fund Balances TotalNetAssetsFundBalances

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
BOY	28387200	BOY
EOY	35488865	EOY

Total Liab Net Assets Fund Balances TotalLiabNetAssetsFundBalances

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
BOY	28922117	BOY
EOY	36118336	EOY

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Info In Schedule O Part XI	X	InfoInScheduleOPartXI
Reconcilation Revenue Expenses	7198698	ReconcilationRevenueExpenses
Reconcilation Other Changes	-97033	ReconcilationOtherChanges
Info In Schedule O Part XII	X	InfoInScheduleOPartXII
Method Of Accounting Accrual	X	MethodOfAccountingAccrual
Accountant Compile Or Review	0	AccountantCompileOrReview
FS Audited	1	FSAudited
Audit Committee	1	AuditCommittee
Financial Statement Separate	X	FinancialStatementSeparate
Federal Grant Audit Required	0	FederalGrantAuditRequired

Schedule A IRS990ScheduleA

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Publicly Supported Org170b1 Avi	X	PubliclySupportedOrg170b1Avi

Gifts Grants Contrib Received170 GiftsGrantsContribReceived170

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Current Tax Year Minus4 Years	8986386	CurrentTaxYearMinus4Years
Current Tax Year Minus3 Years	15666509	CurrentTaxYearMinus3Years
Current Tax Year Minus2 Years	12109095	CurrentTaxYearMinus2Years
Current Tax Year Minus1 Year	18305447	CurrentTaxYearMinus1Year
Current Tax Year	18582104	CurrentTaxYear
Total	73649541	Total

Total170 Total170

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Current Tax Year Minus4 Years	8986386	CurrentTaxYearMinus4Years
Current Tax Year Minus3 Years	15666509	CurrentTaxYearMinus3Years
Current Tax Year Minus2 Years	12109095	CurrentTaxYearMinus2Years
Current Tax Year Minus1 Year	18305447	CurrentTaxYearMinus1Year
Current Tax Year	18582104	CurrentTaxYear
Total	73649541	Total

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Amounts Subst Contributors Total	16247894	AmountsSubstContributorsTotal
Public Support Total170	57401647	PublicSupportTotal170

Gross Investment Income170 GrossInvestmentIncome170

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Current Tax Year Minus4 Years	482173	CurrentTaxYearMinus4Years
Current Tax Year Minus3 Years	385623	CurrentTaxYearMinus3Years
Current Tax Year Minus2 Years	181289	CurrentTaxYearMinus2Years
Current Tax Year Minus1 Year	54026	CurrentTaxYearMinus1Year
Current Tax Year	85201	CurrentTaxYear
Total	1188312	Total

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total Support	74837853	TotalSupport
Gross Receipts From Admissions Etc	3652826	GrossReceiptsFromAdmissionsEtc
Public Support Pertcentage170	0.76700	PublicSupportPertcentage170
Public Support Pertcent Prior Year	0.79450	PublicSupportPertcentPriorYear
Thirty Three Percnt Tests CY170	X	ThirtyThreePercntTestsCY170

Schedule B IRS990ScheduleB

Contributor Info ContributorInfo

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Contributor Number	RESTRICTED	ContributorNumber

Contributor Name Business ContributorNameBusiness

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Business Name Line1	RESTRICTED	BusinessNameLine1

Contributor Address US ContributorAddressUS

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)
Aggregate Contributions	RESTRICTED	AggregateContributions

Schedule C IRS990ScheduleC

Total Grassroots Lobbying TotalGrassrootsLobbying

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Filing Organizations Totals	12261	FilingOrganizationsTotals

Total Direct Lobbying TotalDirectLobbying

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Filing Organizations Totals	20169	FilingOrganizationsTotals

Total Lobbying Expenditures TotalLobbyingExpenditures

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Filing Organizations Totals	32430	FilingOrganizationsTotals

Other Exempt Purpose Expenditures OtherExemptPurposeExpenditures

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Filing Organizations Totals	12550108	FilingOrganizationsTotals

Total Exempt Purpose Expenditures TotalExemptPurposeExpenditures

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Filing Organizations Totals	12582538	FilingOrganizationsTotals

Lobbying Nontaxable LobbyingNontaxableAmount

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Filing Organizations Totals	779127	FilingOrganizationsTotals

Grassroots Nontaxable GrassrootsNontaxableAmount

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Filing Organizations Totals	194782	FilingOrganizationsTotals

Tot Lobbying Grassroot Minus Non Tx TotLobbyingGrassrootMinusNonTx

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Filing Organizations Totals	0	FilingOrganizationsTotals

Tot Lobby Expend Mns Lobbying Nontx TotLobbyExpendMnsLobbyingNontx

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Filing Organizations Totals	0	FilingOrganizationsTotals

Lobbying Nontaxable Amount2 LobbyingNontaxableAmount2

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Current Year Minus3	633515	CurrentYearMinus3
Current Year Minus2	623427	CurrentYearMinus2
Current Year Minus1	695991	CurrentYearMinus1
Current Year	779127	CurrentYear
Total	2732060	Total

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Lobbying Ceiling	$4,098,090	LobbyingCeilingAmount

Total Lobbying Expenditures2 TotalLobbyingExpenditures2

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Current Year Minus3	66099	CurrentYearMinus3
Current Year Minus2	39007	CurrentYearMinus2
Current Year Minus1	52876	CurrentYearMinus1
Current Year	32430	CurrentYear
Total	190412	Total

Grassroots Nontaxable Amount2 GrassrootsNontaxableAmount2

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Current Year Minus3	158379	CurrentYearMinus3
Current Year Minus2	155857	CurrentYearMinus2
Current Year Minus1	173998	CurrentYearMinus1
Current Year	194782	CurrentYear
Total	683016	Total

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Grassroots Ceiling	$1,024,524	GrassrootsCeilingAmount

Grassroots Lobbying Expenditures GrassrootsLobbyingExpenditures

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Current Year Minus3	30753	CurrentYearMinus3
Current Year Minus2	7840	CurrentYearMinus2
Current Year Minus1	10693	CurrentYearMinus1
Current Year	12261	CurrentYear
Total	61547	Total

Schedule D IRS990ScheduleD

Leasehold Improvements LeaseholdImprovements

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Other Cost Or Other Basis	1227279	OtherCostOrOtherBasis
Depreciation	928657	Depreciation
Book Value	298622	BookValue

Equipment Equipment

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Other Cost Or Other Basis	1506004	OtherCostOrOtherBasis
Depreciation	932255	Depreciation
Book Value	573749	BookValue

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total Of Book Value Land Buildings	872371	TotalOfBookValueLandBuildings

Other Liabilities OtherLiabilities (2 entries)

DescriptionDescription	AmountAmount
DEFERRED RENT	$198,862
CAPITAL LEASE LIABILITY	$34,687

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Total Of Amounts	233549	TotalOfAmounts
Total Revenue	19781236	TotalRevenue
Total Expenses	12582538	TotalExpenses
Excess Or Deficit For Year	7198698	ExcessOrDeficitForYear
Net Unrealized GL On Investments	-97033	NetUnrealizedGLOnInvestments
Total Adjustments	-97033	TotalAdjustments
Excess Or Deficit Per FS	7101665	ExcessOrDeficitPerFS
Tot Revenue Etc Audited Fincl Stmt	19684203	TotRevenueEtcAuditedFinclStmt
Net Unrealized Gains Investments	-97033	NetUnrealizedGainsInvestments
Revenue Not Rptd F990	-97033	RevenueNotRptdF990
Revenue Subtotal	19781236	RevenueSubtotal
Revenue Not Rptd On Fin Stmt	0	RevenueNotRptdOnFinStmt
Total Revenue Per Form990	19781236	TotalRevenuePerForm990
Tot Expenses Etc Audited Fincl Stmt	12582538	TotExpensesEtcAuditedFinclStmt
Expenses Not Rptd F990	0	ExpensesNotRptdF990
Expenses Subtotal	12582538	ExpensesSubtotal
Expenses Not Rptd On Fin Stmt	0	ExpensesNotRptdOnFinStmt
Total Expenses Per Form990	12582538	TotalExpensesPerForm990

Schedule J IRS990ScheduleJ

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Compensation Committee	X	CompensationCommittee
Independent Consultant	X	IndependentConsultant
Form990 Of Other Organizations	X	Form990OfOtherOrganizations
Compensation Survey	X	CompensationSurvey
Board Or Committee Approval	X	BoardOrCommitteeApproval
Severance Payment	0	SeverancePayment
Supplemental Nonqual Retire Plan	1	SupplementalNonqualRetirePlan
Equity Based Comp Arrangement	0	EquityBasedCompArrangement
Comp Based On Revenue Of Filing Org	0	CompBasedOnRevenueOfFilingOrg
Comp Based On Revenue Related Orgs	0	CompBasedOnRevenueRelatedOrgs
Comp Based Net Earnings Filing Org	0	CompBasedNetEarningsFilingOrg
Comp Based Net Earnings Relate Orgs	0	CompBasedNetEarningsRelateOrgs
Any Non Fixed Payments	1	AnyNonFixedPayments
Initial Contract Exception	0	InitialContractException

