Institute for Justice

“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.”

“At the fall board meeting, the board determines the compensation of six employees: the president/general counsel, the senior vice president for litigation, the chief operating officer, the managing vice president and senior attorney, the vice president for communications, and the managing vice president-cfo/secretary and treasurer. Ij provides the board's compensation committee with present and past compensation amounts for these positions, as well as comparable data from the most recently available form 990 for similarly situated non-profit organizations. Ij also annually engages an outside vendor to provide an independent compensation survey. The compensation committee makes a recommendation on compensation to the full board (except for the president/general counsel, who is recused), and the full board then votes to determine compensation, which decision is contemporaneously recorded and communicated to the cfo by the chairman and placed in the applicable confidential employment files. 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.”

“Ij's 990 and financial statements are available on its and other websites. Ij'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.”

“Espinoza v. Montana department of revenue the institute for justice (ij) secured a landmark victory for educational choice at the u.s. Supreme court when the court ruled that barring religious options in school choice programs violates the first amendment's protections for religious liberty. Programs must be neutral regarding religion and allow families to choose the school that works best for them. In 2015, ij filed suit on behalf of three montana families to defend a tax-credit scholarship program from an attack by the montana state department of revenue, which attempted to limit these scholarships to nonreligious private schools. When the montana supreme court struck down the entire program for including religiously affiliated schools, ij appealed the case to the u.s. Supreme court, and we won. Ij will use this victory to expand educational opportunities for thousands of families across america. Timbs v. State of indiana seven years and one landmark u.s. Supreme court victory later, ij client tyson timbs finally has his car back. In april 2020, a trial court judge ruled that the civil forfeiture of tyson's $35,000 land rover violated the eighth amendment's ban on governments imposing excessive fines and fees and ordered the state of indiana to return his car immediately. Tyson's journey began when law enforcement used forfeiture to seize his vehicle after he was convicted of selling $225 worth of drugs. After the indiana supreme court ruled that the eighth amendment provides no protection against fines and forfeitures imposed by the states, ij challenged this decision at the u.s. Supreme court - and resoundingly won. The u.s. Supreme court held that the ban on excessive fines and fees applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government, a decision which protects americans from abuse of their property rights by all levels of government. The high court sent tyson's case back to the indiana supreme court, which in turn sent the case back to the trial court, which ruled for tyson. Amazingly, the indiana attorney general has appealed the decision, placing tyson's case before the indiana supreme court for a third time. Ij will keep fighting on behalf of tyson and all victims of civil forfeiture. South mountain creamery, llc, v. Fda, et al. Dairy farmers across america can sell, and their customers can enjoy, truthfully labeled skim milk thanks to an ij victory for free speech. Randy sowers is the founder of south mountain creamery in middletown, maryland. The skim milk he sells is 100% pure, with no additives; it's safe to drink and legal to sell. But when randy wanted to sell his skim milk across state lines, he learned that fda regulations required he label his all-natural milk as "imitation skim milk or "imitation milk product" because he didn't add two artificial vitamins to it. If he violated this regulation, he could face fines or even jail. There's nothing imitation about randy's milk, and the first amendment protects his right to tell the truth. So, randy and ij filed a federal lawsuit against the fda's ban on truthful advertising. In response, the fda agreed in april 2020 not to enforce the labeling requirement and posted an explanation on its website that other skim milk producers can truthfully label their product "skim milk." ladd, et al. V. Real estate commission of pennsylvania in a victory for economic liberty, the pennsylvania supreme court held that vacation rental manager sally ladd's constitutional lawsuit against the pennsylvania real estate commission can move forward, reversing an earlier decision by the pennsylvania commonwealth court dismissing the case. The decision vindicates the right to earn an honest living enshrined in the pennsylvania constitution. This means pennsylvanians can now leverage the "more restrictive" protections of the state constitution when challenging economic liberty restrictions in court. Sally ladd is an entrepreneur who managed various vacation properties in”

