Institute for Justice

“William h. Mellor serves as president & general counsel and is employed by the organization.”

“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 distributed to the full board of directors.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“Ghaleb ibrahim v. City of milwaukee institute for justice client ghaleb ibrahim is a milwaukee entrepreneur who simply wanted to own and drive his own taxi cab. But milwaukee limited the number of taxi permits to 321 for the entire city, and the only way to get a permit was to purchase one from an existing permit holder. The cost? More than $150,000, which is higher than the cost of an average home in milwaukee. The law did nothing but funnel money to a small group of entrenched businesses at the expense of entrepreneurs and consumers. Media ranging from the financial times of london to the milwaukee journal sentinel covered the case, and in april 2013, a milwaukee county judge ruled the cap unconstitutional. The city decided not to appeal, so the case is now closed. This ruling will be helpful as other cities and towns across the country consider similar measures that restrict the right to earn a living. We sought and recovered $2,694 in costs from the city of milwaukee. Edwards v. District of columbia in a resounding victory for free speech, in june the u.s. Court of appeals for the district of columbia struck down washington, d.c.s tour-guide licensing scheme in response to ijs lawsuit. Under the law, tour guides faced fines and 90 days in jail unless they passed a city-mandated history test. The court took issue with the fact that the regulations, which imposed serious burdens on people who want to talk to tour groups, were wholly unjustified by evidence. We represent bill main and tonia edwards, who operate a segway rental and tour company and wanted the right to talk to their customers without first seeking government approval. As the washington post editorialized, the ruling "affirmed the first amendment right to free speech, and it struck a blow for common sense. We now wait to see if the city will appeal. Niehaus v. Huppenthal in march, the arizona supreme court declined to review our unanimous court of appeals decision that declared arizonas empowerment scholarship account program constitutional. This program allows eligible families to apply for a publicly funded education savings account that can be used to pay for a wide variety of educational expenses, including tutoring, home-school curriculum, private school tuition, and textbooks. Our client crystal fox credits the program with saving her son austins life. Austin has aspergers syndrome and was ready to drop out of his public high school in 10th grade. But the opportunity to participate in the esa program and choose a school for himself convinced austin to stay in school. His new-found academic success and high sat and act scores meant he was college-bound upon graduation. The court of appeals decision joins a growing list of state courts to vindicate the parental right to choose the educational environment that best suits their childs unique educational needs. U.s. V. 2601 w. Ball road, anaheim, ca ij client tony jalali fled iran in 1978 to escape tyranny and enjoy the protections the rule of law affords. Although tony has never been charged with any crime, the city of anaheim teamed up with the federal government to do an end-run around state law to take his $1.5 million office building through civil forfeiture because he leased space to two medical marijuana dispensaries-businesses that are perfectly legal in the state. Tonys only crime was having something the government wanted: a mortgage-free property that the government could sell in order to keep the proceeds to pad its budget. In october 2013, after a year-long fight in federal court, the u.s. Government dropped its forfeiture action, giving up its attempt to take tonys building. Civil forfeiture should not be used as a punishment for property owners who have committed no crime. As tony said, "i did not want to be bullied and stood up to the government to protect my property and my reputation. Loving v. Irs in may 2014, ijs victory over the irs became final after the agency declined to file a petition”