Form990 Schedule J Part II Form990ScheduleJPartII (10 entries)

Base Compensation Filing OrgBaseCompensationFilingOrg	Comp Based On Related OrgsCompBasedOnRelatedOrgs	Bonus Filing OrgBonusFilingOrg	Bonus Related OrgsBonusRelatedOrgs	Other Compensation Filing OrgOtherCompensationFilingOrg	Other Compensation Related OrgsOtherCompensationRelatedOrgs	Deferred Comp Filing OrgDeferredCompFilingOrg	Deferred Comp Related OrgsDeferredCompRelatedOrgs	Nontaxable Benefits Filing OrgNontaxableBenefitsFilingOrg	Nontaxable Benefits Related OrgsNontaxableBenefitsRelatedOrgs	Total Compensation Filing OrgTotalCompensationFilingOrg	Total Compensation Related OrgsTotalCompensationRelatedOrgs	Comp Report Prior990 Filing OrgCompReportPrior990FilingOrg	Comp Report Prior990 Related OrgsCompReportPrior990RelatedOrgs
WILLIAM H MELLOR
379739	0	70000	0	0	0	49000	0	15392	0	514131	0	0	0
DEBORAH SIMPSON
176498	0	5000	0	0	0	24739	0	537	0	206774	0	0	0
STEVEN ANDERSON
138843	0	20000	0	0	0	20463	0	5568	0	184874	0	0	0
JOHN KRAMER
220450	0	15000	0	0	0	32584	0	15392	0	283426	0	0	0
BETH STEVENS
157960	0	15000	0	0	0	22495	0	5809	0	201264	0	0	0
SCOTT BULLOCK
194875	0	7500	0	0	0	25932	0	5869	0	234176	0	0	0
DANA BERLINER
192491	0	10000	0	0	0	26536	0	5870	0	234897	0	0	0
CLARK NEILY
171374	0	0	0	0	0	24960	0	5636	0	201970	0	0	0
STEVEN SIMPSON
189226	0	5000	0	0	0	27705	0	15344	0	237275	0	0	0
JEFFREY ROWES
156230	0	5000	0	0	0	20774	0	5554	0	187558	0	0	0

Form990 Schedule J Part III Form990ScheduleJPartIII (2 entries)

Return ReferenceReturnReference	ExplanationExplanation
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 PAID IN FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2013.
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

Form990 Schedule L Part IV Form990ScheduleLPartIV

Name Of Interested Person NameOfInterestedPerson

Name Business NameBusiness

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Business Name Line1	STEVEN SIMPSON	BusinessNameLine1

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Relationship	HUSBAND OF DEBORAH SIMPSON, MANAGING VP & SECRETARY	Relationship
Amount Of Transaction	237275	AmountOfTransaction
Description Of Transaction	REGULAR EMPLOYEE OF THE INSTITUTE	DescriptionOfTransaction
Sharing Of Revenues	0	SharingOfRevenues

Schedule M IRS990ScheduleM

Securities Publicly Traded SecuritiesPubliclyTraded

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Non Cash Checkbox	X	NonCashCheckbox
Number Of Contributions	25	NumberOfContributions
Noncash Contribs Rptd F990	1340419	NoncashContribsRptdF990
Method Of Determining Revenues	FMV	MethodOfDeterminingRevenues

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Any Property That Must Be Held	0	AnyPropertyThatMustBeHeld
Review Process Unusual NC Gifts	1	ReviewProcessUnusualNCGifts
Third Parties Used	1	ThirdPartiesUsed

Form990 Schedule M Part II Form990ScheduleMPartII

Field	Value	IRS element (for citing)
Identifier	THIRD PARTY USE:	Identifier
Return Reference	PART I, LINE 32B:	ReturnReference
Explanation	THE INSTITUTE WILL UTILIZE A BROKERAGE FIRM TO SELL DONATED SECURITIES AND OTHER INVESTMENT VEHICLES.	Explanation

Schedule O IRS990ScheduleO

General Explanation GeneralExplanation (16 entries)