“For decades, residents of detroit and wayne county, michigan, have lived under constant threat of having their cars taken away and ransomed back to them for $1,000 or more - that is, if the car is ever recovered. The perpetrators are police and prosecutors who use civil forfeiture to seize hundreds of cars each year. Detroiters melisa ingram and robert reeves both lost their cars (and other personal property inside) when wayne county seized them based on other people's alleged misbehavior. Melisa and robert have partnered with the institute for justice to file a major federal class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of wayne county's forfeiture program. The lawsuit asks the u.s. District court for the eastern district of michigan to enforce the federal constitutional right to due process and the rights to be free from unreasonable seizures and excessive fines. Brown and rolin v. Transportation security administration, et al. Retired railroad engineer terry rolin's life savings of $82,373 were seized by the government, but he hasn't been charged with any crime. Terry saved up cash and kept it in his pittsburgh home over many years. He asked his daughter, rebecca brown, to take the money home with her to boston and deposit it into a new joint bank account. Rebecca checked online and found out that flying domestically with any amount of cash is completely legal. But at the airport, the tsa held her bags as she went through security screening, then a dea agent took the money without charging rebecca with a crime or arresting her. Months later, the government said it was keeping the money for good. So, terry and rebecca joined with ij in january 2020 to file a class action lawsuit against the dea and tsa for practices that violate the constitution and are outside the tsa's legal authority. In response to the lawsuit, the government returned terry's money. But because terry and rebecca's suit includes class action claims to vindicate the rights of other travelers, we will continue to litigate it in federal court. Lech v. City of greenwood village shockingly, the 10th u.s. Circuit court of appeals held in 2019 that as long as the government uses its "police power" to destroy property, it cannot be required to provide compensation for that property under the u.s. Constitution's takings clause. The institute for justice filed a petition asking u.s. Supreme court to tell the 10th circuit that there is no "police power" exception to the takings clause. The case was brought by leo, alfonsina, and john lech, seeking compensation for the destruction of a home leo and alfonsina owned (and in which their son john lived with his own family) in greenwood village, colorado. In 2015, an armed shoplifter fled into the home (apparently at random). After taking gunfire from the shoplifter, the police used explosives, high-caliber ammunition, and a battering ram. The fugitive was apprehended, but the home was totaled. Unfortunately, in june of 2020, the supreme court denied the lechs' petition for review. Ij remains committed to getting this precedent overturned in a future case. Salgado v. United states of america in may 2015, miladis salgado returned home to find police had raided her home and taken her life savings of $15,000 based on a false tip that her estranged husband was dealing drugs. The drug enforcement agency (dea) attempted to keep miladis' money forever, but she went to court to get her money back. Right before the court was about to rule, the dea suddenly agreed to give the money back and claimed this meant miladis had not won her case and therefore should not receive an award of attorneys' fees. Miladis' lawyer objected, but the court agreed with the government. The institute for justice teamed up with miladis to bring her petition for attorneys' fees to the u.s. Supreme court. The government should not be able take your property, keep it for years, and then suddenly give it back and pretend like nothing happened. Unfor”