“Science section, et al. Ij client verlin stoll wanted to expand his low-cost funeral home business by adding a new location, but the state of minnesota effectively foreclosed this option by forcing verlin to waste $30,000 building another embalming room he did not want, did not need, and would never use. The law served only one purpose: to protect the big, full-amenity funeral home businesses from innovators like verlin. In october 2013, a state court ruled the law unconstitutional, saying it "constitutes an irrational exercise of the states police power. Victories like these show that judges across the country are increasingly engaged in protecting economic liberty, and ij will use the decision to open doors for entrepreneurs in other areas who are crushed by pointless government regulations. We received $4,851 in costs from the state of minnesota for this case. Astramecki v. Minnesota department of agriculture minnesota permits people to sell certain foods (like baked goods and jams) made in the home, but it prohibits the sale of such "cottage foods anywhere other than farmers markets and community events. That means no sales from a gourmet food shop, jobsite, or online. Worse yet, the state limits a cottage food producers revenues to just $5,000 annually-and thats gross receipts, not profits. Ij client jane astramecki started her home-baking business after suffering an injury that made working outside the home impractical. Her homemade cakes, cookies, scones, and jams are a hit with her customers and allow her to earn money to support her family. But under minnesotas law, jane regularly has to turn down requests for her treats or face fines or even jail time. Minnesotas law simply makes no sense. A cookie is a cookie. If its safe to sell at a farmers market, its safe to sell at a shop or food stand. So jane teamed up with ij to fight back and filed a lawsuit designed to help food entrepreneurs across the country fight back against similar restrictive laws. Patel v. Texas dept of licensing and regulation eyebrow threading is booming across the country as a cheaper, faster, and less painful alternative to waxing. But the state of texas requires eyebrow threaders, who are predominantly indian immigrants, to obtain between 750 and 1,500 hours of western-style cosmetology training at a cost of approximately $15,000, but the training doesnt teach threading. As with most licensing laws, this one has nothing to do with public health and safety and everything to do with protecting industry 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 filed suit in 2009 and currently are on appeal with the texas supreme court. A victory here will send a message to states across the country considering similar anti-competitive licensing schemes.”

“Carroll; and sylla v. Kohler in june, ij launched three cases on the same day to vindicate the rights of african hair braiders in arkansas, missouri, and washington state. Hair braiding is a time-tested, safe practice that is deeply rooted in african cultural heritage and carries with it significant historical importance. But across the country, state governments make it illegal for braiders to make money from their braiding skills unless they first spend thousands of dollars and attend hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of government-mandated cosmetology training that doesnt even teach them to braid hair. The right to earn an honest living is an essential part of our nations promise of opportunity, and with these lawsuits, ij will strengthen that right for braiders and other entrepreneurs nationwide. Brantley v. Kuntz ij client isis brantley is a widely recognized expert on african hairbraiding who wants to teach people to braid hair for a living in dallas. But even with her decades of experience, texas is telling isis she must now convert her modest hairbraiding school into a large barber college, and become a state-licensed barber instructor, before she can teach the next generation of african hairbraiders. When the state of texas began regulating hairbraiders in 2007, it wedged texas' hairbraiding license into the states barbering statute. This means that isis must spend 2,250 hours in barber school, pass four exams, and spend thousands of dollars on tuition and a fully equipped barber college she doesnt need, all to teach a 35-hour hairbraiding curriculum. So isis teamed up with ij to fight back, not only for herself but for the rights of braiders across the country. Waugh v. Nevada state board of cosmetology in nevada, anyone can practice makeup artistry, and anyone should be free to teach it. But the state requires people like our clients, lissette waugh and wendy robin, who want to teach the art and artistry of makeup application to first obtain a cosmetology instructors license, even though the state recognizes that makeup artists are different from cosmetologists, who focus on cutting and styling hair and cleansing and caring for the skin and nails. The rule means that lissette and wendy would need to spend hundreds of dollars and an additional 700 hours of training in subjects that have nothing to do with makeup artistry, a severe infringement on their right to earn an honest living. So they teamed up with ij to challenge this law to protect this right for themselves and others across the state. Membreno v. City of hialeah street vendors are a core part of the american dream. Whether it is selling newspapers in new york city or hot dogs in chicago, vending provides a perfect means of entering the economic mainstream because it does not require a great deal of financial capital or formal education. In hialeah, fla., we represent silvio membreno, who came to the united states from nicaragua and has successfully earned a living as a flower vendor for more than 15 years. But the city has tried to put silvio and his fellow vendors out of business by enacting anti-competitive regulations that arbitrarily protect one business while harming another. We won the first round of this litigation, when, in response to ijs lawsuit, the city amended its law to remove a requirement that vendors remain 300 feet from competing brick-and-mortar stores. But the fight continues, as the city maintains its unconstitutional restrictions on standing still and displaying merchandise. Miller v. City of atlanta ij clients larry miller and stanley hambrick owned two well-known vending businesses outside the atlanta braves stadium. Their businesses created jobs, offered inexpensive snacks and souvenirs to visitors, and made the sidewalks safer by keeping an eye out for fans who needed help. But in 2009, the city handed over all public-property vending to a single company that would have forced larry and stanley out of business by requiring them”

“Mullen, et al. In connecticut, we are representing would-be entrepreneurs who want to capitalize on the growing popularity of teeth whitening. Teeth-whitening services increasingly are available at spas, salons, and shopping malls and often at a much lower cost than dentists typically charge. But the connecticut dental commission ruled 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. There is no health or safety reason for the rule: anyone, even a child, can purchase these products and apply them without any special training or instruction. In march 2014, a federal judge limited the scope of the dental commissions' ruling, allowing our clients to go back to work, though they may not position led whitening lights for their customers. Westphal v. Northcutt similar to the connecticut case above, we are challenging a recent amendment to alabamas dental practice act that has made it a crime punishable by one year in jail and a $5,000 fine for anyone but a licensed dentist to offer teeth-whitening services. Dentists routinely charge four times as much (or even more) than non-dentists for these services. So rather than trying to compete by lowering prices or improving their services, the dental cartel has teamed up with the government to put their competition out of business. We have teamed up with teeth-whitening entrepreneurs keith westphal and joyce osborn to vindicate their right to earn an honest living free from unreasonable regulations designed solely to benefit special interests. Eck v. Battle we also are litigating a similar case in georgia, where entrepreneurs who offer teeth-whitening services can be charged with a felony, imprisoned for five years, and fined thousands of dollars. Their crime is the same one as in the cases described above: selling the exact same teeth-whitening product sold in stores and online. The fda regulates teeth-whitening products as cosmetics, but the georgia dental board, which includes eight dentists, bans non-dentists from offering teeth-whitening services. Thats not just bad policy, its unconstitutional, and ij filed a federal lawsuit in april 2014 to protect the rights of these entrepreneurs. Burris v. Cobb in arkansas, we represent dr. Ben burris, a licensed orthodontist and fully licensed dentist who wanted to offer low-cost dental cleanings to low-income families at a fraction of what other dentists charge for the same service. But within weeks of starting the service, dr. Ben was told by the arkansas state board of dental examiners that arkansas prohibits licensed dental specialists like orthodontists from doing work outside their specialty, even though they are qualified to practice general dentistry. These kinds of restrictions arbitrarily limit access to care and drive up prices for consumers. So dr. Ben teamed up with ij to file a federal lawsuit in may 2014 to eliminate this protectionist law and expand access to affordable dental and medical care for americans everywhere. Courtney v. Goltz ij clients jim and cliff courtney want to bring economic prosperity to their small community of stehekin, wash. Because stehekin is accessible only by boat or plane, the courtney brothers want to provide convenient ferry service across lake chelan so more people can enjoy the natural beauty and outdoor activities in the community their family has called home for four generations. But the state of washington requires jim and cliff to obtain the existing ferry companys permission to compete or to prove in a trial-like hearing that the existing company is not providing "reasonable and adequate service and that a new service is necessary. The requirement is an unconstitutional restraint on the right to earn a living, so we challenged the law in federal court. In december 2013, the 9th u.s. Circuit court of appeals ruled against us, and in j”

“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 forbids new services from operating at all, and the con program amounts to nothing more than a state-granted monopoly for politically favored businesses. Our clients in this case, dr. Mark baumel and dr. Mark monteferrante, have joined forces with ij to challenge the law and increase virginians choices for medical care. Because 35 other states have similar con requirements, a victory here will help consumers across the country. In fy14, we received $706 in costs from the commonwealth of virginia. Kelly v. Whitmore celeste kelly, grace granatelli and stacey kollman are three arizona entrepreneurs who decided to turn their love of animals into successful businesses. Each spent hundreds of hours learning about animal anatomy and developing massage techniques to obtain private certifications in animal massage. But the arizona state veterinary medical examining board is threatening them with up to six months in jail and fines of $3,500 per violation because they are not licensed veterinarians. Massage therapists do not need a medical degree to massage humans, and animal massage therapists like our clients should not need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on four years of vet school where they are not even required to learn massage. The vet boards actions demonstrate the outrageous extremes to which state licensing boards will go to protect their own financial interests, and celeste, grace, and stacey have teamed up with ij to fight back. Hines v. Texas state board of veterinary medical examiners ron hines is a texas veterinarian who can no longer practice in an office setting due to a physical disability. So he took to the internet to provide online advice to people who cannot afford traditional veterinary care, those in remote parts of the world, and those who have conflicting diagnoses from their local vets. His clients rave about his service, and there has not been a single complaint. The state of texas, however, says it is a crime for veterinarians to give advice over the internet without having first physically examined the animal. So we filed a federal lawsuit on rons behalf to defend his right to communicate with people about their pets using the internet. This case raises one of the most important unanswered questions in first amendment law: when does the governments power to license occupations trump free speech? The outcome will have implications for medicine, law, psychology, and many other occupations that often involve nothing but speech in the form of advice. Cooksey v. Futrell, et al. Ij client steve cooksey is an internet blogger who was censored by the government 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. But the north carolina board of dietetics/nutrition quickly forced him into silence. It claims that steves work constitutes the unlicensed, and thus criminal, practice of dietetics. However, under the first amendment, citizens like steve cant be required to get the governments permission before offering ordinary advice on harmless things like what foods people should buy at the grocery store. So we filed a federal lawsuit against the board on steves behalf. Rosemond v. Conway in the spring of 2013, john rosemond - americas longest running newspa”

“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 doesnt like. In early 2012, the owners of central radio company hung a banner on their building protesting the governments attempt to take their property through eminent domain. But the city told them to take it down because it was in violation of the citys sign code, even though other businesses in the area have signs as large or larger than central radios. Ij stepped in to represent central radio in their fight against the city, and we currently are on appeal to the 4th u.s. Circuit court of appeals. Dina galassini, v. Town of fountain hills, arizona before election day in 2011, ij client dina galassini of fountain hills, ariz., sent an email to a group of friends inviting them to join her in a protest against a $44 million road bond by making homemade signs and joining her on a street corner. Within a week of sending her email, dina received a letter from the town clerk telling her to "cease any campaign related activities until she had registered with the town as a "political committee under arizona law. In essence, dina needed the governments permission to express her opinion. Political committees must, among other things, register with the government, appoint a chairman and a treasurer, and designate a bank account, even if they are informal grassroots groups like dinas that dont intend to raise outside funds. Ij took up her case and won a ruling in september 2013 striking down the law. The judge said in his ruling that arizonas definition of political committee is vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. Justice v. Hosemann similar to the arizona case above, in mississippi, we represent five individuals 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. Laws like this have a chilling effect on political speech and violate the first amendment. Ij is working in court to undermine these restrictions so citizens can effectively speak in elections and contribute to a robust market of ideas. We won a ruling striking down the law on the same day we won the arizona case above. Worley v. Roberts 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. To do this, they wanted to run a simple radio ad. Similar to the arizona and mississippi cases described above, 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 dont obey the rules, or if they make a mistake, they face fines of up to $1,000 or even a year in jail. We lost in the trial court, and that decision was affirmed by the 11th circuit court of appeals. As a result, grassroots groups in florida continue to be subject to speech-suppressing laws that have been held unconstitutionally burdensome for corporations and unions. Farris v. Seabrook ij client and retired navy officer robin farris got involved in politics for the first time in her life when she started organizing a campaign to recall an elected official after hearing about serious charges of misconduct on his p”

“And lucinda birnbaum et al. Ij client charlie birnbaum is a classic american story. His parents - both immigrants who met hiding in the forests of poland during world war ii - left him many things: a love of this country, a deep passion for music, and a home right near the boardwalk in atlantic city. That home - his parents foothold in their adopted country - has been a source of love, tragedy, and renewal to the birnbaum family for the past 50 years. Charlie now keeps an apartment and piano studio on the ground floor; the top two floors are given over to longtime tenants who pay below-market rents; and the whole building is devoted to the memory of charlies parents. But the casino reinvestment development authority wants to seize the property using eminent domain, despite having no specific purpose for the property. So charlie teamed up with ij to challenge the taking and preserve the property rights of the politically and financially disenfranchised. Community youth athletic center v. National city the community youth athletic center is a non-profit after-school fitness and mentoring program in national city, calif., that helps hundreds of low-income kids stay off the streets, in school, and on the path to life success. Rather than encourage the cyacs 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. We defeated the plan in the spring of 2011 and set important property rights precedent in california in the process. But the city appealed the ruling, sending us to the state appeals court to defend our clients right to their property. State of texas v. One 2004 chevrolet silverado civil 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 vehicle until he was paid in full. The purchaser was found guilty in july 2009 of driving while intoxicated, and texas police seized the truck and filed this civil forfeiture action. Even though ali has never been accused of breaking any laws, he is required to petition the court to get his truck back. He teamed up with ij to challenge texas civil forfeiture statute as a violation of his constitutional rights. The appeals court sided with the government and in march the texas supreme court declined to review the decision, though it did signal an interest in reviewing a future case. The case is now closed. Dehko v. Holder; u.s. V. $35,651.11; and u.s. V. $33,244.86”

“Successfully run a grocery store in fraser, mich. In january 2013, without warning, the federal government used civil forfeiture to seize all of the money from the dehkos store bank account (more than $35,000) even though theyve done absolutely nothing wrong. Federal agents struck again in the spring of 2013 when they seized the bank account of mark zaniewskis independently owned gas station (more than $70,000). Neither the dehkos nor zaniewski were charged with any crime - the government merely believed without any real investigation that the deposits of the lawfully earned money from their legitimate businesses were suspicious. So terry, sandy, and mark teamed up with ij to fight back in federal court. While we were able to secure the return of the funds to our clients bank accounts, the fight continues with a federal lawsuit brought against the irs on behalf of terry, sandy, and mark seeking to ensure that property owners receive a prompt court hearing when federal agents seize their property through civil forfeiture. We received from the federal government $27,967 in attorneys fees for the original dehko case and $10,471 for the original zaniewski case. United states v. 434 main street, tewksbury, mass. In a decision that will help property owners nationwide, a federal judge last year ruled on behalf of ij clients russ and patricia caswell in their fight to save the motel that has been in their family for two generations. The caswells werent accused of any crime, but the local police department teamed up with the u.s. Department of justice to take the property through civil forfeiture because a handful of guests over the past 20 years committed illegal acts while staying at the motel. This fact doesnt differentiate the property from any other hotel or motel in the country, but as a small, family-run outfit with no mortgage on the property, the caswells were an easy target for law enforcement officials looking to pad their budgets with the proceeds from the sale of the motel. The government decided not to appeal the decision. We received $425,000 in attorneys fees as a result of our victory. 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, minn. 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 ones neighbors have already secured rental permits, the next homeowner who seeks a permit will be turned away even if his neighbors with permits live in their homes and dont rent them out. Under the constitution, the government cant arbitrarily restrict the property rights of some but not others. The minnesota supreme court has agreed to hear the case. A victory will send a message to cities across minnesota and nationwide that rental bans are unconstitutional and cities should not attempt to impose them. Ricketts v. Miami shores for 17 years, hermine ricketts and her husband tom carroll used their front yard in miami shores, fla., to grow food for their own personal consumption. And for 17 years, nobody had a problem with it. But in may 2013, the city amended its ordinance to make clear that front-yard vegetable gardens were prohibited. Only vegetables are explicitly banned - flamingoes, fruit trees, and garden gnomes are just fine. Unable to bear the hefty fine of $50 a day, hermine and tom reluctantly uprooted their garden. But they teamed up with ij to challenge miami shores senseless ban in court. The case aims to vindicate the right of all americans to peacefully use their own property to support their own families and is part of ijs national food freedom initiative, which is designed to vindicate the right of americans to produce, procure, market, and consume the foods of their choice. Duncan v. New hampshire in new hampshire, the aclu and its allies are challengin”

“Also filed amicus briefs in the following cases between july 1, 2013 and june 30, 2014: ccec v. Bennett family pac v. Ferguson garcia-mendoza v. 2003 chevy tahoe gessler v. Common cause kaley v. United states iowa right to life, inc. V. Tooker mccullen v. Coakley minority television, inc. V. Fcc sanchez v. City of austin susan b. Anthony list v. Driehaus (cert. Petition stage) susan b. Anthony list v. Driehaus (merits stage) township of mount holly, new jersey v. Mt. Holly gardens citizens in action, inc. Utter ex rel. State v. Biaw (petition for review stage) utter ex rel. State v. Biaw (merits stage) welch v. Brown”