Return ReferenceReturnReference	ExplanationExplanation	IdentifierIdentifier
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 REVIEWED BY 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 XI, LINE 5:	NET UNREALIZED LOSSES ON INVESTMENTS: -97,033.	CHANGES IN NET ASSETS OR FUND BALANCES:
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	FLYNN V. HOLDER IN A MAJOR LEGAL VICTORY FOR CANCER PATIENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES, THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE WON A RULING IN MARCH FROM THE 9TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAYING THAT COMPENSATING MOST BONE-MARROW DONORS IS NOT A CRIME. THIS LANDMARK CASE BEGAN IN OCTOBER 2009 WHEN IJ FILED SUIT AGAINST THE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL ON BEHALF OF CANCER PATIENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES, A RENOWNED BONE-MARROW DOCTOR, AND A NONPROFIT GROUP TO CHALLENGE THE PROHIBITION ON COMPENSATING BONE-MARROW DONORS SET FORTH IN THE NATIONAL ORGAN TRANSPLANT ACT (NOTA) OF 1984. NOTA MADE IT A SERIOUS CRIME, PUNISHABLE BY UP TO FIVE YEARS IN PRISON, TO COMPENSATE SOMEONE FOR A HUMAN ORGAN FOR TRANSPLANTATION. THE ACT DEFINES BONE MARROW AS AN ORGAN. THE 9TH CIRCUIT RULED THAT NOTA DOES NOT PROHIBIT COMPENSATING A DONOR FOR MARROW CELLS OBTAINED DIRECTLY FROM THE BLOODSTREAM, WHICH IS HOW MOST MARROW TRANSPLANTS NOW OCCUR, BECAUSE CONGRESS EXCLUDED BLOOD AND BLOOD COMPONENTS FROM NOTA. THIS DECISION WILL GIVE DOCTORS AND THEIR PATIENTS A POWERFUL TOOL IN THE FIGHT AGAINST DEADLY BLOOD DISEASES. ST. JOSEPH ABBEY V. CASTILLE THIS CASE IS PART OF IJ'S CAMPAIGN FOR ECONOMIC LIBERTY, A MULTI-YEAR, MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR INITIATIVE TO VINDICATE THE RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING FREE FROM UNNECESSARY GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. WE REPRESENT THE MONKS OF SAINT JOSEPH ABBEY IN COVINGTON, LA, IN THEIR EFFORT TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES BY SELLING HANDMADE CASKETS TO HELP PAY FOR FOOD, HEALTH CARE, AND EDUCATION. UNDER LOUISIANA LAW, THE MONKS FACED CRIPPLING FINES AND EVEN JAIL TIME FOR SELLING "FUNERAL MERCHANDISE," WHICH INCLUDES CASKETS, WITHOUT A LICENSE EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY REASON TO REGULATE WHO CAN SELL CASKETS. A CASKET IS JUST A BOX AND IS NOT EVEN NECESSARY FOR BURIAL; THE CARTEL OF LICENSED FUNERAL DIRECTORS SIMPLY WANTS THE LUCRATIVE FUNERAL MARKET TO ITSELF. IN A RESOUNDING VICTORY FOR FREEDOM, THE TRIAL COURT RULED IN THE MONKS' FAVOR IN JULY 2011. BUT OUR OPPONENTS APPEALED SO WE ARGUED THE CASE BEFORE THE 5TH U.S. COURT OF APPEALS IN JUNE 2012. THE CASE HAS WON WIDESPREAD MEDIA COVERAGE, INCLUDING A FRONT-PAGE FEATURE IN THE WASHINGTON POST THE WEEK BEFORE THE 5TH CIRCUIT'S ARGUMENT. FINAL VICTORY IN THE CASE WILL NOT ONLY HELP OUR CLIENTS, BUT WILL ALSO HELP OTHER ENTREPRENEURS NATIONWIDE WHO FIND THEIR RIGHT TO ECONOMIC LIBERTY VIOLATED BY STATE AND LOCAL REGULATORS WHO OFTEN PASS LAWS DESIGNED MERELY TO PROTECT EXISTING BUSINESSES FROM COMPETITION. UNITED STATES V. 434 MAIN STREET, TEWKSBURY, MASS. IN MASSACHUSETTS, WE ARE DEFENDING AN INNOCENT FAMILY IN A CASE THAT EXEMPLIFIES EVERYTHING WRONG WITH CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE. RUSS CASWELL AND HIS FAMILY HAVE OWNED AND OPERATED THE MOTEL CASWELL IN TEWKSBURY, MA, FOR TWO GENERATIONS. THE MOTEL, WHICH RUSS' FATHER BUILT AND THE CASWELLS OWN FREE AND CLEAR, WAS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE FOR RUSS' AND HIS WIFE'S RETIREMENTS. HOWEVER, LOCAL AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS ARE TRYING TO SEIZE THE MILLION-DOLLAR PROPERTY THROUGH CIVIL FORFEITURE, NOT BECAUSE THE CASWELLS HAVE DONE ANYTHING WRONG, BUT BECAUSE A HANDFUL OF THEIR GUESTS DURING THE PAST 20 YEARS COMMITTED ILLEGAL ACTS WHILE STAYING AT THE MOTEL. SINCE THE CASWELLS DIDN'T KNOWINGLY FACILITATE THE CRIMES IN QUESTION AND HAVE EVEN WORKED WITH POLICE TO PREVENT AND REPORT CRIME, THIS TAKING IS ILLEGAL UNDER MASSACHUSETTS LAW. BUT THE LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENT IS WORKING WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TO SEIZE THE MOTEL UNDER RELATIVELY MORE RELAXED FEDERAL FORFEITURE LAWS AND STANDS TO RECEIVE UP TO 80 PERCENT OF THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY. THESE FUNDS CAN THEN BE USED TO PAD THE BUDGET OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. THIS LOOPHOLE PROVIDES A PERVERSE INCENTIVE FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO IGNORE STATE LAWS AND POLICE FOR PROFIT RATHER THAN JUSTICE. TRIAL IN THE CASE IS SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 2012. DINA GALASSINI, V. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE IS CHALLENGING CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS ACROSS THE COUNTRY IN ORDER TO VINDICATE THE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OF ORDINARY AMERICANS. THE STORY OF DINA GALASSINI IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF HOW THESE LAWS ADVERSELY AFFECT REAL PEOPLE. AFTER SENDING AN EMAIL TO A FEW FRIENDS ASKING THEM TO JOIN HER IN A RALLY TO OPPOSE A BOND ELECTION IN FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ, DINA RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE TOWN CLERK TELLING HER THAT SHE WOULD HAVE TO REGISTER AS A "POLITICAL COMMITTEE" BEFORE SHE COULD CONTINUE SPEAKING. ANY TIME TWO OR MORE PEOPLE IN ARIZONA GET TOGETHER TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A BALLOT INITIATIVE, THEY MUST SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO ENDLESS GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY TO OBTAIN THE GOVERNMENT'S PERMISSION TO DO SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AND FUNDAMENTALLY AMERICAN AS HOLD A SIGN ON A STREET CORNER. EVEN IF A GROUP DOESN'T INTEND TO RAISE FUNDS FROM OTHERS, THE GOVERNMENT STILL ASSERTS THE POWER TO FORCE THEM TO DO OUTRAGEOUS AND IRRATIONAL THINGS LIKE APPOINT A TREASURER OR DESIGNATE A BANK ACCOUNT. IJ STEPPED IN ON DINA'S BEHALF IN OCTOBER AND WON A RULING IN NOVEMBER PREVENTING FOUNTAIN HILLS FROM ENFORCING THE LAW AGAINST HER. DINA HELD HER RALLY AND THE BOND ELECTION WAS DEFEATED ON ELECTION DAY. BUT DINA'S COURTROOM BATTLE CONTINUES IN AN ATTEMPT TO VINDICATE THE RIGHTS OF COUNTLESS OTHER INDIVIDUALS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. MEREDITH V. DANIELS FOLLOWING OUR INITIAL TRIAL COURT VICTORY IN JANUARY UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INDIANA'S GROUNDBREAKING CHOICE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM, THIS CASE NOW HEADS TO THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT. IJ REPRESENTS PARENTS AND CHILDREN WHO WISH TO USE THE SCHOLARSHIPS CREATED BY THE PROGRAM AGAINST A CHALLENGE BY A GROUP OF TAXPAYERS REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION. THE PROGRAM AWARDS LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME PARENTS PUBLICLY FUNDED SCHOLARSHIPS FOR THEIR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION THAT MAY BE USED AT PARTICIPATING PRIVATE SCHOOLS, INCLUDING BOTH RELIGIOUS AND NON-RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS. AN ESTIMATED 62 PERCENT OF INDIANA FAMILIES WILL EVENTUALLY BE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM. IF THEY DON'T THINK THAT THEIR CHILDREN ARE RECEIVING A GOOD EDUCATION IN THEIR CURRENT PUBLIC SCHOOL, THE PROGRAM WILL ENABLE THEM TO PICK A PRIVATE SCHOOL THAT BETTER SUITS THEIR CHILD'S EDUCATIONAL NEEDS. WE ARE WAITING FOR THE COURT TO SET A DATE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT. CLAYTON V. STEINAGEL OUR CLIENT IN THIS CASE IS JESTINA CLAYTON, 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 GOVERNMENT IRRATIONALLY CLAIMS THAT SHE MAY NOT BE PAID TO BRAID