“Ij joined with jim ficken of dunedin, florida, to challenge the city's attempt to foreclose his home simply because his grass was too long. While jim was out of town tending to his late mother's estate, city code enforcement officers began fining him for his long grass, to the tune of $500 per day. By the time he got back and became aware that he was being fined, they had already accrued to nearly $30,000. The city told jim he had 15 days to pay, or they would get their money by foreclosing on his home. And that is just what the city voted to do. But jim and ij won round one when a judge in the middle district of florida denied the city's motion to dismiss jim's lawsuit. This case is about more than just saving jim's home; it is about ensuring - for everyone - that abusive governments cannot trump the constitution. Davis, et al. V. City of chicago in april 2019, ij filed a class action lawsuit challenging chicago's massive and unconstitutional vehicle impound program. In a city that runs a chronic budget deficit of more than $100 million, impounding vehicles has become an easy - and significant - source of cash. The lead plaintiffs in our class action are innocent owners jerome davis and veronica walker-davis. The city impounded their car after an auto-shop employee took it for a joy ride while it was in the shop for repairs. After fighting the city for nearly a year and being charged thousands of dollars in fines and fees, the davises arrived to pick up their vehicle - only to find that city had already destroyed it. A victory in this case has the potential to create broad, systemic change in an area where abuse is rampant. In june 2020, the mayor of chicago proposed reforms to the impound program that would fix some of the glaring constitutional problems. While a good first step, our lawsuit will not stop until everyone is protected from having their cars unjustly impounded. Brumit v. City of granite city no one should be punished for a crime someone else committed. But try telling that to granite city, illinois, where city officials are trying to kick andy simpson and debi brumit (along with debi's grandchildren) out of their home as punishment for a crime everyone agrees they did not commit. Why? Because debi's daughter (who does not live with her) stole a van elsewhere in town. Granite city has what it calls a "crime-free" housing ordinance that amounts to a compulsory eviction law. Under the law, if any member of your "household or even a guest commits a crime anywhere in the city then your landlord is required to evict you. But debi and andy's landlord doesn't want to evict them. That is why debi and andy have teamed up with the institute for justice to sue granite city to affirm the basic principle that americans cannot be rendered homeless as punishment for other people's crimes. In october 2019, a federal judge agreed, entering a restraining order that will keep debi and andy safely in their home while their lawsuit proceeds. City of norco v. Mugar three years ago, norco, california, resident ron mugar received a notice indicating that he had violated the city's housing code. He admittedly allowed his home and backyard to become cluttered with hobby machinery. But instead of fining him or asking him to bring his property up to code, the city's private, for-profit prosecutors declared they were going to take over ownership of his house using a legal process known as "receivership." traditionally, receiverships allow a city to take temporary ownership of a property to fix an imminent danger to a community, such as a structurally unsound building. Unfortunately, receiverships are now being used in california to address even minor code violations. Ron brought his home and yard up to code and fought the receivership in court - and won. But just when ron thought he could relax, he received a bill from the city prosecutor's office for the $60,798.94 it spent losing ron's case. Ron is effectively being punished for successfu”

“In october of 2017, rustem kazazi, a former police officer from albania, was stopped in security at the cleveland airport and had $58,100 in cash seized by u.s. Customs and border protections (cbp) - even though he had done nothing illegal. Rustem was flying to new jersey and then returning to his native country with 12 years' worth of family savings to find a property he and his wife could enjoy in retirement. Adding insult to injury, cbp claimed later that they only took $57,330 - $770 less than he was actually carrying. Soon after ij got involved, the government agreed to return $57,115. In november 2018, the government agreed to return a further $385. Ij received from the government $43,280 in fees in july 2019. Brucker v. City of doraville each year, the city of doraville, georgia, budgets between 17% and 30% of its overall anticipated revenue to come from fines and fees issued by its police officers and code inspectors. By putting fine revenue into its annual budget, doraville creates a perverse incentive for police, prosecutors, and even its municipal court to police for profit, rather than seek justice and protect the health and safety of the city. Doraville homeowner hilda brucker was fined and sentenced to six months of probation for the "crime" of having cracks in her driveway. Hilda's neighbor jeff thornton was fined $1,000 for the crime of having a stack of firewood in his backyard. That is why in may 2018, hilda, jeff, and two others partnered with the institute for justice to stop doraville's unconstitutional reliance on fines and fees income, and to force the city to not use the criminal justice system to balance its budget. After a first-round victory in april 2019 and a second win that july, ij is continuing to fight in court to end doraville's illegal cash grab. Serrano v. U.s. Customs and border protection while gerardo serrano was crossing the border into mexico at eagle pass, texas, u.s. Customs and border protection (cbp) used civil forfeiture to seize his truck. Agents had found five low-caliber bullets in his center console which, according to cbp, constituted transporting "munitions of war," making the truck subject to civil forfeiture. For over two years, the agency held gerardo's truck without ever taking its case before a judge - all while gerardo continued to make his monthly car payments. Done waiting, gerardo joined with the institute for justice to sue to get his property back, and in october 2017, the government finally returned gerardo's truck. While gerardo has recovered his own truck, the case is still ongoing, as we filed suit on behalf of a class of other people who have had their vehicles seized by cbp and are being held without a hearing. We are currently awaiting a ruling from the u.s. Court of appeals for the 5th circuit. Nwaorie v. U.s. Customs and border protection anthonia nwaorie is a registered nurse and an american citizen who was en route to nigeria in october 2017, with $41,377 she had saved to open a medical clinic. But at houston's george bush intercontinental airport, u.s. Customs and border protection (cbp) agents discovered her money and took every penny - even though she obtained the money legally and planned to use it legally. Cbp stated it would return her money only if she signed an agreement waiving her right to interest on the seized property and her rights to sue cbp over anything related to the confiscation of her money. Anthonia teamed up with ij to file a federal class action lawsuit against cbp, and within just one month, she received her money back. Yet, ij forged ahead with the lawsuit to end cbp's unconstitutional and unlawful behavior. We received a setback in august 2019 when a district court dismissed the case, but we have appealed the dismissal to the u.s. Court of appeals for the 5th circuit. Morales v. City of indio, et al. Local government officials in indio, california, teamed up with a private law firm to charge property owners to cover the costs of”

