Landmark Legal Foundation

“All compensation decisions for officers and staff are made by the full board of directors in consultation with the president annually. The president does not participate in setting his compensation, and only makes recommendations for the other officers and employees. Officers' compensation recommendations are based on an analysis of compensation reported on similar public-interest law firms' annual form 990 tax returns. In addition, an employee's years of service, performance, and the organization's financial condition are given consideration. Modest ad hoc performance bonuses have been awarded from time to time by the board of directors. (no bonus or other compensation levels are ever based on the amount of money raised by the organization.) landmark provides full health and dental insurance coverage to all full-time employees. The foundation also provides an employer-funded profit sharing plan at a level set annually by the full board in consultation with the president. Full-time employees are provided the opportunity to participate in an employee-funded 403b retirement annuity program. There are not any other compensation programs such as section 457 deferred compensation plans, car reimbursement, housing or expense accounts, cellphones, etc.”

“An independent accounting firm prepares and reviews the form 990. The 990 is then reviewed by the organization's management. Any questions or concerns the organization's management have are addressed and any corrections or clarifications are made prior to filing the 990. A final copy of the 990 is sent to the board prior to filing.”

“Copies of the conflict of interest policy were given to all staff and board members. Disclosures are made to the president of the board. The board decides whether the contemplated transactions will be allowed or not.”

“The organization's governing documents and financial statements are not available to the public.”

“Up to 75% of "nontaxable benefits" represents the cost of health insurance premiums, which have more than doubled since passage of the patient protection and affordable care act.”

“OTHER INCOME - Total Revenue: 196, Related or Exempt Function Revenue: , Unrelated Business Revenue: , Revenue Excluded from Tax Under Sections 512, 513, or 514: 196;”

“The landmark legal foundation (a missouri non profit corporation) is a national public interest law firm committed to preserving the principles of limited government, separation of powers, federalism, advancing an originalist approach to the constitution and defending individual rights and responsibilities. Specializing in constitutional history and litigation, landmark's legal program provides extensive public education related to constitutional interpretation, the proper role of judiciary, and governmental integrity.”

“United States Supreme Court and Lower Court Cases E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera (Overtime for outside sales personnel) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals used an improperly high standard of proof for employers to qualify for exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) minimum wage and overtime provisions. Landmark submitted a brief on behalf of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors and International Foodservice Distributors Association. Our brief focused on the important role played by outside salespeople and the negative national implications of universal adoption of the unlawful higher evidentiary standard. Smith and Wesson Brands Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Merits Stage) Landmark filed a merits brief in support of American firearms companies (multiple manufacturers and a single distributor) in December, 2024. Mexico sought to hold these companies liable for billions of dollars in damages caused by cartel violence in Mexico. Landmark argued that Mexico's claim was barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Congress passed the PLCAA in the wake of lawsuits by state and local American governments against firearms companies in the 1990s that were modeled after successful tobacco litigation. The Foundation's brief identified a major flaw in Mexico's complaint: Mexico did not establish that the Petitioner distributer company sold firearms to any dealers it knew engaged in illegal sales. The firearms companies' reply brief stressed this point extensively. Consumers' Research v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n (Cert Stage) Consumers' Research, an entity subject to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, challenged the "for cause" removal restriction on the President's ability to fire CPSC's executive leadership. The petition for cert was denied but this issue will no doubt return to the Court. Landmark's brief argued that Humphrey's Executor, the Supreme Court precedent allowing "for cause" firing statutes, should be overturned because it is an unconstitutional infringement on the Constitution's separation of powers. Save Jobs U.S.A. v. Department of Homeland Sec. (Cert Stage) Landmark joined Save Jobs U.S.A. in seeking a review of a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding a Biden-era Department of Homeland Security's regulation extending employment privileges to spouses of non-immigrant H1-B visa holders. Landmark argued that extending employment privileges to non-citizen visa holders via regulatory fiat violates Congress's authority to define categories of aliens eligible for employment. Landmark also argued that this regulation violates the Major Questions Doctrine. U.S.A. v. Trump (S.D. Fla. and 11th Circuit) Landmark, in partnership with Professors Josh Blackman and Seth Tillman, filed a brief in support of Mr. Trump's motion to dismiss Special Counsel Jack Smith's indictment in the document's retention case. Landmark presented a unique argument that Mr. Smith is not an "officer of the United States cannot function as a U.S. Attorney with prosecutorial powers. The Special Counsel's duties are temporary rather than continuing and permanent and under Supreme Court precedent a position that is not continuous is not an office. The Special Counsel thus was acting beyond his constitutional authority. Judge Cannon dismissed the indictment, concluding that the Special Counsel lacked statutory and constitutional authority to indict Donald Trump. On appeal to the 11th Circuit, Landmark filed a brief with former Independent Counsel Robert Ray, and law professors Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman. The case was voluntarily dismissed by the Justice Department after President Trump's reelection. Trump v. Anderson Landmark opposed legal actions seeking to have former President Donald Trump declared ineligible for the presidency under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. Landmark filed briefs with the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court urging re”

“Freedom of Information Act Requests: 1. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Landmark submitted a FOIA request seeking records relating to federal grants to non-governmental organizations at the end of the Biden Administration. We are seeking records evincing communications between officials within the EPA's Office of Grants and Debarment and leaders in prominent NGOs who received significant federal grant funds. 2. Customs and Border Protection (CBP): On September 27, 2023. Landmark requested records related to US Customs and Border Protection's use of the CBP One program for processing asylum seekers. Landmark requested records related to the rate of use of CBP One among asylum seekers entering the United States. CBP awarded Landmark a fee waiver but denied expedited processing. A limited production of records was received in 2024 and the matter was closed. 3. Department of Homeland Security: On September 27, 2023, Landmark requested communication records between Randi Weingarten, Miriam Feldblum, and Antonio Flores of the Homeland Security Academic Partnership Council (HSAPC) and the Department of Homeland Security between May 1, 2023, and September 6, 2023. Landmark requested communications records between these individuals, which Landmark considered to be unqualified appointees, related to the HSAPC meeting on September 6, 2023. DHS awarded Landmark a fee waiver but denied expedited processing. Records were produced in 2024 and the matter was closed. 4. Department of State: On December 14, 2023. Landmark requested communication records between the Department, Barack Obama, and staff members of the Office of Barack and Michelle Obama, as well as the Obama Foundation. Landmark sought records which might show that Barack Obama had influenced the direction and development of State Department policy. Heavily redacted records were produced in 2024 but with proper explanation of withholdings. The matter was closed.”