UNLESS SHE FIRST SPENDS 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. JESTINA PLED HER CASE TO UTAH'S LICENSING BOARD AND TO UTAH LEGISLATORS TO NO AVAIL. SO SHE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FILE A LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT TO VINDICATE THE RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING AS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF OUR NATION'S PROMISE OF OPPORTUNITY. A VICTORY IN THIS CASE NOT ONLY WILL ALLOW JESTINA TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING, BUT ALSO WILL BE A VICTORY FOR ENTREPRENEURS EVERYWHERE WHO SIMPLY WANT TO PURSUE THEIR CHOSEN OCCUPATION FREE FROM UNREASONABLE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO HIRE A LAWYER OR LOBBYIST JUST TO BRAID HAIR. GUTIERREZ V. AUNE THANKS TO IJ'S LITIGATION, ARIZONA ENTREPRENEURS WHO USE THEIR UNIQUE SKILLS TO REMOVE AND SHAPE EYEBROW HAIR WITH NOTHING MORE THAN A SINGLE PIECE OF COTTON THREAD ARE NOW FREE TO CONTINUE WORKING WITHOUT HAVING TO FIRST OBTAIN THE GOVERNMENT'S PERMISSION. EYEBROW THREADING IS AN ANCIENT EASTERN HAIR REMOVAL TECHNIQUE THAT IS GROWING IN POPULARITY ACROSS THE COUNTRY BECAUSE IT IS A QUICKER, CHEAPER, AND LESS PAINFUL ALTERNATIVE TO WAXING. IT ALSO PROVIDES A GREAT EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR ENTRY-LEVEL ENTREPRENEURS WHO HAVE LIMITED RESOURCES BUT WANT TO MOVE UP THE ECONOMIC LADDER. DESPITE THE BENEFITS EYEBROW THREADING PROVIDES FOR CONSUMERS AND ENTREPRENEURS ALIKE, THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF COSMETOLOGY DECREED THAT ASPIRING EYEBROW THREADERS WOULD NEED TO COMPLETE HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF COSTLY AND USELESS TRAINING IF THEY WANTED TO REMAIN IN BUSINESS. THESE REGULATIONS SERVED NO LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST AND EXISTED SOLELY TO PROTECT ESTABLISHED COSMETOLOGISTS BY KEEPING CHEAPER SERVICES OUT OF THE MARKET. THANKS TO IJ'S INVOLVEMENT, THE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY BACKED DOWN FROM ITS REGULATORY REQUIREMENT, AND THE STATE OF ARIZONA PASSED A LAW EXEMPTING THREADERS FROM COSMETOLOGY LICENSING LAWS. WE WILL USE THE MOMENTUM FROM OUR VICTORY TO HELP OTHER ENTREPRENEURS SUFFERING FROM EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT REGULATION.
	PATEL V. TEXAS DEP'T OF LICENSING AND REGULATION SIMILAR TO THE ARIZONA CASE MENTIONED ABOVE, WE FILED SUIT IN DECEMBER 2009 AGAINST TEXAS' ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE AS COSMETOLOGY THE PRACTICE OF EYEBROW THREADING. THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION WOULD REQUIRE EYEBROW THREADERS, 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 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 CURRENTLY ARE ON APPEAL WITH THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT. COURTNEY V. GOLTZ OUR FIGHT TO PROTECT ECONOMIC LIBERTY TAKES US TO AN ISOLATED LAKE IN WASHINGTON THAT COULD HAVE ENORMOUS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING. SINCE 1927, THERE HAS BEEN A GOVERNMENT-IMPOSED MONOPOLY ON LAKE CHELAN THAT HAS ALLOWED ONLY ONE FERRY OPERATOR ON THE LAKE. THE CURRENT OPERATOR RUNS ONLY TWO BOATS PER DAY DURING THE PEAK SUMMER TOURIST SEASON, AND BOTH BOATS DEPART AT THE SAME TIME IN THE SAME DIRECTION, LEAVING TOURISTS INCONVENIENCED. OUR CLIENTS, BROTHERS JIM AND CLIFF COURTNEY, OWN A RUSTIC RANCH ON THE LAKE AND HAVE TRIED TO RUN A COMPETING FERRY SERVICE, BUT HAVE BEEN DENIED BECAUSE OF A STATE LAW THAT REQUIRES A "CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY." THIS MEANS THAT JIM AND CLIFF HAVE TO MEET SOME GOVERNMENT-CONCOCTED CRITERIA TO PROVE THAT THEIR SERVICE IS NEEDED BEFORE THEY CAN RUN A SINGLE BOAT AND SATISFY THE DEMANDS OF THEIR CUSTOMERS. IJ FILED SUIT ON THEIR BEHALF, ARGUING THAT THE REQUIREMENT VIOLATES THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. A VICTORY WILL SET IMPORTANT PRECEDENT AND ADVANCE THE NOTION THAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST JUSTIFY ANY RESTRICTIONS IT IMPOSES ON INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. MILE HIGH CAB, INC. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN 2008, COLORADO CHANGED ITS LAWS TO ALLOW MORE OPEN COMPETITION IN ITS TAXI MARKETS. WHILE THE STATE RETAINED A "PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY" STANDARD, IT SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND IMPOSED A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT NEW TAXI SERVICES WERE NEEDED IN THE STATE'S MAJOR CITIES. THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (WHICH REGULATES TAXI ENTRY IN COLORADO) ALLOWED ONE NEW COMPANY TO ENTER THE DENVER MARKET IN THE WAKE OF THE NEW LAW, BUT THEN NO OTHERS. OUR CLIENT IS ROLAND NWANKWO, PRESIDENT OF MILE HIGH CAB, INC., AND THE FIRST APPLICANT REJECTED UNDER THE NEW STANDARD. MILE HIGH UNSUCCESSFULLY APPEALED THAT DECISION TO A STATE TRIAL COURT. IJ STEPPED IN TO TAKE OVER THE APPEAL, AND WE SUCCESSFULLY APPEALED TO THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT. WE EXPECT ORAL ARGUMENT TO HAPPEN SOMETIME IN 2012. SPEED'S AUTO SERVICES V. PORTLAND IN PORTLAND, OR, 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. MOREOVER, IT FORCES LIMOS AND SEDANS TO WAIT AT LEAST ONE HOUR BEFORE PICKING UP CUSTOMERS. OUR CLIENTS, TOWNCAR.COM AND FIESTA LIMOUSINE, WANTED TO ATTRACT NEW CUSTOMERS BY OFFERING $32 PROMOTIONAL ONE-WAY FARES TO THE AIRPORT THROUGH THE DAILY DEAL WEBSITE GROUPON.COM. BUT THE PORTLAND REVENUE BUREAU THREATENED THEM WITH A COMBINED $895,000 IN FINES AND SUSPENSION OF THEIR OPERATING PERMITS. OUR CLIENTS CANCELED THE PROMOTIONS AND REFUNDED THEIR CUSTOMERS. PREVENTING ENTREPRENEURS FROM PROVIDING DISCOUNTS DOESN'T MAKE RIDING IN A LIMO OR SEDAN ANY SAFER, AND OUR LAWSUIT WILL ILLUSTRATE HOW PORTLAND'S MINIMUM FARE LAW DOES NOTHING BUT PROTECT A GROUP OF INDUSTRY INSIDERS FROM COMPETITION.
	BOKHARI V. NASHVILLE SIMILAR TO THE PORTLAND CASE ABOVE, WE ARE CHALLENGING NEW LAWS IN NASHVILLE, TN, THAT FORCE SEDAN AND INDEPENDENT LIMO COMPANIES TO INCREASE THEIR FARE MINIMUM, 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 HAVE ALREADY GONE OUT OF BUSINESS, WHILE MANY OTHERS ARE UNDER A CONSTANT THREAT OF BEING RUN OFF THE ROAD. IN JULY, OUR ACTIVISM AND COALITIONS TEAM HELPED STAGE A FREEDOM RIDE THROUGH THE CITY TO PROTEST THE REGULATIONS AHEAD OF A METROPOLITAN COUNTY COUNCIL HEARING TO CONSIDER ELIMINATING THEM. OUR CLIENTS AND OTHER INDEPENDENT LIMO DRIVERS DISPLAYED FLAGS AND STICKERS THAT SAID "TELL NASHVILLE: LET ME CHARGE YOU LESS," ILLUSTRATING HOW THESE NEW REGULATIONS DO NOTHING BUT PROTECT A GROUP OF POLITICALLY FAVORED INSIDERS FROM COMPETITION. MEANWHILE, OUR LAWSUIT CONTINUES. GHALEB IBRAHIM V. CITY OF MILWAUKEE ANOTHER FIGHT TO PROTECT ECONOMIC LIBERTY IS TAKING PLACE IN MILWAUKEE, WI, WHERE THE CITY HAS ARBITRARILY CAPPED THE NUMBER OF TAXICAB PERMITS FOR THE PAST TWO DECADES. MILWAUKEE, A CITY OF MORE THAN 600,000 PEOPLE, ISSUES ENOUGH PERMITS FOR ONLY 321 CABS. THIS EQUATES TO ABOUT ONE CAB FOR EVERY 1,850 PEOPLE AND IS FAR FEWER THAN COMPARABLE CITIES SUCH AS MINNEAPOLIS, WHICH RECENTLY DEREGULATED ITS TAXI LAWS. PRIOR TO THE CAP, ANYONE WITH $85 COULD GO TO CITY HALL AND APPLY FOR A LICENSE TO DRIVE A TAXI. TODAY, THE ONLY WAY TO ENTER THE TAXI BUSINESS IS TO BUY A PERMIT ON THE SECONDARY MARKET FOR AS MUCH AS $150,000-A COST WELL BEYOND THE MODEST MEANS OF MOST ASPIRING ENTREPRENEURS. THE MAJORITY OF THESE PERMITS ARE HELD BY ONE FAMILY. THE CAP SERVES NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO FUNNEL BUSINESS TO A GROUP OF ENTRENCHED INTERESTS AT THE EXPENSE OF CONSUMERS AND ENTREPRENEURS. THAT'S WHY IJ TEAMED UP WITH THREE MILWAUKEE CAB DRIVERS TO CHALLENGE THE CITY'S TAXI PERMIT SYSTEM. THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS, AND THERE IS SOMETHING DREADFULLY WRONG WHEN THOSE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ECONOMIC LADDER HAVE TO SAVE THE COST OF A HOUSE TO START A TAXI BUSINESS RATHER THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND. 