“In september 2018, ij successfully dismantled the city of philadelphia's draconian forfeiture program, ushering in long-awaited justice to the 35,000 philadelphians who were stripped of their property and their constitutional rights. Until ij sued, philadelphia routinely seized homes, cars, and cash without notice. It forced owners to navigate the notorious "courtroom 478," where so-called "hearings" were run entirely by prosecutors, without any judges or court-appointed lawyers to defend property owners. Missing even a single "hearing" meant that prosecutors could permanently take an owner's property, sell it, and use the proceeds for any law-enforcement purpose they wished, creating a perverse incentive to seize property for forfeiture. Ij put all this to an end by securing two sweeping consent decrees - which received preliminary approval in may 2019 - that curb the financial incentives under which law enforcement keeps and uses forfeiture revenue, fundamentally reform procedures for seizing and forfeiting property, and establish a $3 million fund to compensate those whose property was wrongly confiscated. Casino reinvestment development authority v. Charles and lucinda birnbaum, et al. In february 2019, ij won a decisive victory on behalf of piano tuner charlie birnbaum, saving his longtime family home from an unconstitutional eminent domain attempt. The superior court of new jersey, appellate division, affirmed ij's lower-court victory from 2016, which called the state's attempt to take charlie's historic atlantic city home "a manifest abuse of eminent domain power." the long-running court battle pit birnbaum's family history against the state casino reinvestment and development authority, which sought to take the home in service of a "development" project that it could neither explain nor identify. Thanks to this victory, charlie can finally rest easy knowing that the home he inherited from his parents - holocaust survivors who immigrated to america nearly 70 years ago - is safe from the state's wrecking ball. It also sends a strong message to other land-hungry agencies that ij is ready to challenge abusive takings and protect the sweeping reforms to eminent domain laws we have worked so hard to secure. For this victory, ij received from the government $221,935 in fees in december 2019. Full circle of living and dying, et al. V. Sanchez, et al. Akhila murphy and donna peizer are end-of-life doulas, helping plan home funerals and providing emotional and practical support to the dying person and family. Home funerals are an american tradition legal in every state, and they are experiencing a resurgence. In december 2019, the california cemetery and funeral bureau ruled that akhila and donna's business is an unlicensed funeral agency, meaning akhila and donna must become licensed funeral directors and build a funeral home. This decision protects funeral homes from competition while limiting options for grieving families. So, akhila and donna have joined with ij to file a lawsuit in federal court to defend their first amendment right to free speech and their fourteenth amendment right to earn an honest living. Gurrola v. Duncan and kepple dario gurrola learned how to fight fires in california's well-known inmate firefighting program. When he finally turned his life around, he thought he could turn the skills he learned while incarcerated into a good career serving the public as a firefighter. But california, despite using thousands of inmates to fight its increasingly destructive wildfires, permanently bans those same people from receiving the emt certification needed to become a career firefighter if they have more than one felony on their record - even when the convictions are old and irrelevant. So, although he has all the necessary skills and training, dario can only work as a volunteer or seasonal firefighter. Dario and ij are challenging this unjust restriction to vindicate the constitutional right of dario and thousan”

