2011-02-14T15:02:19-06:00 2010-06-30 RUBINO & MCGEEHIN CHARTERED 6903 ROCKLEDGE DRIVE SUITE 1200 BETHESDA MD 20817 990 2009-07-01 521744337 INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE INST 7036829320 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD ARLINGTON VA 22203 WILLIAM H MELLOR 7036829320 2011-02-11 1 JENNY E HERRERA CPA 3015643636 2009 2016-02-24 21:20:13Z WILLIAM H MELLOR 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD ARLINGTON VA 22203 13515699 0 X WWW.IJ.ORG X 1991 DC TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERICANS. 10 9 89 25 0 0 15666509 12109095 716558 820003 -6190699 49786 -29170 -22352 10163198 12956532 0 0 6099486 6100673 13419 14406 857851 3393814 3191321 9506719 9306400 656479 3650132 17239536 20942921 502043 527371 16737493 20415550 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 7545759 820003 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. 7545759 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 36 0 1 89 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 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 X STEVEN ANDERSON 7036829320 901 NORTH GLEBE RD SUITE 900 ARLINGTON VA 22203 WILLIAM H MELLOR 40.00 X X 439475 0 62829 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 MARK BABUNOVIC 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 DEBORAH SIMPSON 40.00 X 173410 0 23847 STEVEN ANDERSON 40.00 X 123828 0 21310 JOHN KRAMER 40.00 X 214963 0 41829 BETH STEVENS 40.00 X 161660 0 28543 SCOTT BULLOCK 40.00 X 172745 0 29077 DANA BERLINER 40.00 X 176015 0 29780 CLARK NEILY 40.00 X 163953 0 27624 STEVE SIMPSON 40.00 X 172544 0 37633 ROBERT GALL 40.00 X 127412 0 23582 1926005 0 326054 14 0 1 0 0 12109095 546776 12109095 ATTORNEY FEES 541100 796507 796507 HONORARIA 541900 15949 15949 MISCELLANEOUS 541900 7547 7547 820003 41507 41507 139782 162134 -22352 -22352 -22352 405312 397033 8279 8279 8279 12956532 820003 0 27434 1310523 976417 143361 190745 3884819 3456027 284052 144740 326290 282838 33540 9912 255385 211652 28400 15333 323656 274147 29786 19723 227439 212905 15 14519 56664 56664 14406 14406 241651 217729 8015 15907 26219 26194 25 893224 482758 103369 307097 5406 2868 2061 477 856661 671294 107745 77622 316181 301501 4454 10226 56768 49815 4985 1968 5903 5903 348051 280817 42528 24706 86277 58505 26769 1003 MISCELLANEOUS 70877 40292 21143 9442 9306400 7545759 902790 857851 2671 2671 1849539 6267612 3711305 3066919 15296 23957 109001 164179 2030078 1535074 699514 495004 10826656 10897025 25554 25554 17239536 20942921 237153 263641 264890 263730 502043 527371 X 10649593 15276961 6087900 5138589 16737493 20415550 17239536 20942921 X 0 1 1 X 0 X 7458731 8481530 8986386 15666509 12109095 52702251 7458731 8481530 8986386 15666509 12109095 52702251 6742254 45959997 306816 397121 482173 385623 181289 1753022 54455273 2384502 0.84400 0.85050 X RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED 7840 31167 39007 9429527 9468534 623427 155857 0 0 584089 597302 633515 623427 2438333 3657500 71721 37102 66099 39007 213929 146022 149326 158379 155857 609584 914376 15762 5335 30753 7840 59690 907333 819698 87635 1122745 715376 407369 0 495004 DEFERRED RENT 216475 CAPITAL LEASE LIABILITY 47255 263730 12956532 9306400 3650132 27925 27925 3678057 13146591 27925 27925 13118666 -162134 -162134 12956532 9468534 162134 162134 9306400 0 9306400 Part XII, Line 4b - Other Adjustments: SUBLEASE EXPENSES - MAIN OFFICE Part XIII, Line 2d - Other Adjustments: SUBLEASE EXPENSES - MAIN OFFICE X X X X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 WILLIAM H MELLOR 359475 0 80000 0 0 0 49000 0 13829 0 502304 0 0 0 DEBORAH SIMPSON 158410 0 15000 0 0 0 23527 0 320 0 197257 0 0 0 JOHN KRAMER 199963 0 15000 0 0 0 28000 0 13829 0 256792 0 0 0 BETH STEVENS 151660 0 10000 0 0 0 23361 0 5182 0 190203 0 0 0 SCOTT BULLOCK 172745 0 0 0 0 0 23879 0 5198 0 201822 0 0 0 DANA BERLINER 176015 0 0 0 0 0 24582 0 5198 0 205795 0 0 0 CLARK NEILY 163953 0 0 0 0 0 22398 0 5226 0 191577 0 0 0 STEVE SIMPSON 167544 0 5000 0 0 0 23867 0 13766 0 210177 0 0 0 ROBERT GALL 127412 0 0 0 0 0 18404 0 5178 0 150994 0 0 0 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. STEVE SIMPSON HUSBAND OF DEBORAH SIMPSON, MANAGING VP & SECRETARY 210177 REGULAR EMPLOYEE OF THE INSTITUTE 0 X 11 546776 FMV 0 1 1 Third Party Use: Part I, Line 32b: THE INSTITUTE HAS A BROKERAGE ACCOUNT TO FACILITATE THE SALE OF DONATED STOCK. 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. 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 FORM 990 FOR SIMILARLY SITUATED NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. THE CFO ALSO 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 IS 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 IS AVAILABLE ON THE GUIDESTAR WEBSITE. FORM 990, PART XI, 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 GARRIOTT V. WINN THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE IS HEADED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT FOR THE FOURTH TIME IN NINE YEARS. AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS A LONGSTANDING INDIVIDUAL TAX-CREDIT PROGRAM IN ARIZONA THAT ENCOURAGES INDIVIDUALS TO DONATE TO ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE PRIVATE-SCHOOL SCHOLARSHIPS TO LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME CHILDREN TO ENABLE THEM TO ESCAPE THE FAILING SCHOOLS TO WHICH THEY'VE BEEN RELEGATED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND ATTEND THE SCHOOLS THEIR PARENTS HAVE CHOSEN FOR THEM. IJ IS DEFENDING ARIZONA PARENTS AND CHILDREN WHO BENEFIT FROM THE SCHOLARSHIPS, AS WELL AS THE ARIZONA SCHOOL CHOICE TRUST, A SCHOLARSHIP-GRANTING ORGANIZATION. ALONG WITH OUR ALLIES, WE ARE ASKING THE COURT TO REVERSE AN UNFAVORABLE NINTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION SAYING THE ARIZONA PROGRAM IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE FEDERAL ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE. THE PLAINTIFFS, REPRESENTED BY THE ACLU OF ARIZONA, CLAIM THAT THE STATE, BY GIVING TAXPAYERS THE CHOICE TO DONATE TO BOTH RELIGIOUS AND NONRELIGIOUS SCHOOL TUITION ORGANIZATIONS, IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ADVANCING RELIGION BECAUSE MOST TAXPAYERS SO FAR HAVE CHOSEN TO DONATE TO RELIGIOUSLY AFFILIATED SCHOLARSHIP ORGANIZATIONS. OUR ARGUMENT IS IN LINE WITH OUR PREVIOUS VICTORY FOR SCHOOL CHOICE AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS: ARIZONA STRUCTURED ITS TAX CREDIT PROGRAM TO BE COMPLETELY NEUTRAL WITH REGARD TO RELIGION. NEITHER TAXPAYERS NOR PARENTS HAVE ANY FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO DONATE TO A RELIGIOUSLY AFFILIATED SCHOLARSHIP ORGANIZATION OVER A NONRELIGIOUS SCHOLARSHIP ORGANIZATION, OR TO SELECT RELIGIOUS OVER NONRELIGIOUS SCHOOLS. CONSISTENT WITH THE UNIQUE APPROACH TO PUBLIC INTEREST LAW THAT WE'VE HONED OVER THE PAST 19 YEARS, THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE IS LITIGATING THIS CASE BOTH IN COURT AND IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION. ALREADY THIS YEAR, WE EARNED A GEORGE F. WILL COLUMN, "SLOW LEARNERS AT THE 9TH CIRCUIT", AS WELL AS AN OP-ED BY ONE OF OUR CLIENTS IN THE WASHINGTON TIMES. OTHER COVERAGE OF THE CASE INCLUDED THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, LOS ANGELES TIMES, NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL, AND NUMEROUS BLOGS THAT THE COURT'S CLERKS READ, INCLUDING THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY, SCOTUSBLOG, AND CATO INSTITUTE'S BLOG. THE CASE WILL BE ARGUED IN THE FALL OF 2010 AND WE EXPECT A DECISION IN EARLY 2011. MPLS TAXI OWNERS COALITION V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, A NEW STAR TAXI, INC. INTERVENOR IN THE SUMMER OF 2009 THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE CELEBRATED OUR SECOND FEDERAL APPEALS COURT VICTORY FOR ECONOMIC LIBERTY WHEN THE EIGHTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED A LOWER COURT RULING PROTECTING IJ-LED REFORMS TO MINNEAPOLIS' TAXI MARKET. THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE'S MINNESOTA CHAPTER INTERVENED IN THE CASE IN 2007 ON THE SIDE OF THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS TO DEFEND ITS FREE-MARKET REFORMS THAT REMOVED A CAP ON THE NUMBER OF TAXIS ALLOWED TO OPERATE WITHIN CITY LIMITS. IN RESPONSE TO THE FREE-MARKET AND CONSUMER-FRIENDLY REFORMS, THE ESTABLISHED TAXICAB CARTEL SUED THE CITY, CLAIMING IT HAD A "RIGHT" TO THE PROFITS IT MADE UNDER THE OLD LAW, WHICH EXCLUDED NEW COMPETITORS FROM THE MARKET. IF THE CARTEL'S ARGUMENTS HAD PREVAILED, ANY TIME THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT TO EASE ENTRY INTO AN OCCUPATION, IT WOULD BE FINANCIALLY LIABLE TO THOSE THAT PROFITED FROM THE ARTIFICIAL BARRIERS ONCE PROTECTING INDUSTRY INSIDERS. THE CARTEL APPEALED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, BUT ITS PETITION WAS DENIED, SO OUR VICTORY STANDS. THE DECISION WILL RESONATE BEYOND MINNEAPOLIS AND GIVES US A STRONG POSITION TO CONTINUE ADVANCING THE BALL FOR ECONOMIC LIBERTY ACROSS THE COUNTRY. CITY OF LONG BRANCH V. BROWER, ET AL. AFTER YEARS OF FIGHTING IN COURT AND THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, HOMEOWNERS IN LONG BRANCH, NEW JERSEY'S "MTOTSA" NEIGHBORHOOD ARE FINALLY SAFE IN THEIR HOMES. UNDER THE TERMS OF AN ORDER SIGNED IN COURT IN SEPTEMBER 2009 THAT WAS NEGOTIATED FOR MONTHS BY INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE ATTORNEYS, THE CITY MUST DISMISS THE EMINENT DOMAIN ACTIONS FILED AGAINST THE HOMEOWNERS THAT WOULD HAVE RAZED THEIR EXISTING, WELL-MAINTAINED HOMES TO MAKE WAY FOR LUXURY CONDOMINIUMS. (MTOTSA IS AN ACRONYM FOR THE STREETS MARINE TERRACE, OCEAN TERRACE AND SEAVIEW AVENUETHE OCEANFRONT NEIGHBORHOOD TARGETED BY THE CITY.) IN AUGUST 2008, IJ SECURED A RESOUNDING LEGAL VICTORY IN THE CASE WHEN A THREE-JUDGE PANEL OF THE NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION UNANIMOUSLY REVERSED THE 2006 DECISION OF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE LAWRENCE LAWSON, WHICH HAD ALLOWED LONG BRANCH TO CONDEMN THE MTOTSA HOMES. AFTER THE CASE WAS SENT BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT, THE CITY ANNOUNCED THAT IT WAS WILLING TO DROP THE EMINENT DOMAIN ACTIONS, SO THE PARTIES BEGAN DISCUSSING HOW TO RESOLVE THE REMAINING ISSUES IN THE CASE, LEADING TO THE AGREEMENT REACHED IN SEPTEMBER 2009. THIS IS A KEY VICTORY FOR HOMEOWNERS IN NEW JERSEY. ALTHOUGH 43 OTHER STATES HAVE REFORMED THEIR EMINENT DOMAIN LAWS IN THE WAKE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S INFAMOUS DECISION IN KELO V. CITY OF NEW LONDON, THE NEW JERSEY LEGISLATURE HAS YET TO ACT. NEW JERSEY COURTS, HOWEVER, HAVE STARTED TO REIN IN EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE FOR PRIVATE GAIN AND WE'RE PROUD TO STAND SHOULDER-TO-SHOULDER WITH HOMEOWNERS IN THE STATE TO STRENGTHEN PROPERTY RIGHTS AS THE FOUNDERS INTENDED. MCCOMISH V. BENNETT IN ANOTHER CASE PRIMED TO GO ALL THE WAY TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, IJ IS CHALLENGING ARIZONA'S SO-CALLED "CLEAN ELECTIONS ACT." WE SEEK TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS TO SPEAK FREELY DURING POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS. ARIZONA'S SCHEME OF PUBLICLY FINANCING ELECTIONS THREATENS TO DROWN OUT THE VOICES OF INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS WHO WISH TO SUPPORT PRIVATELY FINANCED CANDIDATES WHO RUN AGAINST TAXPAYER-FUNDED CANDIDATES. IF A GROUP MAKES AN INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE IN FAVOR OF A PRIVATELY FUNDED CANDIDATE, THE UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS AT THE CLEAN ELECTIONS COMMISSION DOLE OUT DOLLAR-FOR-DOLLAR "MATCHING FUNDS" TO THE PUBLICLY FUNDED CANDIDATE. THAT MEANS THAT FOR EVERY DOLLAR AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP SPENDS TO SUPPORT THE CANDIDATE OF THEIR CHOICE, THE GOVERNMENT PAYS AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF MONEY TO THE POLITICAL COMPETITION. THIS CHILLS POLITICAL SPEECH. WE ORIGINALLY FILED THE LAWSUIT IN 2004 AND IN THE FALL OF 2008 TEAMED UP WITH THE PHOENIX-BASED GOLDWATER INSTITUTE TO REINVIGORATE OUR CHALLENGE. IN JANUARY 2010 A DISTRICT JUDGE ISSUED AN ORDER STRIKING DOWN THE MATCHING FUNDS PROVISION. THE STATE APPEALED TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT, AND ASKED THE COURT TO STOP THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION FROM TAKING EFFECT. THE NINTH CIRCUIT GRANTED BOTH REQUESTS AND ISSUED A UNANIMOUS OPINION REVERSING THE DISTRICT COURT IN MAY 2010. BOTH IJ AND GOLDWATER WILL ASK THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW THE RULING. IN ADDITION, BOTH IJ AND GOLDWATER ASKED THE SUPREME COURT TO PREVENT THE STATE FROM ISSUING MATCHING FUNDS IN THE 2010 ELECTION SEASON, AND, IN A VERY ENCOURAGING MOVE, THE COURT GRANTED THE STAY. WE PLAN TO FILE OUR PETITION FOR REVIEW IN AUGUST 2010. OTHER FIRST AMENDMENT CASES SAMPSON V. BUESCHER IT TURNS OUT THAT IN AMERICA, CITIZENS NEED MORE THAN JUST AN OPINION TO SPEAK OUT ABOUT POLITICS. TODAY, THEY ALSO NEED A LAWYER. THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT ABOUT WHO SHOULD BE ELECTED TO PUBLIC OFFICE, IS A FUNDAMENTAL AMERICAN RIGHT ESSENTIAL TO DEMOCRATIC DEBATE. SO TOO IS THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO BAND TOGETHER AND POOL THEIR RESOURCES TO MAKE THEIR ADVOCACY MORE EFFECTIVE. SADLY, NEARLY EVERY STATE IN THE NATION STRICTLY REGULATES AND EVEN PUNISHES POLITICAL SPEECH WITH SO-CALLED CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS THAT ERECT NEEDLESS BARRIERS. IN THIS CASE, WE REPRESENT SIX HOMEOWNERS IN THE DENVER SUBURB OF PARKER NORTH, WHO FIRST LEARNED ABOUT COLORADO'S CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS WHEN THEY ORGANIZED TO OPPOSE THE ANNEXATION OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD INTO THE ADJACENT TOWN OF PARKER. THE GROUP TALKED TO NEIGHBORS, CIRCULATED POSTCARDS, AND PLANTED YARD SIGNS. BUT IN COLORADO AND OTHER