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 RESULTS IN NEW SERVICES' BEING FORBIDDEN FROM OPERATING AT ALL AND THE CON PROGRAM AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN A STATE-GRANTED MONOPOLY FOR POLITICALLY FAVORED BUSINESSES. AT A TIME WHEN THE NATION IS BITTERLY DIVIDED ON HOW TO BEST PROVIDE HEALTH CARE, ONE THING THAT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS PREVENTING PATIENTS AND DOCTORS FROM DECIDING WHAT MEDICAL SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT ARE NEEDED JUST SO IT CAN PROTECT ESTABLISHED PRACTITIONERS FROM COMPETITION. BHANDARI V. NILESTUEN IN THIS CASE, IJ SOUGHT TO VINDICATE THE RIGHTS OF RAJ BHANDARI, A GAS STATION OWNER IN MERRILL, WISCONSIN, WHO FOUND HIMSELF FACING POSSIBLY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN FINES FOR THE CRIME OF OFFERING DISCOUNTS ON GASOLINE-A VIOLATION OF THE STATE'S MINIMUM-MARKUP LAW, WHICH REQUIRES THAT RETAIL GASOLINE BE SOLD FOR AT LEAST 9.18 PERCENT OVER THE LOCAL AVERAGE WHOLESALE COST. NOT LONG AFTER AN UNFAVORABLE DECISION FROM THE TRIAL COURT, A FEDERAL TRIAL COURT IN ANOTHER CASE ISSUED A VERY WELL-REASONED OPINION ENJOINING THE STATE FROM ENFORCING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE LAW ON FEDERAL ANTITRUST GROUNDS. THE 7TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THEN DISSOLVED THE FEDERAL INJUNCTION, WHICH MEANT THAT OUR CASE (WHICH HAD BEEN STAYED DUE TO THE PENDING FEDERAL LITIGATION) WAS ONCE AGAIN LIVE. A WISCONSIN APPELLATE COURT EVENTUALLY UPHELD OUR LOSS IN THE LOWER COURT, SO THE CASE IS NOW CLOSED. LOCKE V. SHORE AFTER SUCCESSFUL LAWSUITS CHALLENGING INTERIOR DESIGN LAWS IN NEW MEXICO, TEXAS, CONNECTICUT, AND OKLAHOMA, THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE FILED SUIT IN FLORIDA, THE STATE WITH BY FAR THE MOST RESTRICTIVE AND AGGRESSIVELY ENFORCED LAW IN THE COUNTRY. ONLY THREE OTHER STATES-FLORIDA, LOUISIANA, AND NEVADA-REGULATE THE ACTUAL PRACTICE OF INTERIOR DESIGN (AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLY REGULATING WHO CAN CALL THEMSELVES INTERIOR DESIGNERS). USING OUR STRATEGIC COMBINATION OF LITIGATION, MEDIA, ACTIVISM, AND STRATEGIC RESEARCH, WE WON A PARTIAL VICTORY IN FEBRUARY 2010. WE RECEIVED $50,000 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES FOR THE PORTION OF THE CASE WE WON. FOR THE PART OF THE CASE THAT WE LOST, WE APPEALED TO THE 11TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH ALSO RULED AGAINST US. OUR PETITION FOR REVIEW WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WAS DENIED IN JANUARY, SO THIS CASE ALSO IS CLOSED.
	LOVING V. IRS IN THIS CASE, WE ARE CHALLENGING THE IRS'S LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOME TAX RETURN PREPARERS. EFFECTIVE THIS YEAR, 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, WI, FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS. IJ BELIEVES THAT TAXPAYERS-NOT THE IRS-SHOULD BE THE ONES WHO DECIDE WHO PREPARES THEIR TAXES. SO WE'RE STANDING UP FOR ENTREPRENEURS WHO ARE FORCED TO SUFFER BECAUSE THEY LACK THE POLITICAL CLOUT OF ENTRENCHED INTERESTS. MARTINEZ V. MULLEN IN CONNECTICUT, WE ARE REPRESENTING WOULD-BE ENTREPRENEURS WHO WANT TO CAPITALIZE ON THE GROWING POPULARITY OF TEETH WHITENING. TEETH-WHITENING SERVICES ARE INCREASINGLY AVAILABLE AT SPAS, SALONS, AND SHOPPING MALLS AND OFTEN AT A MUCH LOWER COST THAN DENTISTS TYPICALLY CHARGE. THE CONNECTICUT DENTAL COMMISSION, HOWEVER, ISN'T SMILING ABOUT THE COMPETITION THIS PRESENTS ESTABLISHED DENTISTS. IT 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. THE COMMISSION'S RULING IS IRRATIONAL BECAUSE TEETH-WHITENING PRODUCTS ARE CONSIDERED COSMETICS, MEANING THAT ANYONE-INCLUDING CHILDREN-CAN LEGALLY PURCHASE AND APPLY THEM AT HOME WITHOUT ANY SPECIAL INSTRUCTION OR TRAINING. MOREOVER, THE RULING HAS BEEN DEVASTATING TO ENTREPRENEURS LIKE OUR CLIENT, LISA MARTINEZ, WHO HAD TO SHUT DOWN HER PROFITABLE TEETH-WHITENING BUSINESS AND FOREGO HER DREAMS OF ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE. LISA AND OTHER ENTREPRENEURS WHO OFFER A CLEAN, COMFORTABLE PLACE FOR CUSTOMERS TO APPLY A WHITENING PRODUCT TO THEIR OWN TEETH, JUST AS THEY WOULD AT HOME, POSE NO THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. THE COMMISSION'S RULING IS NOTHING MORE THAN A BLATANT ATTEMPT TO PROTECT DENTISTS AT THE EXPENSE OF CONSUMERS AND ENTREPRENEURS, SO WE'RE HELPING LISA STAND UP FOR HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. MEMBRENO V. CITY OF HIALEAH SILVIO MEMBRENO CAME TO THE UNITED STATES FROM NICARAGUA AND HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY EARNING A LIVING IN HIALEAH, FL, AS A FLOWER VENDOR FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS. JUST LIKE COUNTLESS VENDORS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, HE PROVIDES CONSUMERS WITH A CONVENIENT MEANS TO BUY GOODS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE UNAVAILABLE, ALL WHILE CREATING JOBS FOR OTHERS. ALTHOUGH THE BENEFITS OF VENDING ARE UNDENIABLE AND IT MAY BE LEGAL FOR VENDORS LIKE SILVIO TO EARN A LIVING VENDING IN HIALEAH, LOCAL REGULATIONS DESIGNED TO PROTECT ESTABLISHED BUSINESSES MAKE IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO BE EFFECTIVE ENTREPRENEURS. THE CITY UNNECESSARILY ENDANGERS VENDORS BY REQUIRING THEM TO BE IN CONSTANT MOTION WHEN THEY'D MUCH RATHER SAFELY STAY IN ONE SPOT. VENDORS ALSO ARE PROHIBITED FROM SELLING ITEMS WITHIN ONE FOOTBALL FIELD OF ANY BRICK-AND-MORTAR ESTABLISHMENT THAT SELLS "SIMILAR MERCHANDISE"-A STANDARD THAT INVITES ABUSE. IJ TEAMED UP WITH SILVIO TO CHALLENGE HIALEAH'S VENDING LAWS AND HELP PUT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY ON NOTICE THAT IT'S NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE TO DRIVE VENDORS OUT OF BUSINESS IN ORDER TO PROTECT BRICK-AND-MORTAR BUSINESSES FROM COMPETITION. 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 TWO YEARS AGO, ATLANTA HANDED OVER ALL PUBLIC-PROPERTY VENDING TO A SINGLE COMPANY-THE FIRST PROGRAM OF ITS KIND IN THE COUNTRY. NOW THAT COMPANY WANTS TO THROW LARRY AND STANLEY OUT OF THE SPOTS THEY HAVE WORKED FOR DECADES IN ORDER TO BUILD KIOSKS THAT RENT FOR ALMOST $20,000 A YEAR. IF IT DOES SO, LARRY AND STANLEY'S BUSINESSES WILL BE DESTROYED. SO LARRY AND STANLEY TEAMED UP WITH THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE TO CHALLENGE ATLANTA'S VENDING MONOPOLY. IN THE LAWSUIT, WE ARGUE THAT ATLANTA LACKS THE POWER TO GRANT AN EXCLUSIVE VENDING FRANCHISE AND THAT ITS ACTIONS VIOLATE THE GEORGIA CONSTITUTION. A VICTORY WILL NOT ONLY FREE ATLANTA'S VENDING COMMUNITY; IT WILL MAKE OTHER CITIES THINK TWICE BEFORE ENTERING INTO SIMILARLY ANTICOMPETITIVE ARRANGEMENTS.
