2013-02-14T09:35:04-06:00 2012-06-30 521186096 RUBINO & COMPANY CHARTERED 6903 ROCKLEDGE DRIVE SUITE 1200 BETHESDA MD 20817 990 2011-07-01 521744337 INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE INST 7036829320 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD NO 900 ARLINGTON VA 22203 WILLIAM H MELLOR 7036829320 2013-02-07 1 JENNY E HERRERA CPA P00252755 3015643636 2011 2016-03-07 17:11:31Z WILLIAM H MELLOR 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD NO 900 ARLINGTON VA 22203 20618817 0 X WWW.IJ.ORG X 1991 DC TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERICANS. 10 9 89 25 0 0 18305447 18582104 455078 1117146 50190 81986 0 0 18810715 19781236 0 0 0 0 6773449 8023101 14568 11793 886120 4131802 4547644 10919819 12582538 7890896 7198698 28922117 36118336 534917 629471 28387200 35488865 X 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. 0 0 10514435 1117146 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. 10514435 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 0 1 47 0 1 89 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 AL AK AZ CO CT FL KS KY ME MD MA MI MN MS NH NJ NM NC ND OH OK OR PA RI IN UT WA WV WI NY SC VA IL MO X X STEVEN ANDERSON 7036829320 901 NORTH GLEBE RD SUITE 900 ARLINGTON VA 22203 WILLIAM H MELLOR 40.00 X X 449739 0 64392 DAVID B KENNEDY 1.00 X 0 0 0 ROBERT A LEVY 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 DEBORAH SIMPSON 40.00 X 181498 0 25276 STEVEN ANDERSON 40.00 X 158843 0 26031 JOHN KRAMER 40.00 X 235450 0 47976 BETH STEVENS 40.00 X 172960 0 28304 SCOTT BULLOCK 40.00 X 202375 0 31801 DANA BERLINER 40.00 X 202491 0 32406 CLARK NEILY 40.00 X 171374 0 30596 STEVEN SIMPSON 40.00 X 194226 0 43049 JEFFREY ROWES 40.00 X 161230 0 26328 2130186 0 356159 19 0 1 0 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 2 18582104 1340419 18582104 ATTORNEY FEES 541100 1112935 1112935 HONORARIA 541900 4211 4211 1117146 85201 85201 834366 837581 -3215 -3215 -3215 19781236 1117146 0 81986 1519818 1227345 112022 180451 5216925 4671995 336013 208917 486985 422181 37294 27510 378811 322180 31088 25543 420562 370470 27323 22769 259813 242044 17769 88265 88265 11793 11793 702228 502336 173064 26828 47640 47040 600 1043003 621733 180586 240684 41645 24912 6950 9783 1081321 922305 80705 78311 507832 481147 17413 9272 340701 331185 7286 2230 2887 2887 315845 263965 29595 22285 116464 63597 51492 1375 12582538 10514435 1181983 886120 2671 2671 8422975 12483015 6497701 5681940 10577 10915 164356 184824 2733283 1860912 950533 872371 12796013 16817294 77291 65306 28922117 36118336 298012 395922 236905 233549 534917 629471 X 20131411 28620247 8255789 6868618 28387200 35488865 28922117 36118336 X 7198698 -97033 X X 0 1 1 X 0 X 8986386 15666509 12109095 18305447 18582104 73649541 8986386 15666509 12109095 18305447 18582104 73649541 16247894 57401647 482173 385623 181289 54026 85201 1188312 74837853 3652826 0.76700 0.79450 X RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED 12261 20169 32430 12550108 12582538 779127 194782 0 0 633515 623427 695991 779127 2732060 4098090 66099 39007 52876 32430 190412 158379 155857 173998 194782 683016 1024524 30753 7840 10693 12261 61547 1227279 928657 298622 1506004 932255 573749 872371 DEFERRED RENT 198862 CAPITAL LEASE LIABILITY 34687 233549 19781236 12582538 7198698 -97033 -97033 7101665 19684203 -97033 -97033 19781236 0 19781236 12582538 0 12582538 0 12582538 X X X X X 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 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 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. STEVEN SIMPSON HUSBAND OF DEBORAH SIMPSON, MANAGING VP & SECRETARY 237275 REGULAR EMPLOYEE OF THE INSTITUTE 0 X 25 1340419 FMV 0 1 1 THIRD PARTY USE: PART I, LINE 32B: THE INSTITUTE WILL UTILIZE 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 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. CHANGES IN NET ASSETS OR FUND BALANCES: FORM 990, PART XI, LINE 5: NET UNREALIZED LOSSES ON INVESTMENTS: -97,033. 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 DESCRIPTION OF NONCASH PROPERTY GIVEN 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