Atlantic Legal Foundation

“Atlantic legal has engaged an outside accounting firm to prepare its form 990. The form 990, is prepared by the outside accounting firm, is provided to the chairman of the board and each director by electronic mail prior to filing with the irs. Each director is asked to review the form 990 and provide comments or questions. The officers of the foundation and the foundation's bookkeeping consultant are in frequent communication with the foundation's outside accountants by electronic mail and telephone to provide information, raise questions and provide comments on the form 990 prior to filing with the irs. After all questions and comments have been addressed, the form 990 is prepared and submitted to the president of the foundation for his approval. It is then filed with the irs.”

“The foundation's conflict of interest policy is submitted annually to each board member, officer, advisor and staff member for review and signature where they must disclose any conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest are determined and reviewed by the board of directors or a committee designated by the board. No board member is allowed to vote or participate in board discussions about any matters involving the conflict.”

“The executive committee of the board of directors, without participation of the president, determines the compensation of the president. The executive committee considers compensation levels paid by similarly situated organizations for functionally comparable positions in the same geographical market and nationwide. This process was last undertaken in may 2022 and was duly documented.”

“The foundation makes its form 990 available for public inspection as required under section 6104 of the internal revenue code. The return is posted on guidestar.org and other similar types of websites. In addition, the financial statements, articles of incorporation, form 990, form 1023, and by-laws are also available upon written request or by calling the organization directly.”

“Lawrence ebner's compensation is in exchange for consulting, legal research, and composition services he has provided to the organization, and he is not compensated for his services as an officer.”

“Recent and current activities and programs for 2022 through june 2023 during 2022, and into 2023, alf continued advancing its advocacy missions by filing amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs on cutting-edge legal issues in the supreme court and federal courts of appeals throughout the united states. In fact, alf's amicus program has been busier than ever. We are on many leading law firms and nonprofit advocacy organizations' "go to" lists for high-quality amicus support. As alf's national reputation for outstanding appellate advocacy continues to grow, our amicus briefs are increasingly cited and quoted in legal media such as law360, which recently appointed alf executive vice president & general counsel larry ebner to its prestigious appellate editorial advisory board. Larry, a nationally recognized appellate specialist with more than 50 years of litigation experience, personally authors most of alf's amicus briefs. On some briefs he has enlisted the assistance of a growing cadre of appellate attorneys who contribute valuable pro bono time to alf. Our amicus filings during 2022 and the first half of 2023 are summarized below. Additional detail, and the amicus briefs themselves, are easily accessed through alf's website, atlanticlegal.org. A number of recent supreme court opinions align with alf's amicus filings. These include: biden v. Nebraska (mass cancellation of student loan debt); coinbase v. Bielski (stay of trial court proceedings pending appeal of denial of right to arbitrate); tyler v. Hennepin county, minn. ("home equity theft" by state & local governments); sackett v. Epa (clean water act regulation of privately owned "wetlands"); axon enterprise v. Ftc & sec v. Cochran (district court jurisdiction over claims that federal administrative enforcement proceedings are structurally unconstitutional); and viking river cruises v. Moriana (federal arbitration act preemption of california law blocking waiver of representative claims in employer-employee arbitration agreements). Mission: advocate for sound science federal preemption of failure-to-warn claims we filed an amicus brief urging the en banc eleventh circuit to hold that federal law preempts state-law damages claims alleging that the manufacturer of roundup (glyphosate) herbicide failed to include on its product labeling, a cancer warning that the u.s. Environmental protection agency (epa) has determined is both scientifically unwarranted and false and misleading. The federal insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act (fifra) expressly prohibits a state from imposing pesticide labeling requirements that are "in addition to or different from" those required under fifra. Alf's brief explains that a cancer-related label warning would be "in addition to or different from" epa's requirements for roundup labeling, and therefore, expressly preempted. (carson v. Monsanto) fair balance on federal advisory committees we filed an amicus brief in the d.c. Circuit arguing that the epa administrator's deliberate exclusion of all industry-affiliated scientists from the statutorily created clean air scientific advisory committee (casac) violates the federal advisory committee act (faca) requirement that all federal advisory committees be "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed." casac advises epa on adoption and revision of clean air act national ambient air quality standards, which directly affect a multitude of industrial operations. Alf's brief discusses why faca's "fairly balanced" membership requirement promotes sound science, which is undermined if the viewpoints of well-qualified scientists with first-hand knowledge of how environmental regulations impact industry are deliberately excluded. (young v. Epa) removal of climate-change damages suits from state courts we filed an amicus brief asking the supreme court to address the question of whether numerous climate-change damages suits that have been filed by state”

“Federal judges' expert testimony gatekeeper role concerning class certification we filed a ninth circuit amicus brief in a putative consumer class action that is part of multidistrict antitrust litigation against google. A california federal district judge certified a class of 21 million consumers who have purchased almost 300,000 android apps available on mobile devices through the google play store. The consumer plaintiffs allege that if google had charged a lower, non-monopolistic service fee to app developers, they would have passed through this alleged cost savings to app purchasers. Google has appealed the district court's class certification order, which relied exclusively on the expert opinion of the consumer plaintiffs' economic expert. Alf's amicus brief discusses the important role that federal rule of evidence 702 plays in class-certification decisions that rely on expert testimony, and then focuses on rule 702's "reliability" requirement, as amended effective december 1, 2023. (carr v. Google, llc) primacy of federal arbitration act we filed an amicus brief in the supreme court addressing the frequently recurring question of whether federal district court proceedings must be stayed while, as authorized by the federal arbitration act (faa), an interlocutory appeal of denial of a motion to compel arbitration is being pursued in a federal court of appeals. Alf's brief explains that unless a stay of trial-court proceedings is mandatory rather than discretionary, the purpose of the interlocutory appeal authorized by the faa would be defeated, and the significant benefits of arbitration as an alternative to litigation would be lost. (coinbase, inc. V. Bielski) federal preemption of california regulatory overreach we filed an amicus brief asking the supreme court to decide whether a state can ban the sale of a federally regulated and approved agricultural food product merely because it does not like how, where, or by whom it is produced or grown. The litigation challenges california's statutory ban on sale of usda-approved foie grasfattened duck or goose liverwhich can be produced only by force-feeding ducks and geese. Alf's amicus brief argues that federal law preempts the california sales ban statute, in part because the force-feeding process that the california sales ban statute prohibits is the very same force-feeding process that federal law requires if a poultry product is to be sold as foie gras. Our brief also contends that the sales ban violates the principles of interstate federalism because it encroaches upon other states' sovereign rights to regulate, subject to federal law, agricultural and other products that are produced within their own borders. (association des leveurs de canards et d'oies du quebec v. Bonta) applicability of attorney-client privilege to dual-purpose communications we filed a supreme court amicus brief addressing an attorney-client privilege question that often confronts in-house counsel as well as attorneys in law firms. More specifically, alf's brief argues that a dual-purpose" communication, such as a communication involving both legal and business advice, is protected by the attorney-client privilege where obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the significant purposes, even if not the sole purpose, of the communication. (in re grand jury) removal of covid-19 liability suits from state courts we filed an amicus brief urging the supreme court to address the question of whether covid-19-related liability suits against hospitals, nursing homes, and healthcare workers are removable from state to federal court when they implicate the immunity-from-suit provisions of the federal public readiness and emergency preparedness (prep act) act. Alf's amicus brief argues that healthcare facilities and workers will be deterred from volunteering for essential, frontline duty during public health emergencies if they are subjected to the threat of being haled into the very type of high-stakes,”

“(loper bright enterprises v. Raimondo) constitutionality of consumer financial protection bureau "self-funding" we filed a supreme court merits-stage amicus brief arguing that under the supreme court's "nondelegation doctrine," congress cannot delegate its exclusive appropriations clause "power of the purse" to the consumer financial protection bureau (cfpb), or to any other executive branch entity, such as the federal reserve. The amicus brief explains that cfpb's statutory self-funding mechanism, which bypasses the congressional appropriations process by authorizing withdrawals directly from the self-funded federal reserve, is unconstitutional. (cfpb v. Community financial services association of america) constitutionality of mass student loan debt cancellation we filed amicus briefs in two coordinated supreme court cases challenging the validity of the biden administration's announced mass cancellation of more than $400 billion in student loan debt owed to the federal government by more than 20 million borrowers. Rather than addressing the questions of whether the state and individual plaintiffs have standing to sue, or whether the mass cancellation is authorized by statute, alf's amicus brief raises the fundamental issue of whether the program is constitutional. More specifically, our brief argues that the mass cancellation of student loan debt violates the appropriations clause of the constitution, u.s. Const. Art. I, 9, cl. 7. This clause, which is fundamental to the separation of powers, vests congress with exclusive control over "the power of the purse," meaning that every executive branch expenditure must be authorized by a congressional appropriation. Our brief contends that the executive branch's abrogation of a half-trillion dollars in student loan debt receivables held by the treasury is an unappropriated expenditure of federal financial assets, and thus, violates the appropriations clause and is unconstitutional. (biden v. Nebraska & department of education v. Brown) constitutionality of sec & ftc administrative enforcement proceedings we filed amicus briefs in two coordinated supreme court cases involving the question of whether federal district courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to consider constitutional challenges to the structure of securities and exchange commission (sec) and federal trade commission (ftc) "in-house" civil enforcement proceedings conducted by tenure-protected administrative law judges. On april 14, 2023, the court unanimously held district courts have such jurisdiction. The court rejected the sec's and ftc's contention that under supreme court precedents, their organic statutes impliedly "strip" district courts of federal-question jurisdiction to consider structural constitutional claims, and that instead, those claims can be considered only by a federal court of appeals following completion of an administrative enforcement proceeding and issuance of an adverse administrative judgment. Consistent with the court's opinion, alf's briefs argued that justice delayed is justice denied; that judicial review cannot be meaningful if a civil enforcement respondent must defer a structural constitutional challenge until after he or she incurs the burdens, costs, and reputational harm of the administrative proceeding claimed to be unconstitutional. Our briefs also contended, consistent with the court's opinion, that the sec and ftc lack any special expertise to rule on their own constitutionality. (sec v. Cochran & axon enterprise, inc. V. Ftc) mission: advocate for individual liberty freedom of speech on social media we filed a sixth circuit amicus brief addressing the question of whether the surgeon general's alleged efforts to suppress social media "misinformation" that questions or criticizes the scientific bases for the federal government's covid-19 policies and messaging violates the first amendment right to freedom of speech. The plaintiffs allege that the federal government, primarily thro”

“The foundation is governed by a 35 member board of directors, 34 of whom are independent directors. The independent directors serve without compensation. The board ordinarily meets 3 times a year. Between board meetings, the foundation is directed by an executive committee of the board of directors, consisting of 11 independent directors. The independent members of the executive committee also act as the audit committee, responsible for the oversight of the audit of financial statements and selection of an independent outside accountant/auditor. This process has not changed from the prior year.”