STATES, WHEN TWO OR MORE PEOPLE SPEND MORE THAN $200 TO SPEAK OUT ABOUT A BALLOT ISSUE, THEY MUST REGISTER WITH THE STATE AS AN "ISSUE COMMITTEE" AND COMPLY WITH RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT RIVAL THE TAX LAWS IN THEIR COMPLEXITY. ISSUE COMMITTEES MUST APPOINT A REGISTERED AGENT, OPEN SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNTS, AND DISCLOSE ALL CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES OF MORE THAN $20 FOR SUCH THINGS AS YARD SIGNS AND FLIERS. BECAUSE OUR CLIENTS FAILED TO REGISTER WITH THE GOVERNMENT BEFORE SPEAKING, THE PRINCIPAL PROPONENTS OF THE ANNEXATION USED COLORADO'S CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS TO SUE THEM. THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE FILED SUIT IN SEPTEMBER 2006 AGAINST THE COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING THE STATE'S CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS. IN SEPTEMBER 2008, THE TRIAL COURT ISSUED A MIXED DECISION THAT ESSENTIALLY AGREED WITH US THAT OUR CLIENTS' FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED, BUT FAILED TO STRIKE DOWN THE LAWS WE CHALLENGED. THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE STATE LAWS DO NOT APPLY TO ANNEXATION ELECTIONS UNTIL A NOTICE OF ELECTION IS PUBLISHED. IJ APPEALED THE DECISION TO THE TENTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. ORAL ARGUMENT WAS HELD IN NOVEMBER 2009 AND WE ARE WAITING FOR THE DECISION. INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE V. BUESCHER THIS CASE WAS ANOTHER FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS AS THEY APPLY TO BALLOT INITIATIVE CAMPAIGNS IN COLORADO. SPECIFICALLY, THE CASE DEALT WITH WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT COULD FORCE NONPROFIT GROUPS THAT ONLY OCCASIONALLY COMMENT ON BALLOT ISSUES TO REGISTER WITH THE STATE AND REPORT AS "ISSUE COMMITTEES." UNFORTUNATELY, WE LOST AT BOTH THE STATE TRIAL COURT AND THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS. THE COURT OF APPEALS ENTIRELY IGNORED A VERY FAVORABLE DECISION FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH RULED THAT A SIMILAR DEFINITION OF "POLITICAL COMMITTEE," WHICH USED THE PHRASE "A MAJOR PURPOSE" RATHER THAN "THE MAJOR PURPOSE," WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE AND OVERBROAD. THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT DENIED OUR PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, SO IN AUGUST 2009 WE FILED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THE SUPREME COURT DENIED THE PETITION, SO THIS CASE IS OVER. HOWEVER, WE HAVE THE SAMPSON V. BUESCHER CASE DESCRIBED ABOVE PENDING BEFORE THE TENTH CIRCUIT, AND A FAVORABLE RULING IN THAT CASE WOULD GIVE US ALL THE RELIEF WE SOUGHT IN THIS CASE AND MORE. MANY CULTURES, ONE MESSAGE V. CLEMENTS IN WASHINGTON STATE, WE REPRESENT TWO ORGANIZATIONS WITH DIVERSE POLICY CONCERNS-MANY CULTURES, ONE MESSAGE AND CONSERVATIVE ENTHUSIASTS-EACH FACING THE DILEMMA OF REGISTERING WITH THE GOVERNMENT OR HALTING THEIR EFFORTS TO URGE THEIR FELLOW WASHINGTONIANS INTO POLITICAL ACTION. IF ONE OF OUR CLIENTS, PAT MURAKAMI, SPENDS ABOVE A SMALL, STATE-IMPOSED CAP TO URGE HER FELLOW CITIZENS TO CONTACT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, SHE IS FORCED TO REGISTER WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND REPORT DETAILED PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT HERSELF, HER GROUP, AND THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT HER. IN OTHER WORDS, IF OUR CLIENTS SPEAK TOO MUCH ABOUT POLITICS, THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO KNOW ABOUT IT. MOREOVER, THE STATE DOES NOT MERELY COLLECT THIS INFORMATION, IT MAKES IT AVAILABLE TO ANYONE WITH ACCESS TO THE INTERNET. PEOPLES NAMES, ADDRESSES, BUSINESSES, AND OCCUPATIONS ARE PROVIDED TO THE WORLD BECAUSE THEY DARED TO EXERCISE THEIR FUNDAMENTAL FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. INCREASINGLY, AMERICANS IN THE 36 STATES THAT HAVE SIMILAR RULES DECIDE THE RISK AND BURDEN ARE TOO GREAT, AND THE SAFER THING TO DO IS AVOID SPEAKING ALTOGETHER. THAT IS WHY PAT AND THE REST OF OUR CLIENTS JOINED WITH THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE TO FILE THIS LEGAL CHALLENGE IN APRIL 2010. SPEECHNOW.ORG V. FEC IJ AND THE CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE POLITICS CELEBRATED A MAJOR VICTORY THIS SPRING REINING IN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REGULATION IN SPEECHNOW.ORG V. FEC. IN THIS CASE, WE REPRESENT INDIVIDUALS WHO FORMED SPEECHNOW.ORG TO ADVOCATE FOR OR AGAINST THE ELECTION OF FEDERAL CANDIDATES BASED ON THE CANDIDATES' STAND ON POLITICAL SPEECH. UNDER FEDERAL LAW, HOWEVER, SPEECHNOW.ORG WAS REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A "POLITICAL COMMITTEE", SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENT REGULATION AND LIMITS, SIMPLY TO SPEAK. SUCH A LAW MAKES IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR OUTSIDERS TO HAVE A SAY IN POLITICS AT A TIME WHEN IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT THESE VOICES ARE HEARD. IN MARCH, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT STRUCK DOWN GOVERNMENT-IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS ON PARTICIPATION IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS, AND RULED-UNANIMOUSLY-THAT LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY SPEECHNOW.ORG COULD RAISE FROM ITS DONORS VIOLATED THE FIRST AMENDMENT. UNFORTUNATELY, THE COURT ALSO UPHELD THE REQUIREMENT THAT SPEECHNOW.ORG BECOME A PAC IN ORDER TO OPERATE AND MAKE INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES. OUR CLIENTS AUTHORIZED US TO FILE A PETITION FOR REVIEW BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ON THE PORTION OF THE CASE THAT WE LOST IN THE D.C. CIRCUIT (THE CHALLENGE TO POLITICAL COMMITTEE REQUIREMENTS). WE WILL FILE THE PETITION IN EARLY JULY. REGARDLESS, THE VICTORY WE ACHIEVED IN MARCH CLEARS THE WAY FOR COUNTLESS SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS TO FORM AND SPEAK OUT IN THE 2010 ELECTIONS. NEIGHBORHOOD ENTERPRISES V. CITY OF ST. LOUIS IN A DOUBLE BLOW TO FREE SPEECH AND PROPERTY RIGHTS, THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS IS NOT ONLY THREATENING TO TAKE AN ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT WANTS TO CENSOR A POWERFUL AND HIGHLY VISIBLE MURAL THAT WAS PUT UP TO PROTEST THE CITY'S EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE AND BUILD SUPPORT FOR REFORM. FED UP WITH EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE ACROSS MISSOURI-AND AGAINST PROPERTIES HE OWNS AND MANAGES-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 WANTS THE MURAL TAKEN DOWN. IJ ARGUES 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. IN AUGUST 2008, A THREE-JUDGE PANEL OF THE EIGHTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REJECTED THE AGENCY'S BIZARRE CLAIM THAT IT COULD NOT BE SUED FOR VIOLATING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS BECAUSE IT HAD NO BUSINESS REGULATING SUCH SIGNS IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE RULING CLEARED THE WAY FOR A FREE SPEECH LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE ATTEMPTED CENSORSHIP TO PROCEED BEFORE THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, WHERE A SIMILAR CHALLENGE TO THE CITY'S EFFORT TO TAKE DOWN THE MURAL IS PENDING. IN MARCH 2010, THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE CITY AND BOARD'S REQUEST FOR "SUMMARY JUDGMENT" AND DENIED OURS. WE HAVE APPEALED TO THE EIGHTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND FILED OUR OPENING BRIEF THIS MONTH. ROYALL V. MAIN, ET AL. THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE REPRESENTS AUTHOR CARLA MAIN AND PUBLISHER ENCOUNTER FOR CULTURE AND EDUCATION IN THEIR DEFENSE OF A DEFAMATION ACTION FILED BY DALLAS-BASED DEVELOPER H. WALKER ROYALL OVER THE CONTENTS OF MAIN'S BOOK, BULLDOZED: "KELO," EMINENT DOMAIN, AND THE AMERICAN LUST FOR LAND. MAIN WROTE BULLDOZED TO DOCUMENT A CASE OF EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE IN FREEPORT, TEXAS. ROYALL WAS INVOLVED IN A DEAL WITH THE CITY TO TAKE LAND FROM THE GORE FAMILY, WHICH HAS OWNED A SHRIMP AND MARINE SUPPLY BUSINESS IN THE TOWN FOR GENERATIONS, AND GIVE IT TO ROYALL FOR A LUXURY MARINA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. ROYALL RESPONDED TO MAIN'S BOOK BY SUING HER AND HER PUBLISHER. HE ALSO SUED LAW PROFESSOR RICHARD EPSTEIN OVER A BLURB ON THE BACK COVER. IN MARCH 2009, WE WON THE DISMISSAL OF PROFESSOR EPSTEIN FROM THE LAWSUIT. WE THEN FILED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WHICH WAS DENIED. IN DECEMBER 2009 WE APPEALED THE DENIAL. TWO MEMBERS FROM OUR NETWORK OF IJ-TRAINED PRO-BONO ATTORNEYS ARE WRITING AMICUS BRIEFS IN THE APPELLATE COURT-THE PURPOSE OF BOTH IS TO MOTIVATE THE APPELLATE COURT TO GRAPPLE WITH THE LEGAL ISSUES OF THE CASE. APPELLATE BRIEFING WILL BE COMPLETED IN JULY 2010 AND WE EXPECT ORAL ARGUMENT IN THE FALL. GILLILAND, ET AL. V. CITY OF DALLAS THIS IS A CHALLENGE TO THE CITY OF DALLAS' BAN ON VIRTUALLY ALL COMMERCIAL WINDOW SIGNAGE. ANY SIGNS IN THE UPPER TWO-THIRDS OF ANY WINDOW, AND ALL SIGNS THAT COVER MORE THAN 15 PERCENT OF ANY WINDOW ARE FORBIDDEN. THIS RESTRICTION HAS NO HEALTH OR SAFETY JUSTIFICATION, BUT UNNECESSARILY STIFLES THE ABILITY OF MANY SMALL BUSINESSES TO ATTRACT NEW AND EVEN RETURNING CUSTOMERS. THIS CENSORSHIP FALLS HARDEST ON SMALL BUSINESSES FOR WHOM RETAIL SIGNS ARE THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE WAY-AND OFTEN THE ONLY WAY-TO REACH CUSTOMERS WITH NEWS ABOUT PRODUCTS, SERVICES, AND SPECIALS. SO THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE FILED A LAWSUIT IN NOVEMBER 2009 CHALLENGING THE ORDINANCE AS A VIOLATION OF BUSINESSES' FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE TRUTHFUL INFORMATION TO CONSUMERS. IN ORDER TO KEEP UP THE MOMENTUM IN THE CASE, WE HELD AN ACTIVISM DAY IN FEBRUARY IN WHICH MORE THAN 200 LOCAL BUSINESSES DISPLAYED A PROTEST SIGN IN THEIR WINDOWS. THE ONLY REASON THESE BUSINESSES WERE ALLOWED TO DISPLAY THE SIGN IS BECAUSE IT WAS POLITICAL SPEECH, NOT COMMERCIAL. WE USED A 52-SECOND VIDEO (LOCATED HERE: HTTP://WWW.IJ.ORG/3095) TO GENERATE INTEREST (THE VIDEO WAS THE #2 MOST-VIEWED VIDEO ON YOUTUBE IN THE NONPROFIT CATEGORY DURING ITS FIRST WEEK OF RELEASE). THE PROTEST WAS COVERED BY THE MAJOR TV AND PRINT OUTLETS IN DALLAS (FOX, NBC, ABC, UNIVISION, THE CW, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, DALLAS OBSERVER, KRLD AM RADIO) AS WELL AS NATIONAL OUTLETS LIKE REASON.COM, BIGGOVERNMENT.COM, AND INSTAPUNDIT. IN MAY, THE CITY FILED A MOTION TO SEEK $1,000 PER DAY IN CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST OUR CLIENTS WHILE THE CASE IS ONGOING. THIS GAVE US THE JUSTIFICATION WE NEEDED TO SEEK A "PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION" RULING FROM THE COURT PROHIBITING ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW WHILE THE CASE PROCEEDS. BRIEFING ON THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WILL BE COMPLETED NEXT MONTH. KALISH V. MILLIKEN IN LATE 2008, THE VIRGINIA AGENCY IN CHARGE OF HIGHER EDUCATION DECIDED THAT YOGA-TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAMS (COURSES THAT INSTRUCT STUDENTS ON HOW TO THEMSELVES TEACH YOGA CLASSES) FELL WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION. THERE HAD BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OF FRAUD OR PHYSICAL INJURY; THE AGENCY SIMPLY REALIZED THAT IT COULD REGULATE THIS ACTIVITY UNDER ITS STATUTE, SO IT CHOSE TO ACT. THE AGENCY SENT OUT A NUMBER OF LETTERS TELLING PROGRAMS THAT THEY HAD TO EITHER REGISTER WITH THE STATE OR SHUT DOWN. REGISTRATION IS VERY EXPENSIVE AND TIME CONSUMING: STUDIOS WOULD HAVE TO PAY AN INITIAL $2,500 APPLICATION FEE, ANNUAL DUES THAT RANGE FROM $500 TO $2,500, AND FILL OUT DOZENS OF HOURS OF PAPERWORK. THE YOGA PROGRAMS WOULD ALSO NEED TO CONVINCE THE REGULATORS THAT THEIR CURRICULUM IS OF SUFFICIENT "QUALITY." IMPOSING THESE HIGH FEES AND HEAVY BURDENS WOULD FORCE MANY SCHOOLS TO SHUT DOWN, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE MOST OF THEM TEACH ONLY A FEW DOZEN STUDENTS EACH YEAR. THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE CHALLENGED THESE REGULATIONS AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON FREE SPEECH AND ECONOMIC LIBERTY. THE THEORY BEHIND THE CASE IS SIMPLE: TEACHING IS SPEECH BETWEEN AN INSTRUCTOR AND HER STUDENTS. UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE GOVERNMENT CAN NO MORE FORCE YOGA TEACHERS TO GET PERMISSION TO SPEAK THAN IT CAN REQUIRE WRITERS TO GET PERMISSION BEFORE PUBLISHING A BOOK. OUR VIDEO DESCRIBING THE CASE (WWW.IJ.ORG/2997) HELPED US GENERATE SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION INCLUDING EDITORIALS IN THE WASHINGTON POST, LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, AND THE RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH, THE LARGEST PAPER IN VIRGINIA. THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN SO SUCCESSFUL IT WON THREE HONORS ON YOUTUBE IN ITS FIRST WEEK. IN RESPONSE TO OUR LAWSUIT AND THE ATTENTION IT GENERATED, IN THE SPRING OF 2010 THE VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE PASSED A LAW THAT EXEMPTS YOGA-INSTRUCTOR AND SIMILAR PROGRAMS FROM THE LAW. WE VERIFIED THAT OUR CLIENTS WOULD BE PROTECTED UNTIL THE LAW CAME INTO EFFECT AND THEN VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED THE CASE. TAIT V. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA IN THIS CASE, IJ REPRESENTS THREE PHILADELPHIA TOUR GUIDES IN A CHALLENGE TO A CITY ORDINANCE THAT MAKES IT ILLEGAL TO GIVE TOURS OF THE CITY WITHOUT FIRST PASSING A TEST AND OBTAINING A LICENSE-IN OTHER WORDS, MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO TALK ABOUT THE LIBERTY BELL WITHOUT FIRST GETTING THE GOVERNMENT'S PERMISSION. AT TRIAL, THE CITY MADE A STRENUOUS EFFORT TO PERSUADE THE JUDGE TO DISMISS THE CASE AS NO LONGER "RIPE" FOR ADJUDICATION, ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE CITY'S FINANCIAL-CRISIS-DRIVEN BUDGET PROBLEMS MEANT THAT IT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ENFORCE THE LAW ANYTIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE (EVEN THOUGH IT ABSOLUTELY INTENDS TO ENFORCE THE LAW AT SOME POINT). THE JUDGE AGREED WITH THEM, DISMISSING THE CASE IN AUGUST 2009. WE APPEALED THE DECISION AND COMPLETED BRIEFING IN MARCH 2010. WE EXPECT ORAL ARGUMENT BY EARLY 2011. OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS CASES BRODY V. PORT CHESTER AFTER NEARLY NINE YEARS, THIS CASE IS FINALLY FINISHED. IN JUNE 2009, WE NEGOTIATED A FAVORABLE SETTLEMENT ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENT, LOCAL BUSINESSMAN WILLIAM BRODY, WITH THE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER, NEW YORK, IN THE WAKE OF OUR 2008 FEDERAL COURT VICTORY. BRODY AND IJ HAD BEEN ENGAGED IN THE NEARLY DECADE-LONG EMINENT DOMAIN BATTLE WITH THE VILLAGE, WHICH TOOK BRODY'S PROPERTY FOR A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. BRODY FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE CONDEMNATION IN 2000, AND, FINALLY LAST YEAR, JUDGE HAROLD BAER, JR., OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ISSUED AN OPINION FINDING THAT THE CONDEMNATION VIOLATED BRODY'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. UNFORTUNATELY, THAT DECISION CAME TOO LATE TO SAVE BRODY'S BUILDING, BUT IN CLASSIC IJ FASHION THE BRODY LITIGATION HAS HAD WIDE-RANGING EFFECTS AROUND THE COUNTRY. COURTS IN BOTH NEW JERSEY AND HAWAII HAVE RELIED ON THE CASE TO REQUIRE GREATER PROTECTIONS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE THREATENED WITH EMINENT DOMAIN, INVALIDATING LEGAL REGIMES THAT MADE IT HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS. THE CASE HAS GENERATED OPINIONS THAT HAVE BEEN CITED IN CASES AND LEGAL TREATISES NATIONWIDE. THROUGH THIS CASE, IJ DEMONSTRATED TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT IF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE GOING TO MEAN ANYTHING, PEOPLE MUST HAVE A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTIONS IN COURT. PORT CHESTER NOW HAS SATISFIED EVERY CONDITION OF THE AGREEMENT, INCLUDING ISSUING A FULL PUBLIC APOLOGY TO BRODY FOR VIOLATING HIS RIGHTS AND RENAMING A NEARBY STREET CORNER "WILLIAM BRODY PLAZA" IN HONOR OF HIS LONG FIGHT TO PRESERVE HIS (AND OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS') CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. THE CASE IS NOW CLOSED. COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER V. CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, ET AL. IN THIS CASE, WE ARE SUING THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA, ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY ATHLETIC CENTER (CYAC), A SAFE HAVEN THAT PROVIDES AFTER-SCHOOL BOXING LESSONS FOR AT-RISK CHILDREN THAT IS BEING THREATENED BY EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE SO THAT A PRIVATE DEVELOPER CAN TEAR DOWN THE FACILITY TO MAKE WAY FOR LUXURY CONDOS. CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES ARE AMONG THE WORST ABUSERS OF EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. A WIN FOR OUR CLIENTS WOULD BE AN ENORMOUS VICTORY FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS. TRIAL IS SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 4, 2010. MCCAUGHTRY V. CITY OF RED WING (FORMERLY STEWART, ET AL. V. CITY OF RED WING) IN DECEMBER 2009, IJ'S CLIENTS AND ATTORNEYS CELEBRATED A VICTORY IN THE CITY OF RED WING, MINNESOTA, WHEN A STATE COURT DENIED THE CITY'S THIRD ATTEMPT TO RECEIVE JUDICIAL APPROVAL FOR ITS INSPECTION PROGRAM THAT REQUIRES LANDLORDS AND TENANTS TO OPEN THEIR DOORS AND SUBMIT TO INSPECTIONS OF THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY IN ORDER FOR THE LANDLORD TO RECEIVE A LICENSE TO RENT THE PROPERTY. THIS RULING VINDICATES WHAT WE'VE KNOWN ALL ALONGINSPECTION PROGRAMS LIKE RED WINGS THAT AUTHORIZE INVASIVE SEARCHES AND LACK BASIC MEANS OF ENSURING PEOPLES PRIVACY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SINCE NOVEMBER 2006, THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE MINNESOTA CHAPTER HAS REPRESENTED TENANTS AND LANDLORDS IN LITIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RED WING IN BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS. UNFORTUNATELY, THE COURT IN ITS RULING ALSO DISMISSED OUR LAWSUIT ON STANDING GROUNDS. THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO "IMMINENT INJURY" OF AN INVASIVE SEARCH UNTIL A WARRANT WAS ACTUALLY GRANTED BECAUSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE WARRANT PROCESS ENSURES THAT SEARCHES WILL NOT BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE COURT DID STRONGLY IMPLY, HOWEVER, THAT, WERE IT ABLE TO REACH THE MERITS OF OUR CLAIMS, IT WOULD RULE IN OUR FAVOR. WE APPEALED THE RULING, FULLY BRIEFED IT, AND INVITED THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS TO ADDRESS BOTH THE STANDING ISSUE AND THE MERITS OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS. THE COURT OF APPEALS WILL HEAR THE CASE ON JULY 21, 2010. METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY V. JOY FORD IN JUNE 2008, NASHVILLE'S REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("MDHA" AS ABOVE) FILED AN EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION AGAINST JOY FORD TO OBTAIN HER ENTIRE PARCEL OF LAND, INCLUDING THE BUILDING HOUSING HER FAMILYS DECADES-OLD MUSIC BUSINESS, COUNTRY INTERNATIONAL RECORDS, SO THAT IT COULD BE GIVEN TO A HOUSTON-BASED PRIVATE DEVELOPER TO CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE BUILDING. THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE CHALLENGED THE CONDEMNATION. UNDER PRESSURE, MDHA DROPPED ITS EMINENT DOMAIN SUIT AGAINST FORDS BUILDING BUT DEMANDED THAT SHE SETTLE BY GIVING UP VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE BACK PORTION OF HER LONG NARROW PARCEL OF PROPERTY. FORD REJECTED THIS DEMAND, BUT CAME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL: SHE WOULD EXCHANGE A PORTION OF THE BACK OF HER PROPERTY FOR MORE ACCESSIBLE LAND ON THE EAST SIDE OF HER BUILDING THAT WAS OWNED BY THE DEVELOPER. AFTER WEEKS OF INTENSE NEGOTIATIONS, THE DEVELOPER AGREED TO THE PROPOSAL. THE AGREEMENT IS SOLELY A SWAP OF LAND, AND FORD WILL NOT ONLY GET BETTER AND MORE ACCESSIBLE LAND, BUT EVEN MORE SQUARE FEET OF LAND NEXT TO HER BUILDING. NO MONEY WAS EXCHANGED AND THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE NEGOTIATIONS, DEMONSTRATING WHAT CAN HAPPEN IN DEVELOPMENT SITUATIONS WHEN GOVERNMENTS STAY OUT OF THE WAY. FINAL PAPERWORK EFFECTUATING THE LAND SWAP WAS FINALIZED IN AUGUST 2009. JOY FORD IS ELATED WITH THE AGREEMENT. AS SHE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS CONTROVERSY, HER BATTLE WAS NEVER ABOUT MONEY. IT WAS ABOUT PROTECTING HER RIGHTS AND KEEPING HER FAMILY'S LEGACY ON MUSIC ROW. NOW JOY WILL HAVE A BETTER AND MORE ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREA FOR HER CLIENTS' CARS, TRUCKS, AND BUSES WHEN THEY VISIT COUNTRY INTERNATIONAL. TEXAS CIVIL FORFEITURE THIS SPRING WE LAUNCHED A NEW NATIONWIDE CAMPAIGN TO REIN IN A GROWING THREAT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THIS COUNTRY: CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE ABUSE. CIVIL FORFEITURE LAWS ALLOW THE POLICE TO SEIZE ANY AMERICAN'S HOME, CAR, CASH, OR OTHER PROPERTY UPON THE MERE SUSPICION THAT IT HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. PERHAPS AN OFFICER THINKS THAT YOUR TRAVEL PATTERN IS "SUSPICIOUS" OR THAT YOU ARE CARRYING A LARGER-THAN-NORMAL AMOUNT OF CASH. POLICE CAN ACCUSE YOU OF SELLING DRUGS OR LAUNDERING MONEY AND SEIZE YOUR PROPERTY-NO CONVICTION OR EVEN ARREST REQUIRED. NOT SURPRISINGLY, ABUSE IS RAMPANT. OUR FIRST LAWSUIT IS IN TEXAS, WHICH HAS SOME OF THE WORST CIVIL FORFEITURE LAWS IN THE COUNTRY. OUR CLIENT IS 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 OF DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED IN JULY 2009, 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 NEGOTIATING WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE ON A NEW SCHEDULING ORDER IN THE CASE. OTHER ECONOMIC LIBERTY CASES BERGMANN V. CITY OF LAKE ELMO IN THIS CASE, THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE IS CHALLENGING A BAN PREVENTING FARMERS IN LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA, FROM SELLING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS THAT ARE NOT GROWN IN LAKE ELMO. IT HAS LONG BEEN UNDERSTOOD THAT A STATE OR LOCAL LAW THAT ALLOWS SALES OF LOCAL GOODS BUT FORBIDS OUT-OF-STATE OR OUT-OF-TOWN GOODS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE CITY JUSTIFIES THE RESTRICTION BY ARGUING THAT THIS IS A LAND-USE ISSUE, NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. OUR RESPONSE IS THAT DISCRIMINATION IS DISCRIMINATION, EVEN IF THE GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS TO WRAP IT INSIDE A ZONING LAW. OUR CLIENTS ARE THE BERGMANN FAMILY AND THREE OUT-OF-STATE FARMERS. THE BERGMANNS HAVE SOLD NON-LAKE ELMO PUMPKINS AND CHRISTMAS TREES, INCLUDING PUMPKINS THEY GROW ON LAND THEY OWN IN WISCONSIN, FROM THEIR FARM FOR OVER 25 YEARS. THE OUT-OF-STATE FARMERS ARE FROM NORTH CAROLINA, NEBRASKA, AND WISCONSIN. THEY SELL THE BERGMANNS PUMPKINS AND CHRISTMAS TREES, WHICH ARE THEN RESOLD TO THE PUBLIC. WE FILED THE CASE IN MAY 2010 AND RECEIVED A FLOOD OF MEDIA COVERAGE, INCLUDING OP-EDS AND NEWS STORIES IN THE MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE AND ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS, A STORY IN THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL, COVERAGE ON THE LOCAL NBC AND ABC AFFILIATES, AND POSTS ONLINE ON, AMONG OTHER OUTLETS, NATIONAL REVIEW'S "THE CORNER" AND REASON'S "HIT AND RUN." THE DISTRICT COURT HAS SET A HEARING FOR JULY 2010, DURING WHICH WE WILL ASK THE COURT TO FIND THAT WE LIKELY WILL PREVAIL ON OUR CLAIM THAT THE BAN ON SELLING NON-LAKE ELMO GOODS VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT OUR CLIENTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SELL NON-LAKE ELMO PUMPKINS AND CHRISTMAS TREES WHILE THE CASE IS PENDING. BHANDARI V. NILSESTUEN IN THIS CASE, IJ SEEKS 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 IN THIS CASE, 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. WE HAVE FILED AN APPEAL OF THE STATE DECISION, BUT THAT APPEAL IS CURRENTLY STAYED WHILE WE SEE WHETHER THE FEDERAL INJUNCTION IS OVERTURNED BY A HIGHER COURT. BROWN, ET AL. V. HOVATTER, ET AL. IN THIS CASE WE CHALLENGED A MARYLAND LAW THAT ALLOWS ONLY STATE-LICENSED MORTICIANS TO OWN FUNERAL HOMES AND GENERALLY FORBIDS FUNERAL HOMES FROM BEING OWNED AS CORPORATIONS. DESPITE A DISTRICT COURT RULING DESCRIBING IT AS THE "MOST BLATANTLY ANTI-COMPETITIVE STATE FUNERAL REGULATION IN THE NATION," THE FOURTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE RULING. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO REVIEW THE FOURTH CIRCUIT'S RULING EVEN THOUGH IT WAS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT AND WITH CASE LAW IN SEVERAL OTHER CIRCUITS. WHILE THE CASE IS OVER, IT APPEARS THAT AT LEAST SOME OF OUR CLIENTS MAY TRY AGAIN TO PERSUADE THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO REPEAL THE LAW. CLEMENS V. MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINERS IN JUNE 2008 THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE FILED SUIT ON BEHALF OF MERCEDES CLEMENS, A MARYLAND RESIDENT WHO PRACTICES MASSAGE ON BOTH HUMANS AND ANIMALS. IN FEBRUARY 2008, CLEMENS WAS CONTACTED BY THE MARYLAND BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS-THE BOARD THAT LICENSES MASSAGE THERAPISTS WHO WORK ON HUMANS-AND THE MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINERS. ALTHOUGH CLEMENS HAS SPECIALIZED TRAINING IN ANIMAL MASSAGE AND IS A LICENSED MASSAGE THERAPIST, THESE BOARDS CONSIDER ANIMAL MASSAGE TO BE "THE PRACTICE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE." UNLESS CLEMENS RESTRICTS HER PRACTICE TO MASSAGING HUMANS, THE BOARDS THREATENED TO REVOKE HER MASSAGE-THERAPIST LICENSE AND CHARGE HER WITH THE UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, WHICH COULD SUBJECT HER TO THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN FINES. A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE VETERINARY BOARD EVEN THREATENED NON-VETERINARIANS WHO PRACTICE ANIMAL MASSAGE WITH CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. ANIMAL MASSAGE IS SAFE AND INVOLVES NO INVASIVE PROCEDURES OR MEDICATION. THE HANDS-ON TRAINING REQUIRED TO LEARN THE OCCUPATION CAN BE ACQUIRED IN A SHORT TIME AT ONE OF THE MANY PRIVATE SCHOOLS THAT TEACH ANIMAL MASSAGE, WITHOUT ATTENDING FOUR YEARS OF VETERINARY SCHOOL AND TAKING ON APPROXIMATELY $150,000 IN EDUCATIONAL DEBT. OUR SUIT CHALLENGES THESE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND ANTI-MONOPOLY PROVISIONS OF THE MARYLAND CONSTITUTION. AT ORAL ARGUMENT ON JULY 30, 2009, JUDGE DAVID BOYNTON OF THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT RULED THAT THE CHIROPRACTIC BOARD HAD NO AUTHORITY OVER THE PRACTICE OF ANIMAL MASSAGE AND HAD ACTED ILLEGALLY IN SHUTTING DOWN MS. CLEMENS' BUSINESS. THANKS TO THIS RULING, MS. CLEMENS HAS BEGUN REBUILDING HER PRACTICE AND RECONNECTING WITH HER FORMER CLIENTS. CHAUVIN V. STRAIN IN PERHAPS THE MOST ARBITRARY EXAMPLE OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING, THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE THIS YEAR DISMANTLED LOUISIANA'S ONLY-IN-THE-NATION LAW REQUIRING LICENSURE OF FLORISTS. PRIOR TO IJ'S INVOLVEMENT, THE STATE REQUIRED ASPIRING FLORISTS TO PASS BOTH A WRITTEN EXAM AND A HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE DEMONSTRATION EXAM GRADED BY THE APPLICANTS' FUTURE COMPETITION. THE LAW NOT ONLY MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR NEW ENTREPRENEURS TO WORK AS RETAIL FLORISTS, IT ALSO GAVE EXISTING