Institute for Justice

“William h. Mellor served as president & general counsel until january 1, 2016, and remains employed by the organization as founding general counsel. Scott g. Bullock became president & general counsel on january 1, 2016, and is employed by the organization.”

“The form 990 is 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 is 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.”

“Hart v. State/Richardson v. State: IJ secured a seminal win for school choice in July 2015 when the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the states Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides low-income families with up to $4,200 to send their children to private schools. After the program was challenged by the teachers association and school boards, IJ intervened on behalf of two parents and took the case all the way to the state supreme court. Thanks to this victory, thousands of North Carolina families can now send their children to a school that suits their educational needs. We received $820 in costs for this case. United States v. $107,702.66: In 2014, IRS agents raided Lyndon McLellans convenience store in North Carolina and seized his entire bank account of more than $107,000. The IRS and Department of Justice took Lyndons money through civil forfeiture, claiming he had violated so-called "structuring" laws by making frequent cash deposits, and pursued the forfeiture despite a policy change that said the IRS and Department of Justice would no longer seek forfeiture of lawfully acquired money such as proceeds from a convenience store. IJ teamed up with Lyndon to get his money back, and less than two weeks after launching our case, the government surrendered and returned his cash in full. IJ received from the government $51,122 in fees for this case. Oklahoma, ex rel., et al. v. $53,234.00 Cash (Eh Wah): We secured another quick strike against civil forfeiture when officials in Muskogee County, Oklahoma, returned the more than $53,000 it seized from a Burmese Christian band on tour in the U.S. to raise money for charity. After pulling over the bands manager for a routine traffic violation, the sheriff's department took the cash-including clearly labeled donations to a Thai orphanage and nonprofit Burmese school-and arrested the manager in an attempt to intimidate him into surrendering the money. IJ announced our involvement in the case in April, and less than a day later, the Muskogee District Attorneys Office agreed to give back the money and drop the charges. Vocatura's Bakery, Inc. v. IRS: This streak continued in May, when IJ teamed up with the Vocatura family to get back the nearly $70,000 that the IRS seized under the same laws that they used to trap Lyndons bank account. The agency seized this money from the family bakery in 2013, and, for the next three years, sat on the Vocatura's cash, refused to bring their case before a judge, and threatened to investigate the bakerys finances in order to retroactively justify the forfeiture action. Hours after IJ filed a motion urging the agency to return the money, the IRS stated that it would give back the familys money in full. IJs work on this issue has sent a clear message to law enforcement agencies across the country, and these swift capitulations show that they know these seizures are indefensible. Bell, et al. v. Iowa Board of Cosmetology: We secured a victory for Iowa hair braiders in June 2016 when the state passed a law exempting them from its cosmetology licensing laws. Previously, hair braiders were required to undergo many hours of expensive training in order to obtain a license and legally practice their craft. IJ challenged this law in court on behalf of two African-style hair braiders in October 2015 and voluntarily dismissed our lawsuit when the new law went into effect. The case will serve as a call to action to other state legislatures to roll back their job-crushing licensing requirements for hair braiders and other entrepreneurs. Rosemond v. Conway: In May 2013, IJ challenged the state of Kentuckys claim that our client John Rosemonds nationally syndicated parental advice column constitutes the unlicensed practice of psychology. The state board of psychology, which initiated the claim, attempted to punish him for giving individualized advice in his column and also stated that because John is licensed to practice psychology in North Carolina, but not”

“IJ secured a significant victory for those who speak for a living in 2014, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down Washington, D.C.s onerous tour guide licensing requirements. Previously, tour guides were prohibited from giving tours without first passing an exam, and faced fines and even jail time if they described the city without a license. In FY16, we received $180,000 in attorneys fees for this case. Dina Galassini v. Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona: IJ filed suit on behalf of Dina Galassini, a resident of Fountain Hills, Arizona, to preserve her right to speak out about political issues. In fall 2011, Dina wrote an email to her friends asking them to join her in opposing a local bond issue. Days later, she received a letter from the town claiming that her email constituted the formation of a "political committee" that must be regulated by the state. But Americans should be able to speak about politics before, after, and during elections, so Dina partnered with IJ to protect this vital right. After a federal court held that Arizonas definition of "political committee" is unconstitutionally vague-and that its regulations for such committees are unconstitutionally burdensome-the state changed its law to exempt small groups from being regulated political committees, and in October 2015 dismissed its appeal of the courts decision. In FY16, we received $2,501 in attorneys fees. Champion, et al. v. Craddock, et al.: Shelia Champion owns and operates The Good Earth Burial Ground in Hazel Green, Alabama, where she provides inexpensive and environmentally friendly interments. Shelia allows remains to be buried in biodegradable shrouds and caskets, and she sells these materials herself. However, according to Alabama law, only state-licensed funeral directors could sell a casket to the public, and Shelia would have had to spend at least three years training as a funeral director and hundreds of thousands of dollars on a full-service funeral home just to obtain a license. This was blatant economic protectionism, so she partnered with IJ to file a constitutional challenge. Less than a month after we filed the case, the state legislature changed the law so that Shelia and other entrepreneurs can sell caskets to the public. 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 Floridas public schools. In May 2016, both programs were ruled constitutional and our opponents claims were dismissed. Both programs are now safe (pending appeal). Lopez v. City of San Antonio, Texas: As part of our National Street Vending Initiative, IJ challenged San Antonios proximity restriction on food trucks. The city banned food trucks from operating within 300 feet of every restaurant, convenience store, and grocer in the city, forcing food truck owners to get written, notarized permission to operate from their brick-and-mortar competitors. To build on momentum from our victory in Patel, and to protect entrepreneurs and consumers from anticompetitive regulations, IJ challenged the proximity restriction in court. In response, the San Antonio City Council voted to repeal the law, so our clients-along with hundreds of other vendors in the city-are free to pursue their American Dream. Espinoza v. MT Department of Revenue: Montanas first school choice program gives a modest tax credit to individuals and businesses who donate to private scholars”