	VERLIN STOLL, ET AL. V. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MORTUARY SCIENCE SECTION, ET AL. IN MINNESOTA, WE ARE CHALLENGING A PROTECTIONIST GOVERNMENT MANDATE REQUIRING ENTREPRENEURS TO WASTE THEIR RESOURCES ON THINGS THEY DON'T NEED. VERLIN STOLL BUILT A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS IN ST. PAUL, MN, BY OFFERING LOW-COST FUNERALS WHILE PROVIDING HIGH-QUALITY SERVICE. HE WANTS TO EXPAND HIS BUSINESS AND CREATE JOBS BY BUILDING A SECOND FUNERAL HOME, BUT A STATE LAW WON'T ALLOW HIM TO DO SO UNTIL HE SPENDS $30,000 TO INSTALL AN EMBALMING ROOM HE NEVER PLANS ON USING. HE SIMPLY DOESN'T NEED IT; EMBALMING ISN'T NECESSARY JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE PASSES AWAY, AND FUNERAL HOMES ARE ALLOWED TO CONTRACT THE PROCESS OUT TO THIRD PARTIES. THE LAW SERVES NO PRACTICAL PURPOSE AND IS AS IRRATIONAL AS THE GOVERNMENT FORCING A BRAKE SHOP TO BUILD A RACE TRACK OR COMMANDING A LOGGER TO BUY 100 CHAINSAWS HE'LL NEVER USE. IT ONLY EXISTS TO PROTECT HIGH-END FUNERAL HOME BUSINESSES FROM INNOVATIVE COMPETITORS LIKE VERLIN BY ARTIFICIALLY DRIVING UP THEIR COSTS. 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. WAG MORE DOGS, LLC V. ARTMAN IJ REPRESENTS A PET BOARDING AND GROOMING BUSINESS NAMED WAG MORE DOGS IN ARLINGTON, VA. AS PART OF ITS PLANNED OPENING, WAG MORE DOGS COMMISSIONED A PAINTING TO BEAUTIFY THE NEIGHBORING DOG PARK AND TO ENGENDER GOODWILL WITH THE PARK'S PATRONS. BUT THE COUNTY STATED THAT THE PAINTING WAS AN ILLEGAL SIGN BECAUSE IT "DIRECTED" PEOPLE TO WAG MORE DOGS' DOOR AND HAD A "RELATIONSHIP" WITH THE BUSINESS. AS A RESULT, THE COUNTY DELAYED WAG MORE DOGS' OPENING, FORCED IT TO COVER THE PAINTING WITH A TARP, AND TOLD IT TO EITHER PAINT OVER THE MURAL OR CHANGE ITS MESSAGE. WE TEAMED UP WITH WAG MORE DOGS' OWNER KIM HOUGHTON TO FILE SUIT IN DECEMBER 2010 ARGUING THAT THE COUNTY'S DEFINITION FOR WHAT IS A SIGN IS A VAGUE AND CONTENT-BASED RESTRICTION ON SPEECH IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE FOURTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSAL OF THE CASE, WHICH DEEPENED A CIRCUIT SPLIT ON WHETHER DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CERTAIN TYPES OF SIGNS BASED ON THEIR SUBJECT MATTER IS SUBJECT TO STRICT SCRUTINY. THIS IS A MAJOR FACTOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT WHEN DECIDING WHETHER TO HEAR A CASE. WAUGH V. NEVADA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY IN NEVADA, TEACHING OTHERS HOW TO APPLY MAKEUP WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT-ISSUED LICENSE CAN SUBJECT YOU TO UP TO $2,000 IN FINES. OUR CLIENTS ARE LISSETTE WAUGH AND WENDY ROBIN, MAKEUP ARTISTS WITH OVER 40 YEARS OF COMBINED EXPERIENCE, WHO WANT TO TRAIN THE NEXT GENERATION OF MAKEUP ARTISTS IN THE ART AND ARTISTRY OF APPLYING MAKEUP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT AND RETAIL INDUSTRIES. BUT THE NEVADA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY HAS THREATENED TO SILENCE THE TWO ENTREPRENEURS BY SHUTTING DOWN THEIR BUSINESSES. NEVADA LAW RECOGNIZES THAT MAKEUP ARTISTS ARE DIFFERENT FROM COSMETOLOGISTS-WHO FOCUS ON CUTTING AND STYLING HAIR, CLEANSING AND CARING FOR THE SKIN, AND MANICURES-BY EXEMPTING THEM FROM THE STATE'S COSMETOLOGY LICENSING SCHEME. YET BOTH WOMEN COULD FACE FINES OF UP TO $2,000 FOR DOING NOTHING MORE THAN TEACHING MAKEUP ARTISTRY WITHOUT A COSMETOLOGY INSTRUCTOR'S LICENSE AND NOT OPERATING THEIR MAKEUP ARTISTRY SCHOOLS AS STATE-LICENSED SCHOOLS OF COSMETOLOGY. WE FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT IN JUNE TO VINDICATE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO TEACH AND TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING BY OPERATING THEIR BUSINESSES AS THEY SEE FIT WITHOUT HAVING TO COMPLY WITH AN ARBITRARILY APPLIED GOVERNMENT LICENSING SCHEME. NEIGHBORHOOD ENTERPRISES V. CITY OF ST. LOUIS IN A DOUBLE BLOW TO FREE SPEECH AND PROPERTY RIGHTS, THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS NOT ONLY THREATENED TO TAKE VIA EMINENT DOMAIN AN ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT ALSO WANTED TO CENSOR A POWERFUL AND HIGHLY VISIBLE MURAL THAT WAS PUT UP TO PROTEST THE CITY'S ABUSE OF THE LAW AND BUILD SUPPORT FOR REFORM. FED UP WITH EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE ACROSS MISSOURI-AND AGAINST RENTAL PROPERTIES HE OWNS AND MANAGES-OUR CLIENT JIM ROOS FOUGHT BACK. HE HAD A LARGE MURAL PAINTED ON HIS BUILDING AT 1806 S. 13TH STREET, IN A NEIGHBORHOOD TARGETED FOR REDEVELOPMENT. THE MURAL PROTESTS THE CITY'S ABUSE AND ADVOCATES FOR STATEWIDE EMINENT DOMAIN REFORM. 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 LOST THIS CASE IN THE TRIAL COURT, BUT WON BEFORE THE 8TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. OUR OPPONENTS REQUESTED THE U.S. SUPREME COURT REVIEW THE CASE, BUT THAT REQUEST WAS DENIED. WE RECEIVED $62,840 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES AND ARE BACK IN DISTRICT COURT ASKING FOR A JUDGMENT DECLARING JIM'S RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THE MURAL AND PERMANENTLY ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE OLD AND NEW SIGN CODES AGAINST 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. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS MADE CLEAR THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO PROTEST GOVERNMENT ABUSE USING SIGNS LIKE CENTRAL RADIO'S BANNER WITHOUT FIRST GETTING THE GOVERNMENT'S PERMISSION. COOKSEY V. FUTRELL, ET AL. IN THIS CASE, IJ IS DEFENDING A BLOGGER WHO WAS CENSORED BY GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS SIMPLY 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. STEVE EVEN STARTED A PAID LIFE-COACHING SERVICE SIMILAR TO WHAT HE HAD ALREADY BEEN DOING FOR HIS FRIENDS FOR FREE. BUT THE NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF DIETETICS/NUTRITION QUICKLY FORCED HIM INTO SILENCE. IT CLAIMS THAT STEVE'S PRIVATE EMAILS AND CONVERSATIONS WITH FAMILY, FRIENDS, AND READERS CONSTITUTE 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. 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. THE CASE SEEKS TO ADVANCE THE SAME FIRST AMENDMENT THEORY IJ HAS BEEN PURSUING IN ITS SPEECH-LICENSING CASES DATING BACK TO THE LATE 1990S WITH TAUCHER V. BORN, OUR SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGE TO THE COMMODITIES FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION'S ATTEMPT TO REQUIRE OUR CLIENTS TO OBTAIN A LICENSE BEFORE PUBLISHING GUIDES TO COMMODITIES TRADING. SIMPLY PUT, GOVERNMENT MAY NOT USE THE GUISE OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING TO IMPOSE BURDENS ON PEOPLE-LIKE INTERNET PUBLISHERS OR TOUR GUIDES-WHO EARN THEIR LIVING BY COMMUNICATING. WORLEY V. ROBERTS THIS IS THE LEAD CASE IN IJ'S CITIZEN SPEECH INITIATIVE, WHICH SEEKS TO EXPAND UPON OUR PREVIOUS LITIGATION AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S RULING IN CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC TO CREATE A RULE OF LAW UNDER WHICH INDEPENDENT GROUPS OF CITIZENS CAN SPEAK FREELY ABOUT POLITICAL CANDIDATES AND BALLOT ISSUES WITHOUT HAVING TO REGISTER WITH THE STATE AND DEAL WITH ALL OF THE REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO "POLITICAL COMMITTEES." 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. IN DOING SO, THEY WANTED TO RUN A SIMPLE RADIO AD. BUT 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 FILED SUIT IN SEPTEMBER 2010 AND ARGUED THE CASE IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN JULY 2011. WE ARE AWAITING A DECISION, WHICH COULD BE HANDED DOWN AT ANY TIME. JUSTICE V. HOSEMANN OUR CLIENTS IN THIS CASE ARE A GROUP OF 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. THEY ALSO MUST MAKE THEIR PERSONAL INFORMATION, INCLUDING THEIR ADDRESSES AND THE NAMES OF THEIR EMPLOYERS, PUBLIC ON THE INTERNET FOR THE WORLD TO SEE. 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.