FLORISTS THE POWER TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM NEW COMPETITION. THERE WERE NO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY JUSTIFICATIONS FOR TESTING FLORISTS. THERE ALSO WERE NO VALID "CONSUMER PROTECTION" OR "INDUSTRY ENHANCEMENT" RATIONALES. LOUISIANA'S FLORAL LICENSING REGIME WAS ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM FOR EXISTING FLORISTS, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. SO WE FILED A LAWSUIT IN MARCH TO STRIKE DOWN THE LAW. THE FOLLOWING WEEK, OUR CLIENTS WERE ON JOHN STOSSEL'S PROGRAM ON FOX BUSINESS CHANNEL AND ALSO WERE PROFILED IN A FEATURE PIECE IN USA TODAY. THANKS TO THE PRESSURE IJ EXERTED IN COURT AND THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, THE LEGISLATURE THE LOUISIANA LEGISLATURE PASSED A LAW THAT ENSURES THAT BUREAUCRATS NO LONGER HAVE THE POWER TO ARBITRARILY CHOOSE WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BECOME A FLORIST. THE GOVERNOR IS EXPECTED TO SIGN THE BILL INTO LAW NEXT MONTH. FRANCO V. SAN JUAN COUNTY IN SEPTEMBER 2009, WE FILED A WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO A NEWLY ADOPTED SAN JUAN COUNTY VENDING ORDINANCE ON BEHALF OF GARY FRANCO, A LONGTIME PRODUCE VENDOR. THE ORDINANCE, ADOPTED AT THE URGING OF BRICK-AND-MORTAR BUSINESSES, REQUIRED CERTAIN VENDORS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT AND PAY THE GOVERNMENT $50 PER DAY IN ORDER TO VEND IN PUBLIC PLACES. TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT, A VENDOR HAD TO RECEIVE THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF ALL BUSINESS OWNERS WITHIN A CERTAIN RADIUS OF WHERE HE INTENDED TO SELL. AT THE SAME TIME, THE ORDINANCE EXEMPTED A NUMBER OF VENDING ACTIVITIES THAT THE COUNTY LIKED, SUCH AS VENDING BY CHARITABLE AND CIVIC GROUPS (INCLUDING, SPECIFICALLY, THE LIONS CLUB, GIRL SCOUTS, AND KIWANIS), VENDING BY FARMERS WHO SOLD THEIR OWN PRODUCE, AND VENDING BY ICE CREAM TRUCKS. NON-EXEMPT VENDORS WHO SOLD WITHOUT A PERMIT WERE SUBJECT TO A $250 PER HOUR FINE. WHILE WE WERE CONDUCTING DISCOVERY, THE COUNTY REPEALED THE VENDING ORDINANCE AND ADOPTED A NEW ONE IN ITS PLACE. IT TOOK EFFECT ON APRIL 9, 2010. RATHER THAN IMPOSING A BURDENSOME AND COSTLY PERMIT REQUIREMENT, THE NEW ORDINANCE SIMPLY BANS VENDING ON THE STREETS AND SIDEWALKS, BUT IT INCLUDES MOST OF THE SAME EXEMPTIONS THAT APPEARED IN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE. WE CURRENTLY ARE ANALYZING OUR OPTIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE SHOULD VOLUNTARILY DISMISS THE CURRENT LAWSUIT AND FILE ANOTHER ONE TO CHALLENGE THE NEW ORDINANCE OR, INSTEAD, AMEND THE CURRENT COMPLAINT TO CHALLENGE THE NEW ORDINANCE. LOCKE V. SHORE AFTER SUCCESSFUL LAWSUITS CHALLENGING OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS IN NEW MEXICO, TEXAS, CONNECTICUT, AND OKLAHOMA, WE FILED SUIT IN FLORIDA, THE STATE WITH BY FAR THE MOST RESTRICTIVE AND AGGRESSIVELY ENFORCED LAW IN THE COUNTRY. ONLY THREE OTHER STATES REGULATE THE ACTUAL PRACTICE OF INTERIOR DESIGN (AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLY REGULATING WHO CAN CALL THEMSELVES INTERIOR DESIGNERS). THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE CHALLENGES LICENSING LAWS LIKE THESE BECAUSE, RATHER THAN PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AS SUCH LAWS ARE INTENDED TO DO, THEY SIMPLY PROTECT INDUSTRY INSIDERS FROM COMPETITION. THE RESULT IS HIGHER PRICES AND LESS CHOICE FOR CONSUMERS, WHILE KEEPING NEWCOMERS OUT. USING OUR STRATEGIC COMBINATION OF LITIGATION, MEDIA, ACTIVISM, AND STRATEGIC RESEARCH, WE WON A FIRST-ROUND VICTORY IN FEBRUARY 2010, AND ARE ON APPEAL TO THE 11TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO FULLY VINDICATE OUR CLIENTS' RIGHTS. MITZ V. TEXAS STATE BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINERS THIS IS A CHALLENGE TO A DECISION BY THE TEXAS BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINERS TO OUTLAW HORSE TEETH FLOATING BY NON-VETERINARIANS IN TEXAS, DESPITE HAVING SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZED AND APPROVED THE PRACTICE FOR MANY YEARS. "FLOATING" IS THE TERM FOR FILING HORSES' TEETH TO ENSURE PROPER LENGTH AND ALIGNMENT. UNLIKE MOST ANIMALS, HORSES' TEETH GROW THROUGHOUT THEIR LIVES. THEIR TEETH MUST BE FILED DOWN EVERY 6-12 MONTHS TO PREVENT THEIR MOLARS FROM DEVELOPING LONG ENAMEL "POINTS" THAT CAN PREVENT THEM FROM CHEWING FOOD PROPERLY. FOR CENTURIES, THE PRACTICE HAS BEEN PERFORMED BY SPECIALIZED "TEETH FLOATERS," WHOSE KNOWLEDGE OF EQUINE DENTISTRY OFTEN FAR EXCEEDS THAT OF VETERINARIANS. FLOATERS PLAY A VITAL ROLE IN TEXAS' HORSE INDUSTRY. AND THROUGHOUT MOST OF ITS HISTORY, THE TEXAS VET BOARD SPECIFICALLY APPROVED THE PRACTICE OF "ABOVE-THE-GUMLINE" HORSE TEETH FLOATING BY NON-VETERINARIANS AND ESSENTIALLY TURNED A BLIND EYE TO NON-LICENSEES PERFORMING OTHER EQUINE DENTAL SERVICES, PRESUMABLY BECAUSE THE BOARD RECOGNIZED THAT THERE ARE NOT NEARLY ENOUGH LARGE ANIMAL VETERINARIANS WITH THE TRAINING OR EQUIPMENT TO PROPERLY ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THE STATES NEARLY ONE MILLION HORSES. IN LATE 2006, HOWEVER, THE STATE VETERINARY ASSOCIATION DEMANDED THAT THE VET BOARD TAKE ACTION AGAINST NON-VETERINARIAN EQUINE DENTAL PRACTITIONERS, WHICH THE BOARD DID IN A SERIES OF CEASE-AND-DESIST LETTERS BEGINNING IN FEBRUARY 2007. IJ FILED SUIT AGAINST THE BOARD'S NEW POLICY IN AUGUST 2007. AS THE CASE WENDS ITS WAY THROUGH THE LEGAL PROCESS, IJ IS MAKING DISCERNABLE PROGRESS, REPEATEDLY THWARTING THE VET BOARD'S ATTEMPTS TO BRING THE MATTER TO A QUICK AND UNJUST END; AND OUR CLIENTS-ALONG WITH MOST OTHER NON-VETERINARIAN EQUINE DENTAL PRACTITIONERS IN TEXAS-CONTINUE DOING THEIR WORK, NEARLY FOUR YEARS AFTER THE BOARD FIRST CAME AFTER THEM. NAUTICAL TOURS IN THE SUMMER OF 2007, THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE SUCCESSFULLY SECURED A JITNEY LICENSE FROM CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, FOR THE OWNER OF AN AMPHIBIOUS VEHICLE TOUR COMPANY. DESPITE SECURING THE LICENSE, THE CITY OF BOSTON REFUSED TO ALLOW OUR CLIENT ON THE STREETS OF BOSTON WITHOUT A MUNICIPAL SIGHTSEEING LICENSE, WHICH BOSTON WAS NOT ISSUING THEN DUE TO A "MORATORIUM" ON SUCH LICENSES WHILE THE "BIG DIG" CONSTRUCTION PROJECT WAS UNDERWAY. WE FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST BOSTON IN FEBRUARY 2009 AND SURVIVED THE CITY'S ATTEMPTS TO DISMISS THE CASE IN THE SUMMER OF 2009. AS WE PROCEEDED THROUGH DISCOVERY, BOSTON BEGAN LIFTING THE MORATORIUM IN STAGES, EVENTUALLY ACCEPTING NEW LICENSE APPLICATIONS AS OF MARCH 1, 2010. OUR CLIENT WAS NO LONGER IN A POSITION TO PURSUE A LICENSE, SO OUR REPRESENTATION TERMINATED. RIFE V. TEXAS PRIVATE SECURITY BOARD THIS CASE CHALLENGED A STATE OF TEXAS REQUIREMENT THAT EVERY COMPUTER REPAIR TECHNICIAN IN THE ENTIRE STATE ACQUIRE A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR'S LICENSE TO REPAIR A COMPUTER. IF YOU PERFORM CERTAIN REPAIRS WITHOUT A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR'S LICENSE, OR IF YOU AS A CONSUMER HAVE YOUR COMPUTER REPAIRED BY SOMEONE WITHOUT A LICENSE, YOU CAN BE PUNISHED BY A $4,000 FINE AND ONE YEAR IN JAIL AS WELL AS A $10,000 CIVIL PENALTY. TO OBTAIN AN INVESTIGATOR'S LICENSE, AN INDIVIDUAL MUST COMPLETE EITHER A CRIMINAL JUSTICE DEGREE OR A THREE-YEAR APPRENTICESHIP UNDER A LICENSED INVESTIGATOR. THEREFORE, COMPUTER REPAIR COMPANIES MUST EITHER CLOSE FOR THREE YEARS TO COMPLETE THE APPRENTICESHIP, OR RISK SEVERE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL SANCTIONS IF THEY CONTINUE WORKING. LEGISLATION INTRODUCED FOLLOWING THE FILING OF OUR LAWSUIT EFFECTIVELY ADDRESSES THE KEY CONCERNS IN OUR LITIGATION, SO WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF WINDING DOWN THE CASE. TEXAS EYEBROW THREADING IN DECEMBER 2009, WE FILED THIS CHALLENGE TO TEXAS' ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE AS COSMETOLOGY THE PRACTICE OF EYEBROW THREADING-AN ALL-NATURAL AND ANCIENT GROOMING TECHNIQUE WHEREIN COTTON THREAD IS USED TO REMOVE UNWANTED FACIAL HAIR. 