“In this case IJ represents Hermine Ricketts and her husband Tom Carroll, who used their front yard in Miami Shores, Florida, to grow food for their own personal consumption for nearly two decades. But in 2013, the city prohibited front-yard vegetable gardens-while allowing fruit trees and yard ornaments-and imposed a hefty fine on Hermine and Tom. They uprooted their garden but partnered with IJ to challenge the ban in court and protect the property rights of all Americans. We await the Judge's ruling on this case. Sourovelis v. City of Philadelphia: IJ is taking on one of the most abusive civil forfeiture practices in the country with a class-action lawsuit in Philadelphia. There, the city seizes all sorts of property-totalling more than $64 million from 2005 to 2015-and police and prosecutors get to keep all forfeiture proceeds, giving them a direct financial incentive to seize as much as they can. IJs case aims to end the citys onerous forfeiture process and protect Philadelphia property owners from getting trapped in its forfeiture machine. In addition, IJ has challenged many aspects of the process for legal seizure and forfeiture in Philadelphia. Whitner, et al. v. City of Pagedale: In Pagedale, Missouri, residents can be ticketed and fined for harmless conditions and activities around their house. The city relies heavily on money from fines, so officials aggressively ticket residents for everything from mismatched drapes to holes in their window screens. IJ has teamed up with the residents of Pagedale to file a class-action lawsuit and stop the citys use of code enforcement mechanisms as a means to raise money. A victory in this case will affirm Americans right to live peacefully in their own homes. Pizza Di Joey, LLC v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore: As part of our National Street Vending Initiative, IJ is challenging Baltimores "same-or-similar" rule for mobile vendors. This law makes it nearly impossible for vendors to operate because it requires them to park at least 300 feet away from any brick-and-mortar business that provides a similar product or service, meaning that a taco truck could not park outside a Mexican restaurant while a truck that sells pizza could. This arbitrary restriction on vendors serves no purpose other than to protect existing businesses from competition, so IJ teamed up with Joey Vanoni of the Pizza de Joey truck and Nikki McGowan of Madame BBQ to make sure that all of Baltimores entrepreneurs have the opportunity to succeed. A victory in this case will send an important message to the many other cities with similar restrictions on mobile vendors. City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick, et al.: This lawsuit challenges the city of Golden Valleys practice of using administrative warrants to inspect rental properties and check, among other things, that their tenants are maintaining a clean kitchen and bathroom. In 2015, IJ clients Jackie and Jason Wiebesick were told that they would have to submit to inspection of their rental unit in order to keep their rental license. The Wiebesicks and their tenants feel that this is a violation of their privacy, and refused the citys request. IJ has partnered with the Wiebesicks to protect landlords and tenants right to privacy under the Minnesota Constitution. Horner, et al. v. Curry, et al.: The Indiana Constitution makes clear that all forfeiture proceeds should go to the states public schools, but Indianapolis police and prosecutors have been keeping this cash for themselves. This gives them a powerful incentive to seize as much property as they can, and IJ has partnered with two Indiana residents who were unjustly targeted in a forfeiture case to make them follow the law. A victory will confirm that everyone must follow the law-including police and prosecutors-and set a precedent for every other law enforcement office in Indiana. United States v. $32,820.56 from Mrs. Lady's, Inc Account #XXXXX23264: Carole Hinders owned and operated Mrs. Ladys Mexican”

“In this lawsuit, IJ challenged a cap on the number of rental permits issued by the city of Winona, Minnesota. When the city amended its zoning laws so that only 30 percent of homes in each block could receive rental permits, it meant that only 30 percent of the homeowners in each neighborhood could obtain their permits. We took on this law in 2011 to stop the government from arbitrarily restricting the rights of some homeowners, but in August 2015, the case was mooted on grounds of standing. Burris v. Cobb: This was a challenge to the state of Arkansas law that bans licensed dental specialists, like our orthodontist client Dr. Ben Burris, from offering even simple dental work that falls outside their specialty. Ben wants to offer low-cost dental cleanings to his customers in order to give low-income families access to regular dental care, but is prohibited from doing so by this law. IJ filed suit on his behalf to change the law, lower costs for consumers, and increase access to care. However, in January 2016, Ben decided to relinquish his orthodontist license in order to grow his general dentistry practice, and we voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit. Colon Health Centers of America, LLC, et al. v. Hazel, et al.: Virginia imposes a restriction on medical professionals that makes it illegal to offer new medical services or purchase certain types of medical equipment without first obtaining a special type of permission called a "certificate of need" from the government. The certificate-of-need requirement is incredibly expensive, frequently results in new services being forbidden to operate, and has nothing to do with health and safety. IJ challenged this restriction in court in 2012. We lost in the trial court in 2014 but went on to secure an important reversal setting forth the legal standards for commerce clause charges. Although we lost the case on its facts, the legal precedent we secured will be very helpful in future cases. Membreno v. City of Hialeah: In Hialeah, Florida, we challenged the citys attempt to shut IJ client Silvio Membreno and his fellow vendors out of the market by enacting anti-competitive regulations that protect brick-and-mortar businesses. Silvio has earned a living as a flower vendor for 15 years, and he should not have to give up his occupation to benefit his politically connected competitors. In March 2016, Floridas Third District Court of Appeal ruled against the right to earn an honest living and upheld the citys restrictions against mobile vendors. 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 companys permission to compete or to prove in a trial-like hearing that the existing company is not providing "reasonable and adequate servicethat 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. Speed's Auto Services v. Portland; Halsnik v. Hillsborough County Public Transportation Commission: These two cases in Portland, Oregon, and Tampa, Florida, seek to vindicate the right of drivers to earn an honest living by striking down laws that impose a minimum fare on small sedan companies. Companies should be able to charge what they want for their services, and the government cannot protect the profits of private businesses at the expense of others. We lost the Tampa case at the appellate court in June 2016, and the Portland case is ongoing. Burke v. City of Chicago: Chicago imposes a 200-foot proximity restriction on food trucks, making it illegal for them operate near any fixed business that sells food. Effectively shutting mobile vendors out of the downtown market, this law blatantly protects the interests of pol”

“We filed suit in Mississippi to challenge a state campaign-finance law that required small groups of voters to register with the government before speaking out about politics. Laws like this impose significant burdens on Americans who just want to get involved in the electoral process, including extensive record-keeping and reporting requirements. IJ secured a victory at the trial court but lost when the government appealed the trial courts decision. Neighborhood Enterprises v. City of St. Louis: St. Louis resident Jim Roos decided to protest his local governments abuse of eminent domain by painting a large mural on his building. Like Norfolk, however, the city of St. Louis insisted that Jims sign violated city code and ordered him to take it down. IJ won this case in 2011 when the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Jim has the right to speak out about important issues. However, we continue to wait for the district court to consider Jims right to keep his mural in light of a revised sign code. Ocheesee Creamery v. Putnam and Newton: In this case, IJ represents Florida dairy farmer Mary Lou Wesselhoeft. Mary Lou sold pasteurized skim milk and labelled it as pasteurized skim milk. But because she would not inject her milk with Vitamin A, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ordered her to stop calling it pasteurized skim milk and label it as "Non-Grade 'A' Milk Product, Natural Milk Vitamins Removed." But Mary Lou has the right to communicate truthful information under the First Amendment, so IJ filed suit on her behalf in 2014. In February 2016, a federal court upheld the states censorship of Mary Lou, so IJ appealed the decision to vindicate her and other entrepreneurs free speech rights. Larue v. Colorado Board of Education: When the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and several other opponents of school choice challenged Douglas County, Colorados Choice Scholarship Program, IJ intervened on behalf of four families. The program would provide scholarships for 500 students to attend the private school of their parents choice. In 2015, in a 3-3-1 split decision, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled the program unconstitutional, so IJ has appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court and we currently wait to see if the Court will hear our case. Thomas v. Douglas County Board of Education: In March 2016, the Douglas County Board of Education adopted a new school choice program that provides scholarships only to secular private schools. IJ subsequently challenged the programs religious exclusion to secure the fundamental right of parents to choose their childrens education. We are representing three Colorado families in this case. Gaddy v. GA Dept of Revenue: In May 2014, we intervened in a lawsuit to defend Georgias long-standing scholarship tax-credit program. Our opponents challenged the program on the grounds that it violates the state constitutions ban on providing public support to religious institutions and that the Legislature is limited to supporting only the public school system. In February 2016, the court ruled that because 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-the program is entirely constitutional. Friend of the Court Briefs: In addition to litigating the above-described cases, the Institute for Justice filed amicus briefs in the following cases between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016: Zweber v. Credit River Township U.S. v. Batato (MegaUpload) CCP v. Harris Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association Arrigoni Enterprises v. Town of Durham, CT U.S. v. Bednar Delano Farms v. California Table Grape Commission Wollschlaeger v. Governor of Florida Boardwalk at Daytona Development, LLC v. Panormitis K. Pspalakis, et al. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. 1997 Chevrolet Trinity Lutheran Church of C”