	MANY CULTURES, ONE MESSAGE ET AL. V. CLEMENTS OUR CLIENTS IN THIS CASE ARE TWO ORGANIZATIONS-MANY CULTURES, ONE MESSAGE AND CONSERVATIVE ENTHUSIASTS-THAT SIMPLY WANT TO URGE THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS TO TAKE POLITICAL ACTION. HOWEVER, IF OUR CLIENTS OR OTHER CITIZEN-ACTIVISTS SPEND ABOVE AN ABSURDLY LOW GOVERNMENT THRESHOLD TO ADVANCE A POLITICAL CAUSE BY ENCOURAGING OTHER CITIZENS TO CONTACT THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ($500 IN ONE MONTH OR $1,000 IN THREE MONTHS), THEY MUST COMPLY WITH A WASHINGTON STATE LAW THAT EMPOWERS THE GOVERNMENT TO MONITOR, COLLECT, AND PUBLICLY DISSEMINATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF ANYONE INVOLVED IN THOSE EFFORTS. IN OTHER WORDS, IF OUR CLIENTS SPEAK TOO MUCH, THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO KNOW ABOUT IT. THE GOVERNMENT'S RULES FALL HARDEST ON SMALL BANDS OF CITIZEN-ACTIVISTS, WHO CANNOT AFFORD THE HIGH COST OF COMPLIANCE AND WHOSE MEMBERS OFTEN DO NOT WISH TO RISK THE HARM THAT CAN COME FROM PUBLIC DISSEMINATION OF THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS. THIS LEAVES POLITICS TO PROFESSIONALS, WHO CAN AFFORD THE LAWYERS, TIME, AND TROUBLE THAT THIS LAW ENGENDERS. OUR CLIENTS BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO DISCOURAGE POLITICAL SPEECH IN THIS WAY, AND WE'RE TAKING THEIR CASE TO THE 9TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO VINDICATE THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. ARIZONA FREEDOM CLUB PAC V. BENNETT IN JUNE 2011 WE WON OUR SECOND U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE OF THE TERM, AND OUR FOURTH IN NINE YEARS, WHEN THE JUSTICES STRUCK DOWN THE MATCHING FUNDS PROVISION OF ARIZONA'S "CLEAN ELECTIONS" ACT. ARIZONA'S SCHEME MANIPULATED ELECTION SPEECH BY FAVORING CANDIDATES WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE PUBLIC FUNDING SYSTEM OVER THOSE WHO CHOSE TO FOREGO TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND INSTEAD RAISE FUNDS THROUGH VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS. FOR EVERY DOLLAR A PRIVATELY FUNDED CANDIDATE SPENT ABOVE A GOVERNMENT-DICTATED AMOUNT, THE GOVERNMENT GAVE ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO HIS OPPONENT. UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO PLACE IN PUNISHING THOSE IT BELIEVES ARE SPEAKING TOO MUCH OR SUBSIDIZING THOSE IT BELIEVES ARE SPEAKING TOO LITTLE. THE COURT'S RULING WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS BEYOND CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW. WE SETTLED OUR ATTORNEYS' FEES CLAIMS FOR $1 MILLION AND WILL USE THE CASE AS A NATIONAL PRECEDENT TO URGE COURTS TO TAKE CONSTITUTIONALLY ENSHRINED INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS MORE SERIOUSLY, NOT ONLY IN THE AREA OF FREE SPEECH, BUT ALSO ACROSS IJ'S OTHER PILLARS OF LITIGATION-PROPERTY RIGHTS, ECONOMIC LIBERTY, AND EDUCATIONAL CHOICE. FARRIS V. SEABROOK ALSO IN WASHINGTON STATE, WE ARE STANDING UP FOR RETIRED NAVAL OFFICER AND POLITICAL NOVICE ROBIN FARRIS, WHO WANTED TO RECALL A LOCAL OFFICIAL AFTER HEARING ABOUT SERIOUS CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT ON HIS PART. WASHINGTON HAS STRICT RECALL PROCEDURES THAT ARE INTENDED TO KEEP OFFICIALS FROM BEING REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR POLITICAL REASONS AND INVOLVE CONSIDERABLE LITIGATION TO PROVE TO A JUDGE THAT THE PROPOSED RECALL HAS MERIT BEFORE IT MAY BEGIN. ROBIN ENLISTED THE SERVICES OF TWO ATTORNEYS WHO WERE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF THE SAME OFFICIAL AND OFFERED THEIR SERVICES PRO BONO TO THE EFFORT. HOWEVER, THIS IN-KIND DONATION OF LEGAL SERVICES RAN AFOUL OF THE STATE'S $800 LIMIT ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO RECALL CAMPAIGNS. IN ADDITION TO EFFECTIVELY OUTLAWING PRO BONO LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO A CAMPAIGN, THE CONTRIBUTION LIMIT ALSO MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR RECALL CAMPAIGNS-OFTEN RUN, AS IN THIS CASE, BY POLITICAL NOVICES WITH NO ESTABLISHED BASE OF POLITICAL SUPPORT-TO RAISE SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO HIRE SIGNATURE GATHERERS AND SUCCESSFULLY PROMOTE THE CAMPAIGN. ROBIN TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO DEFEND HER FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, AND IN JANUARY THE 9TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD AN EARLIER RULING PREVENTING THE STATE FROM ENFORCING THE CONTRIBUTION LIMIT AGAINST HER AND OUR OTHER CLIENTS UNTIL A DECISION CAN BE RENDERED AFTER THE FULL CASE GOES TO TRIAL. WE RECEIVED $94.78 FROM THE WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE REIMBURSING US FOR THE COST OF OUR APPEAL TO THE 9TH CIRCUIT. KAGAN V. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS IN AN EFFORT TO PROTECT THE COMMERCIAL SPEECH RIGHTS OF ENTREPRENEURS, IJ JOINED WITH FOUR NEW ORLEANS TOUR GUIDES TO CHALLENGE THE CITY'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL TOUR GUIDE LICENSING SCHEME. WHEN SOMEONE PAYS TO ATTEND A TOUR, HE OR SHE IS PAYING TO HEAR THE WORDS THAT THE TOUR GUIDE SPEAKS, WHETHER IT IS FOR EDUCATION OR ENTERTAINMENT. HOWEVER, NEW ORLEANS REGULATES TOUR GUIDES IN A WAY THAT IT WOULD NEVER REGULATE AN AUTHOR, SINGER, OR ANYONE ELSE WHO COMMUNICATES FOR A LIVING. THE CITY REQUIRES EVERY TOUR GUIDE TO PASS A HISTORY EXAM AS WELL AS UNDERGO A DRUG TEST AND AN FBI CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK EVERY TWO YEARS MERELY FOR SPEAKING. PEOPLE WHO GIVE TOURS WITHOUT A LICENSE FACE FINES AND EVEN JAIL TIME. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO BE THE FINAL ARBITER OF TRUTH BY DECIDING WHO DOES OR DOES NOT GET TO SPEAK ABOUT VARIOUS TOPICS, INCLUDING A CITY'S HISTORY AND CULTURE. VINDICATING THIS PRINCIPLE WILL HELP PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF COUNTLESS PEOPLE ACROSS THE COUNTRY WHO SPEAK FOR A LIVING-WHETHER THEY SPEAK AS NEWS REPORTERS, STAND-UP COMEDIANS, OR TOUR GUIDES. ROYALL V. MAIN IN JULY, IJ WON A VICTORY FOR A BRAVE AUTHOR WHO STOOD UP TO A POWERFUL DEVELOPER ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS. RESPECTED JOURNALIST CARLA MAIN AUTHORED THE BOOK BULLDOZED: "KELO," EMINENT DOMAIN, AND THE AMERICAN LUST FOR LAND IN 2007, WHICH CHRONICLED HOW THE CITY OF FREEPORT, TX, TOOK LAND AWAY FROM A GENERATIONS-OLD SHRIMPING BUSINESS AND GAVE IT TO A PRIVATE DEVELOPER SO HE COULD BUILD A LUXURY YACHT MARINA. FOLLOWING THE BOOK'S PUBLICATION, THE DEVELOPER LAUNCHED A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT AGAINST MAIN AND HER PUBLISHER, ACCUSING THEM OF DEFAMATION. HE ALSO SOUGHT TO PREVENT FURTHER DISTRIBUTION OF THE BOOK EVEN THOUGH HE COULDN'T FIND ONE FALSE OR DEFAMATORY STATEMENT WITHIN IT. MAIN TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO DEFEND HER FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, AND AFTER A LONG BATTLE, A UNANIMOUS TEXAS FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS RULED IN HER FAVOR. THE DECISION REAFFIRMS THAT CRITICISM OF PUBLIC PROJECTS IS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND THAT DEVELOPERS WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THOSE PROJECTS CANNOT HIDE BEHIND DEFAMATION LAW TO ESCAPE CRITICISM OVER THEIR ROLE. COMMUNITY YOUTH ATHLETIC CENTER V. NATIONAL CITY CARLOS BARRAGAN SR. AND HIS SON CARLOS JR. STARTED THE COMMUNITY YOUTH ATHLETIC CENTER (CYAC) IN 1991 TO MENTOR LOCAL AT-RISK CHILDREN AND PREVENT THEM FROM BEING LOST TO THE STREETS, OR EVEN PRISON. THROUGH THE GENEROSITY OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, THE GYM SOON EXPANDED FROM THE PUNCHING BAG THE BARRAGANS HUNG IN THEIR BACKYARD TO A MODEST BUILDING IN DOWNTOWN NATIONAL CITY, CA. 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. IN WHAT THE WALL STREET JOURNAL TERMED "A MAJOR VICTORY FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS," WE DEFEATED THE PLAN IN THE SPRING OF 2010 AND SET IMPORTANT PROPERTY RIGHTS PRECEDENT IN CALIFORNIA IN THE PROCESS. BUT NATIONAL CITY APPEALED THE RULING, SENDING US BACK TO COURT TO DEFEND OUR CLIENTS' RIGHT TO THEIR PROPERTY.
	NUNEZ V. NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THIS CASE WAS RELATED TO THE COMMUNITY YOUTH ATHLETIC CENTER CASE ABOVE. UNDER CALIFORNIA'S OPEN MEETING LAW, CALLED THE BROWN ACT, LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODIES ARE REQUIRED TO POST AN AGENDA WITH A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF EACH ITEM OF BUSINESS THEY PLAN TO DISCUSS AND ACT ON AT THE MEETING. THIS LAW IS INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT INTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO MAY BE IMPACTED BY DECISIONS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE AND COMMENT AT PUBLIC MEETINGS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS. THE NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION VIOLATED THE BROWN ACT WHEN IT FAILED TO DESCRIBE ON THE AGENDA FOR ITS MAY 16, 2011, MEETING ALL THE DOCUMENTS IT INTENDED TO DISCUSS AND PASS. WE FILED A LAWSUIT IN CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, WHICH ENJOINED THE CITY FROM USING THE LAND USE CHANGES DISCUSSED AND ADOPTED AT THAT MEETING FOR ANY REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. THE CASE IS NOW CLOSED. 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, MN. 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 THEIR NEIGHBORS WITH PERMITS LIVE IN THEIR HOMES AND DON'T RENT THEM OUT. AS A RESULT, THE ABILITY TO EXERCISE A FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTY RIGHT IN WINONA IS BASED ON AN ARBITRARY GOVERNMENT STANDARD THAT DEPENDS SOLELY ON LUCK-WHETHER A PERSON BOUGHT THE RIGHT PROPERTY ON THE RIGHT BLOCK. UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T ARBITRARILY RESTRICT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF SOME BUT NOT OTHERS. A VICTORY AGAINST THE CITY OF WINONA WILL SEND A MESSAGE TO CITIES ACROSS MINNESOTA AND NATIONWIDE THAT RENTAL BANS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND NO CITY SHOULD ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE THEM. MCCAUGHTRY V. CITY OF RED WING ROBERT MCCAUGHTRY AND A UNIQUE COALITION OF TENANTS AND LANDLORDS FROM RED WING, MN, 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-INCLUDING BEDROOMS, CLOSETS, AND BATHROOMS-OF A PERSON'S HOME. HOWEVER, THIS IS AN UNREASONABLE, AND THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, USE OF GOVERNMENT POWER BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO VIOLATE INDIVIDUALS' PROPERTY AND PRIVACY RIGHTS WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, GIVING ORDINARY LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS LESS PROTECTION THAN CRIMINALS. ALL THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO DO TO ENTER A HOME UNDER THE LAW IS MERELY ASSERT THAT IT HAS A CITYWIDE INSPECTION PROGRAM AND THERE ARE SOME HOUSING PROBLEMS SOMEWHERE IN THE CITY. A STATE COURT OF APPEALS SAID THAT THE MINNESOTA CONSTITUTION ALLOWS THESE TYPES OF SEARCHES, BUT WE ARE APPEALING TO THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO VINDICATE OUR CLIENTS' RIGHTS ON THIS TIMELY AND IMPORTANT ISSUE. STATE OF TEXAS V. ONE 2004 CHEVROLET SILVERADO CIVIL ASSET 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 CAR UNTIL HE WAS PAID IN FULL. THE PURCHASER WAS FOUND GUILTY IN JULY 2009 OF DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, AND TEXAS POLICE SEIZED THE CAR AND FILED A CIVIL FORFEITURE ACTION: STATE OF TEXAS V. ONE 2004 CHEVROLET SILVERADO. EVEN THOUGH ALI STILL HOLDS THE TITLE TO THE CAR AND HAS NEVER BEEN ACCUSED OF BREAKING ANY LAWS, HE IS REQUIRED TO PETITION THE COURT TO GET HIS TRUCK BACK. IN THE COURT PROCEEDINGS, THE BURDEN IS ON HIM, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, TO TRY TO GET HIS RIGHTFULLY OWNED PROPERTY BACK, BECAUSE WITH CIVIL FORFEITURE, YOUR PROPERTY IS GUILTY UNTIL YOU CAN PROVE IT INNOCENT. WE FILED OUR LEGAL CHALLENGE IN APRIL 2010 AND CURRENTLY ARE ON APPEAL TO THE 14TH COURT OF APPEALS IN HOUSTON. NIEHAUS V. HUPPENTHAL THIS IS A CHALLENGE BY THE ARIZONA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION TO ARIZONA'S INNOVATIVE EDUCATIONAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT PROGRAM, WHICH IJ HELPED TO PASS IN THE SPRING OF 2011. PARENTS OF SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN IN ARIZONA WHO FEEL THEIR CHILD IS NOT RECEIVING AN ADEQUATE EDUCATION IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL CAN APPLY FOR AN EMPOWERMENT SCHOLARSHIP ACCOUNT. WITH THE FUNDS DEPOSITED BY THE STATE INTO THE ACCOUNT, PARENTS CAN CHOOSE A WIDE VARIETY OF EDUCATIONAL OPTIONS FOR THEIR CHILDREN, INCLUDING TUTORING, HOME SCHOOL CURRICULUM, PRIVATE SCHOOL TUITION, AND TEXTBOOKS. THIS INNOVATIVE PROGRAM IS THE FIRST OF ITS KIND, AND BECAUSE IT ALLOWS PARENTS TO CUSTOMIZE THE EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE THEIR CHILD RECEIVES, IT IN NO WAY BENEFITS INSTITUTIONS AS OUR OPPONENTS ALLEGE. THIS PAST SPRING, IJ PLAYED AN INTEGRAL ROLE IN HELPING TO EXPAND THE PROGRAM TO INCLUDE CHILDREN OF ACTIVE MILITARY MEMBERS, STUDENTS IN FAILING PUBLIC SCHOOLS OR SCHOOL DISTRICTS, AND CHILDREN ADOPTED OUT OF THE STATE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM STARTING IN THE 2013-14 SCHOOL YEAR. MORE THAN 230,000 CHILDREN WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE WHEN THE PROGRAM EXPANSION GOES INTO EFFECT. WE WON THE CASE AT THE TRIAL COURT IN JANUARY, BUT OUR OPPONENTS APPEALED, SO WE CONTINUE TO DEFEND THE PROGRAM ON BEHALF OF FAMILIES WHO WISH TO USE THE SCHOLARSHIPS. LARUE V. COLORADO BOARD OF EDUCATION WE ALSO CONTINUE TO STAND UP FOR PARENTS AND CHILDREN IN DOUGLAS COUNTY, CO. 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 THE SCHOOL BOARD, SCHOOL DISTRICT, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, AND THE STATE SCHOOL BOARD IN TWO SEPARATE LAWSUITS TO STOP THE PROGRAM. IJ INTERVENED TWO DAYS LATER REPRESENTING FOUR FAMILIES WHO INTEND TO USE THE SCHOLARSHIPS FOR THEIR CHILDREN. THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THIS 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 THE PROGRAM. THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT EVEN IN WELL-RUN DISTRICTS WITH EFFECTIVE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF PARENTS CAN BE DISSATISFIED WITH THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OR SIMPLY WANT ADDITIONAL CHOICES FOR THEIR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION. AMICUS IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED CASES, THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE ALSO FILED AMICUS BRIEFS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES BETWEEN JULY 1, 2011 AND JUNE 30, 2012: ARMOUR V. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS BLUMEN V. FEC COLORADO COMMON CAUSE V. GESSLER MISSISSIPPI INITIATIVE 31 SACKETT V. EPA SERRONE V. CITY OF NEW YORK U.S. DEP'T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVS. V. FLORIDA
SCHEDULE B, PART II, COLUMN A, ROW 7	300 SHS. NABORS INDUSTRIES LTD 161 SHS. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY PLC 500 SHS. AT&T INC 250 SHS. ALCOA INC 500 SHS. ALTRIA GROUP INC 20,000 SHS. AMERICAN GEN FIN 12,500 SHS. AMERICAN INTL GROUP INC 70 SHS. APACHE CORP 200 SHS. ASTRAZENECA 78 SHS. AVERY DENNISON CORP 100 SHS. BP PLC 150 SHS. CPFL ENERGIA 12,500 SHS. CAMPBELL SOUP CO 100 SHS. CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS CO 4 SHS. CEMEX S.A.B. DE 1,969 SHS. CENTRAL FUND OF CANADA 200 SHS. CHEVRON CORP 77 SHS. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO 200 SHS. DOVER CORP 285 SHS. ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PPTNS LP 100 SHS. EXXON MOBIL CORP 10,000 SHS. FEDERAL NATL MTG 828 SHS. SPARTAN INTL INDEX 369,364 SHS. FIDELITY 10,000 SHS. FORD MOTOR 20,000 SHS. GENERAL ELECTRIC 5,200 SHS. GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC 30 SHS. GRAINGER WW INC 85 SHS. HESS CORP 3,600 SHS. MARSHALL & ILSLEY 100 SHS. MAGYAR TELEKOM TELECOMMUNICATIONS 12,500 SHS. MERRILL LYNCH & CO 300 SHS. MICROSOFT CORP 80 SHS. MONSANTO CO 200 SHS. MORGAN STANLEY ASIA PACIFIC FUND 10,000 SHS. MORGAN STANLEY GLBL SB NT 4.75% 75 SHS. OSI SYSTEMS INC 100 SHS. OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP 95 SHS. PETROCHINA CO 145 SHS. PETROLEO BRASILEIRO 100 SHS. PHILLIP MORRIS INTL INC 10,000 SHS. REGIONS FINANCIAL CORP 250 SHS. ROYAL DUTCH SHELL 64 SHS. SCHLUMBERGER LIMITED 300 SHS. SUNCOR ENERGY 316 SHS. EASTERN EUROPEAN FUND	DESCRIPTION OF NONCASH PROPERTY GIVEN