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. DISCOVERY IS ONGOING, AND WE HOPE TO MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SOMETIME IN AUGUST 2010. OTHER SCHOOL CHOICE CASES DEBOOM V. BERGESON IN WASHINGTON STATE THIS PAST FALL, WE SCORED A VICTORY FOR SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS WHEN, IN RESPONSE TO A LAWSUIT BY IJ'S WASHINGTON CHAPTER, THE STATE ADOPTED NEW REGULATIONS REPEALING THE STATE'S BAN ON CERTAIN SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES AT RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS. UNDER THE FEDERAL INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA), FEDERAL FUNDS ARE DISTRIBUTED TO STATES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES TO CHILDREN ENROLLED IN BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS. WASHINGTON ALLOWED SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES ON PUBLIC AND NON-RELIGIOUS PRIVATE SCHOOL CAMPUSES, BUT NOT AT RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS. THIS POLICY FORCED AN IMPOSSIBLE CHOICE FOR PARENTS LIKE SHARI AND DERRICK DEBOOM, WHOSE SON MICHAEL SUFFERS FROM ATTENTION-DEFICIT, ANXIETY, AND MOTOR-SKILLS PROBLEMS THAT HINDER HIS ABILITY TO LEARN. MICHAEL WAS ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES UNDER IDEA, INCLUDING A SPECIALLY EQUIPPED LAPTOP FOR NOTE-TAKING. BUT BECAUSE HIS PARENTS PLACED HIM IN A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL, THE STATE INSISTED HE TRAVEL TO A "NONSECTARIAN" LOCATION TO ACCESS THE SERVICES. THAT RENDERED THE LAPTOP, WHICH MICHAEL NEEDED IN HIS CLASSROOM, UTTERLY USELESS. THANKS TO IJ'S LAWSUIT, OUR ENSUING LEGISLATIVE COUNSELING, AND A STRATEGICALLY TIMED OP-ED IN THE SEATTLE TIMES BY THE LEAD IJ ATTORNEY IN THE CASE, IN OCTOBER 2009 THE STATE REPEALED THE DISCRIMINATORY BAN AND NOW SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE FREE TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO MICHAEL AND HIS FELLOW STUDENTS AT THE SCHOOLS THEIR PARENTS CHOOSE FOR THEM. ACCORDINGLY, WE VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED THE LAWSUIT. GREEN V. GARRIOTT IN OCTOBER 2009, IJ SCORED A FINAL VICTORY IN THIS CASE DEFENDING ARIZONA'S CORPORATE TAX CREDIT PROGRAM THAT PROVIDES SCHOLARSHIPS FOR LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME FAMILIES TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO SCHOOLS OF THE PARENTS' CHOOSING. THE LAWSUIT WAS AN ATTEMPT BY SCHOOL CHOICE OPPONENTS TO OVERRULE KOTTERMAN V. KILLIAN, THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT'S LANDMARK 1999 DECISION UPHOLDING ARIZONA'S INNOVATIVE INDIVIDUAL TAX CREDIT PROGRAM FROM ATTACKS UNDER BOTH THE ARIZONA AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS. THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE INTERVENED IN THE LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF THE ARIZONA SCHOOL CHOICE TRUST, A NONPROFIT SCHOOL TUITION ORGANIZATION THAT RECEIVES CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO FUND PRIVATE SCHOOL SCHOLARSHIPS, AND PARENTS WHO DESPERATELY WANTED TO TRANSFER THEIR CHILDREN FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE SCHOOL BUT LACKED THE FINANCIAL MEANS. IN MARCH 2009, THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS RULED IN FAVOR OF PARENTS' RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE BEST EDUCATION FOR THEIR CHILDREN, AND IN OCTOBER, THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO REVIEW THE COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION, THUS ENDING THE LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THIS PROGRAM AND PRESERVING OUR VICTORY IN THIS CASE. MISCELLANEOUS FLYNN V. HOLDER IN A CASE TRULY DEALING WITH LIFE AND DEATH, WE REPRESENT DOREEN FLYNN WHO HAS THREE DAUGHTERS WITH A DEADLY BLOOD DISEASE WHO WILL MOST LIKELY NEED BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTS IN THEIR TEENS. LIKE COUNTLESS THOUSANDS OF OTHERS, DOREEN'S KIDS' LIVES DEPEND ON FINDING A COMPATIBLE BONE-MARROW DONOR-A ONE-IN-A-MILLION GENETIC MATCH. MORE THAN A THOUSAND PEOPLE DIE EACH YEAR BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FIND A MATCHED DONOR, BUT, INCREDIBLY, UNDER THE NATIONAL ORGAN TRANSPLANT ACT OF 1984, FEDERAL LAW MAKES IT ILLEGAL TO DO THE ONE THING THAT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO RECRUIT DONORS: COMPENSATE THEM. FLYNN, ALONG WITH CANCER PATIENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES, A RENOWNED BONE MARROW DOCTOR, AND THE CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT MOREMARROWDONORS.ORG, JOINED WITH THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE IN OCTOBER 2009 TO SUE THE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO STRIKE DOWN THE LAW. WE CURRENTLY ARE ON APPEAL TO THE NINTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. A VICTORY WILL PUSH COURTS TO LOOK AT LAWS WITH A PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, WHICH IS RELEVANT TO CASES IN ALL OF IJ'S FOUR PILLARS OF LITIGATION. AMICUS IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE-NAMED CASES, THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE ALSO FILED AMICUS BRIEFS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES BETWEEN JULY 1, 2009 AND JUNE 30, 2010: ALVAREZ V. SMITH CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC CITY OF KANSAS CITY V. KU CONNOR V. CITY OF SEATTLE DOE V. REED EAGAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. U-HAUL COMPANY OF MINNESOTA ET AL. GOLDSTEIN V. NEW YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION GREEN V. GARFIELD KAUR V. NEW YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MCALISTER V. CITY OF FAIRWAY MCDONALD V. CITY OF CHICAGO PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 SIOBHAN REYNOLDS GRAND-JURY SUBPOENA VFW V. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE WHITE SMILE USA V. ALABAMA BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS