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.”

“Patel v. Texas department of licensing and regulation ij secured the strictest legal test for economic regulations in the nation with this victory before the texas supreme court in june 2015. Our clients were ash patel and other eyebrow threaders who were fighting the state of texas' irrational attempts to require them to spend upwards of $20,000 and 1,500 hours to become licensed cosmetologists, even though the training required to become a cosmetologist doesn't cover eyebrow threading. These sorts of laws have nothing to do with protecting public health and safety, and are instead enacted to protect established businesses from competition. We will use this ruling to secure the right to earn an honest living for entrepreneurs in texas and beyond. Edwards v. District of columbia ij secured an important victory for economic liberty and commercial speech when the u.s. Court of appeals for the d.c. Circuit unanimously struck down washington, d.c.'s tour guide licensing law. Under the law, our clients, bill main and tonia edwards, who own a d.c. Tour company, faced fines and even jail time for describing national monuments and other attractions without first passing a multiple choice test. A growing number of americans make their living by talking, and this ruling will vindicate their right to do so without unnecessary government interference, whether they work as journalists, professors, or tour guides. St. Joseph abbey v. Castille this victory is one of only a handful since the 1930s in which federal appellate courts have enforced the constitutional right to economic liberty. Our clients, the monks of st. Joseph abbey, wanted to sell their handmade caskets to support their educational and health care expenses, but the state board of embalmers and funeral directors tried to shut them down because it was a crime in louisiana for anyone but a government-licensed funeral director to sell caskets to the public. In striking down the law, the 5th u.s. Circuit court of appeals said, "the great deference due state economic regulation does not demand judicial blindness to the history of a challenged rule or the context of its adoption nor does it require courts to accept nonsensical explanations for regulation." the ruling opens the door to strike down other irrational licensing laws that protect industry insiders from competition. In fy15, ij was awarded $844,795 in attorneys' fees as a result of this victory.”

“Relying on the st. Joseph abbey ruling described above, in january 2015 a federal court in texas struck down a set of laws preventing small african hair braiding schools from teaching students to braid hair for a living without becoming full-blown barber colleges, which are required to have costly facilities and equipment that are totally unnecessary for a braiding school. The ruling will help entrepreneurs in texas and elsewhere who are fighting irrational government licensing schemes. Ij was awarded $134,445 in attorneys' fees and costs as a result of our work on this case. Cooksey v. Futrell ij client steve cooksey wanted to give personal advice on diet and lifestyle choices related to his successful treatment of his type 2 diabetes, but the state of north carolina said that doing so constituted the unlicensed-and thus criminal-practice of dietetics. Ij secured an important ruling when the 4th u.s. Circuit court of appeals reversed an earlier trial-court dismissal of the lawsuit. While we were litigating the case on the merits, the state of north carolina capitulated and adopted new guidelines allowing steve and others to give ordinary diet advice without a government license. It's another victory for entrepreneurs and consumers in our fight to protect occupational speech from government censors. Hines v. Texas board of veterinary medical examiners we represent dr. Ron hines, a licensed veterinarian who uses the internet to help pet owners around the world care for their animals. He doesn't prescribe medicine or perform procedures, and there is no evidence that his work poses any danger, yet the texas vet board shut him down because his emails and video chats violated a state law stipulating that veterinarians must examine an animal in person before giving advice over the internet. We are challenging the law not only to vindicate ron's first amendment right, but also to protect internet freedom and free speech for americans everywhere.”

“This is a challenge to the state of kentucky's attempts to censor our client, john rosemond, and his nationally syndicated parental advice column as the unlicensed practice of psychology because he gives individualized advice in the column. The state board of psychology, which initiated the claim, also stated that because john is licensed to practice psychology in north carolina, but not kentucky, he may not call himself a "family psychologist" in the tagline of a newspaper column published in kentucky. The board threatened john with up to one year in jail and $1,000 in fines for each column published in the state. A victory in this case will not only vindicate john's first amendment right to communicate with his readers, but also send a strong message to other states trying to use occupational licensing laws to squelch free speech. Burris v. Cobb the state of arkansas is attempting to stop our client, dr. Ben burris, a licensed dentist and orthodontist, from offering low-cost dental cleanings at a fraction of what other dentists charge in order to give low-income families access to regular dental care. The state dentistry board is invoking a law that bans licensed dental specialists, like orthodontists, from doing even simple dental work outside their specialty, even though they are fully licensed dentists. A victory will not only vindicate the bedrock american principle that government can't irrationally restrict economic liberty, but also benefit consumers by lowering costs and increasing access to care. Kelly v. Whitmore in this case, we are challenging the state of arizona's anti-competitive requirement that animal massage therapists become licensed veterinarians. Failing to comply risks up to six months in jail and fines of $3,500 per violation. But massage therapists do not need a medical degree to massage humans, and animal massage therapists do not need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and four years in veterinary school that doesn't even require that they learn massage. A victory will not only help these hard-working entrepreneurs and the pet owners who wish to utilize their services, but also send a strong message to vet licensing boards in other states considering similar restrictions.”

“Westphal v. Northcutt these cases challenge restrictions by state dental boards in connecticut, georgia, and alabama, respectively, that ban non-dentists from providing teeth whitening services. The services provide over-the-counter teeth whitening products that customers apply themselves, as well as a clean and comfortable environment for doing so. The bans have nothing to do with health and safety and are designed to protect licensed dentists from non-dentist competitors who offer the same service in malls and salons at a fraction of the price. Legal victories in these cases will benefit entrepreneurs and consumers alike by increasing competition and driving down prices. Sylla v. Kohler; earl v. Smith; niang v. Carroll these cases challenge laws in washington state, arkansas, and missouri, respectively, that require african hair braiders to become licensed cosmetologists before they can work. In order to get a license, braiders must spend thousands of dollars and upwards of 1,500 hours on cosmetology training, not one minute of which teaches african hair braiding. In washington state, for example, the 1,600 hours of required training is more than 10 times the number of hours required to become an animal control officer, emergency medical technician, and security guard combined. In march 2015, arkansas became the first state to pass ij's model legislation exempting braiders from having to obtain a cosmetology license, and in april 2015, washington state passed a legally binding rule allowing braiders to work without having to obtain cosmetology licenses. These are victories not only for the braiders themselves, but also for the countless consumers who wish to use their services. The missouri lawsuit is ongoing. Loving v. Irs in 2014, we won an important victory when the u.s. Court of appeals for the d.c. Circuit ruled that the irs had no legal authority to impose a nationwide licensing scheme on tax-return preparers. The agency sought to force anyone who is paid to prepare tax returns-except individuals in certain favored professions and types of businesses-to pay fees, pass an exam, and take continuing education classes every year just to get the government's permission to earn a living. The requirements were so costly that they would have driven most part-time tax preparers out of business. The decision is an important victory not only for more than 350,000 tax preparers across the country and their customers, but also for countless other entrepreneurs fighting overreaching government agencies. In fy15, we were awarded $257,886 in attorneys' fees and costs as a result of this victory.”

“Justice v. Hosemann these cases challenge laws in arizona, florida, and mississippi, respectively, that require ordinary americans who want to join together to speak out in elections to become political committees regulated by the state. Political committees must register with the government; appoint a director or chairman and treasurer; designate a bank account; keep track of expenditures; and file reports, even if they are informal groups that raise very small amounts of money. Laws like these have a chilling effect on political speech and violate the first amendment. Court victories will enable people from all walks of life to participate in the electoral process-an american birthright. After we won the galassini case in the trial court, the state changed the law to exempt small groups from political committees. In fy15, we were awarded $9,000 in fees and costs in the worley case. Seaton v. Wiener this was a challenge to minnesota's restrictions on campaign financing. Under the law, the state limited the amount of money an individual could donate to a candidate to $1,000. But once a candidate raised $12,500 in contributions between $500 and $1,000, that limit was arbitrarily cut in half. Contributing to candidates for political office is a well-recognized first amendment right that should not be dished out on a first-come, first-served basis. In 2014, a federal judge found the law to be likely unconstitutional and suspended the program. In 2015, the legislature repealed the law in response to ij's lawsuit. This is a major victory for public participation in elections and means that how much individuals can contribute to the candidate of their choice is no longer dependent on how much their neighbors have already contributed. Farris v. Seabrook ij client robin farris first got involved in politics when she started organizing a campaign to recall an elected official after hearing about serious charges of misconduct on his part. But she soon ran afoul of washington state's campaign finance law because she enlisted the pro bono services of two local attorneys to navigate the state's complicated recall procedures, and the law limits to $800 contributions to recall campaigns. We won a victory for robin in november 2012 when a federal court concluded that the state had unconstitutionally enforced the contribution limits against the recall campaign. In fy15, we were awarded $243,968 in attorneys' fees and costs as a result of this victory.”

“After winning the farris case above, ij sought attorneys' fees from the washington public disclosure commission (pdc), a process that is customary in civil rights lawsuits. The pdc not only challenged the fees in court, but it also filed a complaint against our client, recall dale washam, for failing to disclose ij's representation as an in-kind contribution to the campaign. Classifying our services as a campaign contribution could have put in serious jeopardy the ability of public-interest groups like ij and the aclu to defend their clients' rights. In february 2015, the court ruled that free legal services to protect constitutional rights are not a campaign contribution. As a result of this victory, we were awarded $406,617 in attorneys' fees and costs. Kagan v. City of new orleans in new orleans, we represented four tour guides who were challenging a local law that subjects tour guides to fines and even jail time if they talk about the history and culture of the city without first passing a history exam and then, every two years, a drug test and fbi criminal background check. While the u.s. Court of appeals for the d.c. Circuit struck down a similar law we challenged in washington, d.c., the 5th u.s. Circuit court of appeals upheld new orleans' restrictions. We appealed the ruling to the u.s. Supreme court, which declined to accept review. Freenor v. Mayor and aldermen of the city of savannah thanks to our prior litigation, including the edwards and kagan cases described above, federal courts of appeal are split on the issue of whether calling a regulation "occupational licensing" cancels out first amendment protections for free speech. The u.s. Supreme court will need to resolve this difference, and we are litigating the issue with a lawsuit in savannah, georgia. There, tour guides risk fines of $1,000, 30 days in jail, and even forced participation in a municipal work gang if they fail to obtain the government's permission before they work. Ij is pioneering litigation in this area of the law, and a victory in savannah will increase the likelihood that the u.s. Supreme court will weigh in on the issue. A favorable ruling will benefit entrepreneurs and consumers alike by opening up competition, driving down costs, and increasing choice.”

“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 instructor's license. That means that they would need to spend hundreds of dollars and an additional 700 hours of training in subjects that have nothing to do with makeup artistry. In june 2014, a federal judge pared back some of the requirements but left in place other onerous and irrelevant regulations. While we were appealing the decision to the 9th u.s. Circuit court of appeals, the nevada legislature stepped in and reformed the law. This is a victory for entrepreneurs, the aspiring ones they want to teach, and the consumers who will use their services. Membreno v. City of hialeah in hialeah, florida, 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 is trying to put silvio and his fellow vendors out of business by enacting anti-competitive regulations that arbitrarily protect some businesses while harming others. A victory will benefit these hardworking entrepreneurs and their customers, and further secure the right to earn an honest living. Astramecki v. Minnesota department of agriculture this case, on behalf of home bakers jane astramecki and mara heck, was one of the first in ij's national food freedom initiative, which is designed to protect the rights of people who raise, produce, make, cook, and sell the food we eat, along with the consumers who wish to use their services. We secured an important victory from the minnesota court of appeals when it reversed a lower-court ruling upholding the restrictions and sent the case back down to the trial court. Shortly thereafter, the state legislature changed the law. The ruling and legislative change not only benefit food entrepreneurs and consumers, but also send a strong message to other states considering implementing similar restrictions on small-scale cottage foods entrepreneurs.”

“For 17 years, hermine ricketts and her husband, tom carroll, used their front yard in miami shores, florida, 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 the ban in court. The lawsuit aims to vindicate the right of all americans to peacefully use their own property to support their own families. Ocheesee creamery v. Putnam and newton ij client mary lou wesselhoeft is a dairy farmer from the panhandle of florida. Because she and her customers subscribe to an all-natural philosophy, she refuses to add anything to the pasteurized skim milk she produces from her small family farm. But in florida, pasteurized skim milk can't be called that unless it's first artificially injected with vitamin a. As a result, the state ordered mary lou to stop selling her milk unless she either injected the milk with vitamin a or used a confusing and misleading label, "non-grade 'a' milk product, natural milk vitamins removed." the first amendment protects mary lou's right to communicate truthful information to her customers, so she teamed up with ij to fight back in court. When government censors truthful information, everyone loses: the entrepreneurs trying to earn an honest living and the consumers they serve. Lmp services, inc. V. City of chicago in chicago, it is illegal for food trucks to operate within 200 feet of any fixed business that sells food, including supermarkets, convenience stores, and even gas stations. The law effectively shuts vendors out of downtown and has nothing to do with protecting health and safety-it was enacted at the behest of a few politically connected restaurateurs to protect their bottom line. Vendors who operate too close to a restaurant face fines of up to $2,000, which is 10 times higher than the penalty for parking in front of a fire hydrant. So three food truck operators teamed up with ij to challenge the law in court. A victory will advance the principle that economic protectionism is not a legitimate government interest, which will benefit consumers and entrepreneurs alike.”

“Transportation commission ij's transportation initiative works across the country to vindicate the right of drivers to earn an honest living. In portland, oregon, and tampa, florida, we are challenging laws that impose a minimum fare on small sedan companies in order to protect the profits of entrenched businesses. The government's job is to protect the public, not the profits of private businesses, and victories in these cases will advance the principle that economic protectionism has no place under a constitutional rule of law. San diego transportation association v. San diego metropolitan transit system; joe sanfelippo cabs, inc. V. City of milwaukee in san diego and milwaukee, entrenched cab companies have filed legal challenges to their cities' repeal of limits on the number of cabs allowed to operate on city streets. The limits served no purpose other than to protect the profits of a small group of pre-existing taxi-permit owners. By lifting the caps, san diego and milwaukee have given hundreds of drivers, like our clients abdi abdisalan and saad malik, a shot at becoming their own bosses. So we intervened in these cases to ensure that the voices of drivers-the true parties of interest-are heard in these lawsuits. Illinois transportation trade association v. City of chicago in chicago, existing cab companies are suing to freeze the city's taxi regulations in order to preemptively squelch competition from ridesharing companies like sidecar, lyft, and uberx and protect their bottom line. But consumers and entrepreneurs should decide which transportation options are available in chicago, so ij teamed up with three ridesharing drivers to intervene in the lawsuit and prove that entrenched businesses have no legal right to economic protectionism.”

“In ohio, john rinaldi wants to bring a new kind of transportation option to the town of bowling green. His business model utilizes cutting-edge technology, eco-friendly priuses, a staff of friendly drivers, and $3-a-head rides. But the city makes that impossible because it caps at 16 the number of taxi permits allowed on city streets. It is unconstitutional for the government to use its power to protect itself and other established businesses from competition, so john teamed up with ij to file suit in state court. A victory will benefit consumers and entrepreneurs not only in ohio, but also nationwide as other cities and towns consider enacting-or repealing-similar caps. Courtney v. Goltz for the past 15 years, jim and cliff courtney have tried to launch a boat service to better serve the remote community in upstate washington state where they live. But the state requires jim and cliff to either obtain the existing ferry company's permission to compete, or prove in a trial-like hearing that the existing company is not providing "reasonable and adequate service and that a new service is necessary. Because this is an unconstitutional restraint on economic liberty, jim and cliff teamed up with ij to fight back. A victory will protect the right of all americans to participate in the economic life of the nation. Colon health centers of america, llc v. Hazel virginia makes it illegal to offer new medical services or purchase certain types of medical equipment without first obtaining a special permission slip from the government called a "certificate of need." the certificate-of-need 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.”

“Ij client charlie birnbaum's is a classic american story. His parents were immigrants who met hiding in the forests of poland during world war ii. They left him many things, including a home 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. A state government agency, however, wants to take the property using eminent domain, even though it has no specific plans for the building or the land. So charlie teamed up with ij to challenge the taking in court. A victory will protect charlie's right to own and enjoy his property as well as the property rights of everyone in new jersey. Community youth athletic center v. National city the community youth athletic center (cyac) is a non-profit after-school fitness and mentoring program in national city, california, that helps hundreds of low-income kids stay off the streets, in school, and on the path to life success. Rather than encourage the cyac's good work on behalf of the community, the local government attempted to apply a phony "blight" designation to the gym and nearly 700 other properties so it could transfer them to a luxury condo developer using its power of eminent domain. 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, where we also secured a victory for the gym and reinforced vital protections for property owners across the state. In fy15, we were awarded $1,466,395 in fees from the city for our work in this case. Central radio company v. City of norfolk ij is standing up for a thriving small business in norfolk, virginia, that is not only at risk of losing its property through eminent domain abuse, but also being censored for expressing an opinion the government doesn't like. In early 2012, the owners of central radio company hung a banner on their building protesting the government's attempt to take their property through eminent domain. But the city told them to take it down because it was in violation of the city's sign code, even though other businesses in the area have signs as large as or larger than central radio's. A victory in this case will protect an important part of our nation's history: the right to peaceably protest government abuse using signs.”

“Similar to our clients in the central radio case above, st. Louis resident jim roos decided to fight back against his local government's abuse of its power of eminent domain. He had a large protest mural painted on his building in a neighborhood targeted for redevelopment. But the city of st. Louis didn't like the criticism and insisted that the mural be taken down as a violation of local sign codes. We won the case before the 8th u.s. Circuit court of appeals in 2011, but remain in district court asking for a judgment declaring jim's right to maintain the mural. Such a ruling will secure the right of americans from all walks of life to effectively protest government abuse without first having to get the government's permission. United states v. $32,820.56 from mrs. Lady's, inc. Account #xxxxx23264 for 38 years, carole hinders has owned and operated mrs. Lady's mexican food in spirit lake, iowa. Mrs. Lady's accepts only cash, which means carole makes frequent trips to the bank to avoid having large sums of money at the restaurant. In 2013, the federal government seized carole's entire bank account-totaling nearly $33,000-even though she had done nothing wrong. Federal law requires banks to report cash deposits larger than $10,000. Since carole's deposits were almost always less than $10,000, the government claimed she was "structuring" her bank deposits to evade that reporting requirement and used civil forfeiture to seize her hard-earned money without ever even charging her with a crime. When carole teamed up with ij to fight back, the government quickly capitulated and agreed to drop the case and return carole's money. Because the government is using this practice with alarming frequency to seize the cash of law-abiding citizens, ij is fighting back with a series of lawsuits described below to stop this unconstitutional practice and protect the property and earnings of hard-working americans. Thus far, we have been awarded $1,538 in costs related to this case. United states v. $107,702.66 lyndon mclellan is a convenience store owner in rural north carolina who had more than $107,000 seized by the irs in 2014 using civil forfeiture under federal structuring laws. Similar to carole hinders above, lyndon made frequent cash deposits so as not to have a lot of cash accumulate in the store. Before ij got involved, lyndon's case was brought up in congressional testimony, and the u.s attorney in charge of the case told lyndon's lawyer, "whoever made [the document] public may serve their own interest but will not help this particular case. My offer is to return 50% of the money." rather than letting the government bully him, however, lyndon teamed up with ij to fight back. And less than two weeks after ij announced our involvement, the government backed down and agreed to return lyndon's money. These lawsuits are sending a strong message to the government that it can't continue to steal the property of honest, hard-working americans. In the matter of the seizure of $446,651.11 for 27 years, brothers jeff, richard, and mitch hirsch have owned bi-county distributors, inc., a small business that distributes candy, snacks, and other goods to convenience stores throughout long island. Because bi-county's customers often pay in cash, the hirsch brothers frequently make large deposits at their local bank. In 2012, without conducting any serious investigation into bi-county's legitimate business reasons for making such deposits, the government raided their bank account and took $446,651, sending the company into a tailspin and upending the hirsch families' lives. Ij filed suit in october 2014, and just two months later, the government agreed to return the money and not pursue forfeiture of the funds. It's a significant victory not only for the hirsch brothers, but for property owners across the country fighting similar forfeitures of their property and cash.”

“This lawsuit is a follow-up to our successful representation of michigan small business owners mark zaniewski and terry dehko and his daughter sandy, who had their entire bank accounts seized by the federal government using civil forfeiture under federal structuring laws. The government never convicted them of a crime, or even charged them; it simply alleged the deposits of their lawfully earned money were suspicious. We were able to secure the return of mark's and terry and sandy's money, and we filed this follow-up lawsuit against the irs to ensure that property owners receive a prompt court hearing when federal agents seize their property through civil forfeiture. United states v. $11,000 in united states currency and charles l. Clarke, ii this case adds yet another dimension to our campaign to end civil forfeiture, in which we address head-on the new, but underreported, practice of law enforcement aggressively using civil forfeiture to seize cash of domestic travelers at our nation's airports. We represent charles clarke, a 24-year-old student who had his entire life savings of $11,000 seized at the cincinnati/northern kentucky airport in 2014. Charles is far from the only person whose cash has been seized-cincinnati airport police took part in nearly 100 seizures totaling more than $2 million in 2013 alone. Carrying large amounts of cash is not a crime, and the government should have to prove that a crime was committed before it can keep travelers' money. Sourovelis v. City of philadelphia in philadelphia, we are taking on one of the worst abuses of civil forfeiture laws in the nation today: the city's machine-like system of seizing millions of dollars of property from thousands of its citizens each year. Forfeitures range from cash, cars, and homes to jumper cables. And the city's police and prosecutors get to keep all forfeiture proceeds. Over a 10-year period philadelphia police and prosecutors took in more than $64 million in forfeiture proceeds, with $25 million going toward their own salaries. So in august 2014, ij fought back with a major federal lawsuit seeking to end the city's shocking practice once and for all. We brought the case as a class action, so a victory will benefit everyone who finds themselves caught up in philadelphia's forfeiture machine. Dean v. City of winona this lawsuit takes on a ban on the number of homeowners who may rent out their properties in the city of winona, minnesota. 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 homeowners to rent out their homes. That means if 30 percent of homeowners in a neighborhood 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 don't rent them out. Under the constitution, the government can't arbitrarily restrict the property rights of some people but not others. A victory in the case will send a message to cities across minnesota and nationwide that rental bans are unconstitutional and cities should not attempt to impose them.”

“Before 2013, beer distributors in texas would pay brewers for the right to sell their beer in markets like houston or austin, and brewers traditionally reinvested this money into their breweries. But at the behest of politically connected distributors, texas made it illegal for brewers to accept compensation for their distribution rights. Distributors pay nothing for something potentially worth millions of dollars. Texas brewers are essentially being forced to give up part of their business for free. The texas constitution protects the property rights and economic liberty of entrepreneurs, so the owners of three craft breweries teamed up with ij to fight back in court, defend the businesses they built, and vindicate these important principles. Duncan v. New hampshire the institute for justice's work as the lawyers for the school choice movement has never been more important. School choice is expanding at a rapid pace across the country, and ij is effectively defending the interests of parents and children when choice programs are challenged in court by the teachers unions and their allies. In august 2014, we secured the first of two state supreme court victories in fy15 upholding school choice programs with our victory before the new hampshire supreme court. Under this program, local businesses contribute to non-profit organizations that fund education scholarships. Qualifying parents may use the scholarships to send their children to a private school or to a tuition-charging public school in a neighboring school district, or to pay for homeschooling expenses. With the state supreme court's ruling, eligible families now are able to send their children to whatever school they choose. Boyd v. Magee our second state supreme court victory for school choice this year came in march, when the alabama supreme court ruled that the alabama accountability act is entirely constitutional. The act has been a lifeline for our clients and other parents trying to rescue their children from failing public schools. The teachers unions and their allies, however, feared that the tax credits and scholarships the state offers parents to secure a quality education for their children would end the public school monopoly. So they desperately threw 10 different legal challenges at alabama's school choice programs in the hopes that at least one would stick. But the state supreme court roundly rejected each of their claims, definitively stating that school choice is constitutional in alabama. Thousands of children already benefit from alabama's programs, and this decision opens the door for even more families to join their ranks. Larue v. Colorado board of education ij appeared before two other state supreme courts this year defending school choice. In december 2014, we appeared before the colorado supreme court to vindicate a modest local school choice program in douglas county that provides private school scholarships to district residents. The aclu, americans united for separation of church and state, and several colorado organizations and taxpayers sued to stop the program. Ij intervened, representing four families who intend to use the scholarships for their children.”

“In february 2015, we appeared before the north carolina supreme court defending the state's opportunity scholarship program, which awards publicly funded scholarships to enable qualifying families to take their children out of the public school system and send them to a private school. The teachers unions and school boards filed two separate lawsuits to stop the program on the grounds that the north carolina constitution prevents the state from funding any private school scholarships. However, the state constitution allows the general assembly to use its general revenue fund to create educational programs outside of the public school system, and that is exactly what north carolina legislators did through the opportunity scholarship program. We intervened in the case on behalf of cynthia perry and other parents who wish to use the program to save their children from failing public schools. Gaddy v. Georgia department of revenue in may 2014, we intervened in a lawsuit to defend georgia's long-standing scholarship tax-credit program. The program provides scholarships to more than 13,000 students, making it the fourth largest school choice program in the country. Our opponents are challenging the program on the grounds that it violates the state constitution's ban on providing public support to religious institutions and that the legislature is limited to supporting only the public school system. However, their claims lack merit as 100 percent of the program funds are raised from private donors and given to parents to spend at a school of their choice-regardless of whether they choose a religious or non-religious private school for their children. Georgia's scholarship tax-credit program offers thousands of children a pathway to a better education today, not at some distant point in the future, and we will do everything we can to ensure that it continues to succeed. Citizens for strong schools v. Florida in florida, we intervened on behalf of six families to defend two of the largest school choice programs in the nation. The mckay scholarship for pupils with disabilities and the florida corporate tax credit scholarship program have been on the books for over a decade and help more than 87,000 children across the state obtain a quality education. The programs came under attack in 2014 when a group of parents who sued florida several years ago seeking more money for public education amended their lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of these two programs, claiming they unconstitutionally "divert" money from florida's public schools. But our opponents' claims are unfounded, and we will prove the programs' constitutionality in court and demonstrate the power of school choice to transform individual lives and improve the overall public education system. Amicus in addition to litigating the above-described cases, the institute for justice filed amicus briefs in the following cases between july 1, 2014 and june 30, 2015: city of los angeles v. Patel henderson v. United states of america horne v. U.s. Department of agriculture north carolina state board of dental examiners v. Ftc obergefell v. Hodges reed v. Town of gilbert, arizona rowell v. Pettijohn serafine v. Branaman wollschlaeger v. Governor of florida utter v. Building industry association of washington”