“Registration, et al. For 12 years, greg mills has run an arizona engineering firm. Like 80% of american engineers, he does not have an engineer's license, which is not legally required for the projects that he works on. But in may 2019, the arizona board of technical registration threatened to shut down greg's company and fine him because he does not have an extremely burdensome state-issued license, a license that the board's own rules say he wouldn't need if he worked at a manufacturing company. Greg partnered with ij so that he and other arizona engineers can do the work they are qualified to do without unconstitutional interference from the board. In may 2020, however, the maricopa county superior court ruled that greg could not sue to protect his rights until the board finished its administrative process against him. We are appealing this ruling. Singh, et al. V. North carolina dep't of health and human services, et al.; singleton and singleton vision center v. North carolina dep't of health and human services, et al. North carolina makes it illegal for doctors to offer new health care services, build new facilities or buy new equipment without obtaining a special permit called a "certificate of need" (con) from a board dominated by regulators and industry insiders. If the board determines that there are already "enough" providers in a community, doctors are forbidden from offering services to patients who need them. By stifling competition, con laws directly harm thousands of patients, who must seek expensive treatment from existing providers. In 2018, ij teamed up with dr. Gajendra singh, who opened a center in 2017 to provide x-rays, mri scans, and more at affordable prices. But a board made up of health industry insiders decided there was no need for another mri scanner in his region and prevented him from even applying.. In the spring of 2020, dr. Singh had to close his imaging center, in part because of the costs imposed by the con law. As a result, dr. Singh's lawsuit could not continue, but shortly thereafter ij joined up with dr. Jay singleton, an ophthalmologist from new bern, to file a new challenge to north carolina's con law. Dr. Singleton owns a state-of-the-art outpatient operating facility, but can't even start the con application process to perform surgeries there because a formula put in place by state regulators has already determined that his community does not "need" another surgery center. Tiwari, et al. V. Meier, et al. Dipendra tiwari and kishor sapkotaare are nepali immigrants who want to start a home health agency that caters to the large nepali-speaking population in louisville, kentucky. Their future competitor - a $2 billion health care conglomerate - argued that their new agency was unneeded, and the state of kentucky refused to issue dipendra and kishor's business a certificate of need that would allow them to operate. So, dipendra, kishor, and ij are challenging kentucky's con requirement for home health agencies in federal court. This is one of several ij cases challenging con laws, which artificially limit access to health care and raise costs. Garrett and held v. Texas state board of pharmacy, et al.; bridges, et al. V. Montana board of medical examiners, et al. In 44 states and the district of columbia, doctors can and do dispense medicine directly to their patients. This can save patients time and money and make it more likely they will fill their prescription. Texas and montana, however, allow only doctors in certain rural areas to dispense medication, even though doctor dispensing is just as safe as dispensing by pharmacies. The bans serve only to protect the profits of pharmacies, not public health. So, ij is representing doctors from texas and montana in two lawsuits challenging these states' bans on doctor dispensing. N'dakpri, et al. V. Louisiana state board of cosmetology, et al. Ij continues our braiding freedom initiative with a case in louisiana representing three natural hai”

“Ij is taking on a pennsylvania law that not only violates due process and the right to equal protection; it also gives even more power to already unaccountable government officials. The commonwealth's collateral consequence law, which requires individuals to have "good moral character" in order to get a license, denies ex-offenders like our clients courtney haveman and amanda spillane from contributing to society and having a second chance at life. After spending months and thousands of dollars attending cosmetology school, courtney and amanda were denied a license despite both having turned their lives around years ago and the fact that their prior convictions have no relationship to beauty and facial care. Refusing to give up, they joined with ij to bring an end to the unconstitutional requirement in december 2018. In june 2020, the pennsylvania legislature passed an occupational licensing reform bill that would allow people like courtney and amanda to receive licenses. We are pushing for a decision in this case to help challenge unreasonable laws that make it harder for americans to work in the field of their choosing. Diaz, et al. V. City of fort pierce, florida, et al. In february 2019, a florida circuit court issued a preliminary injunction stating that the city of fort pierce cannot enforce its unconstitutional ban on food trucks operating within 500 feet of another establishment that sells food. Fort pierce's law was created in 2014 for the sole purpose of protecting restaurant owners from competition. Food truck owners benny diaz and brian peffer joined with the institute for justice in december 2018 to challenge the ban and, thanks to this ruling, they and other food truck owners can operate their food trucks while litigation continues, until the ban is struck down for good. Jackson, et al. V. Kemp, et al. In a major victory for economic freedom in the peach state, the georgia supreme court ruled in may 2020 that a constitutional challenge to the state's new lactation consultant license will go forward. Reversing a trial court decision that had dismissed the case in 2019, the georgia supreme court unanimously affirmed that it has "long interpreted the georgia constitution as protecting a right to work in one's chosen profession free from unreasonable government interference." mary jackson, a certified lactation counselor, and reaching our sisters everywhere (rose) - a nonprofit dedicated to providing breastfeeding support to minority communities - joined with ij in june 2018 to challenge georgia's mandate that lactation consultants be certified by a private organization to become international board certified lactation consultants (ibclc). Doing so requires roughly two years of college courses and more than 300 hours of supervised clinical work. Ij's clients have years of experience, and there is no proof that being ibclc-certified improves the quality of care. Very few lactation consultants in georgia are ibclc-certified. This case serves to protect their rights, and the rights of non-ibclc lactation consultants across the state, to earn a living providing mothers and babies with the care they need. White cottage red door, llc v. Town of gibraltar lisa and kevin howard, along with jessica and chris hadraba, opened a food truck outside their family business in fish creek, wisconsin. Despite obtaining the proper state and county permits for their truck, the town's constable told the quartet to stop vending and had the county revoke the truck's zoning permit. When the county refused, the town board passed a total ban on vending goods from mobile vehicles, including food trucks. At the root of the ban is the town board's scheme to protect established restaurants from healthy competition. With ij's help, lisa, kevin, jessica, and chris are challenging this unconstitutional vending ban to save their business and establish that vendors' right to earn a living does not depend on whether their businesses have wheels or not.”

“A little-known minnesota law requires wineries in the state make their wine primarily using grapes grown in minnesota, even though few types of grapes can grow in minnesota's climate. This law hurts the economic viability of minnesota vineyards, makes it harder for minnesota wine-lovers to locally find the kinds of wines they like, and hinders the interstate commerce that binds america together. Ij joined forces with two minnesota wineries, alexis bailly vineyard and next chapter winery, to challenge this onerous and unconstitutional law. In april 2018, a federal judge dismissed the suit on procedural grounds, but in july 2019, the 8th u.s. Circuit court of appeals reversed this decision and sent the case back to trial court. Pizza di joey, llc v. Mayor and city council of baltimore in may 2016, two baltimore-area food trucks - pizza di joey and mindgrub cafe - joined with ij to file a lawsuit against the city challenging its ban on mobile vendors operating within 300 feet of any brick-and-mortar establishment selling similar food. And on december 20, 2017, a circuit court judge ruled that the 300-foot ban was too vague, giving baltimore 60 days to stop enforcing it. Unfortunately, in may 2019, an appeals court overturned that decision and reinstated the rule. Ij and the food truck owners kept up the fight against this protectionist law and appealed to the maryland court of appeals, the state's highest court. We are awaiting a ruling to see if baltimore residents can enjoy the increased choice and lower prices that more competition from food truck would bring. Burke v. City of chicago in a blow to food freedom in may 2019, the illinois supreme court upheld two provisions of chicago's law that block food trucks from parking within 200 feet of restaurants and require they install gps devices so city officials may track their every move. The institute for justice challenged these two provisions in 2012 on behalf of laura pekarik, owner of the cupcakes for courage food truck. Not only does chicago's rule stymie a common, low-cost path into the restaurant industry for the city's entrepreneurs, it forces everyday chicagoans to continue to suffer from fewer choices and higher prices. In october 2019, ij asked the u.s. Supreme court to take the case on the grounds that chicago's gps monitoring violates the fourth amendment protections from unreasonable searches by the government. Unfortunately, the supreme court declined to hear the case. Courtney and courtney v. Goltz, et al. For years, brothers jim and cliff courtney have wanted to provide convenient ferry service across lake chelan in washington state to enhance economic prosperity in their small community located at the northern end of the lake. 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. Realizing that the state is more concerned with protecting established interests than fostering economic freedom and opportunity, jim and cliff have joined with ij to protect their right - and the right of every american - to pursue an honest living free from protectionist interference by the government. In april 2020, the 9th u.s. Circuit court of appeals ruled against us. We plan to appeal this decision to the u.s. Supreme court. Killeen, et al. V. Yavapai county, et al. Joshua and emily killeen moved from california and bought undeveloped desert property in yavapai county, in the heart of arizona, envisioning a modest home for themselves and a rustic wellness and wedding retreat. While they worked to get their permits in order, county officials directed them to pull down any online advertisements saying that their business would be "coming soon or taking any advanced bookings. The county also banned joshua and emily from having friends and neighbors over for yoga and potluck meals, even th”

“Since the 1970s, the securities and exchange commission has refused to settle any enforcement actions unless the defendant agrees to a gag order. Faced with the potentially staggering cost of challenging the sec's prosecution, many defendants agree to settle. This prevents those who believe they are innocent from criticizing the sec's actions against them, effectively meaning a government agency is deciding who can criticize that agency. The cato institute, a d.c.-based think tank, wants to publish a book by someone who believes he is the victim of abuse by the sec and to host a panel discussion with others. Ij joined cato to challenge the sec's unconstitutional infringement on free speech. In february 2020, a federal judge in d.c. Dismissed the lawsuit, holding that cato couldn't challenge the sec's policy because, although the policy prevents cato from publishing information in the public interest, it doesn't regulate cato directly. We are appealing this ruling. Hines v. Texas state board of veterinary medical examiners, et al. Dr. Ron hines is a retired and physically disabled licensed veterinarian in texas. From 2002 to 2012, he gave pet owners around the country veterinary advice, mostly to those who lacked access to veterinarians and often for free - that is, until the texas state board of veterinary medical examiners shut ron down, suspended his license, and fined him. Ron and ij filed a federal lawsuit to vindicate ron's first amendment right to free speech, but an appeals court ruled that ron's speech wasn't protected because it's part of an occupation. Since then, the u.s. Supreme court has affirmed that the first amendment protects professional speech, so ron and ij have filed a new lawsuit to vindicate his right to give veterinary advice to pet owners who need it and to help all those who use the internet to speak in innovative ways. Mississippi board of licensure for professional engineers and surveyors v. Vizaline brent melton and scott dow are mississippi entrepreneurs and founders of vizaline, llc, a startup that provides small banks with information about their properties by using public information to draw lines on a map. In 2017, however, the mississippi board of licensure for professional engineers and surveyors sued the company, claiming it was practicing unlicensed surveying. The board is made up of professional engineers and surveyors who have a clear interest in shutting down innovative and affordable alternatives that compete with them. In february 2020, the u.s. Court of appeals for the 5th circuit affirmed that the first amendment's protection of freedom of speech applies to occupational licensing laws and remanded the case to the district court. The ruling is a major victory that will help entrepreneurs in many fields vindicate their rights in court. Pchs, et al. V. Grafilo, et al. In 2017, bob smith, owner of the pacific coast horseshoeing school, received a notice from the state of california threatening to shut him down for violating state law by admitting students who hadn't graduated from high school. So, when esteban narez, a ranch hand, applied to bob's school a few months later, bob had to reject his application. California's law not only hurts students with little education by preventing them from learning well-paying trades, it also violates the first amendment. Bob, esteban, and ij challenged this misguided law in court. In june 2020, the 9th u.s. Circuit court of appeals ruled that california restricted bob and esteban's first amendment rights and sent the case back to the district court, where california will be hard-pressed to defend its unconstitutional speech restriction. Del castillo v. Florida department of health in 2014, heather del castillo left an unfulfilling career to start a business providing personalized health coaching. She never claimed to be a licensed nutritionist or dietitian, but the florida department of health ordered her to cease providing nutritional advice and d”

“In maine, the institute for justice and the first liberty institute filed a federal lawsuit in august 2018 to overturn a state law that excludes parents who select religious options from participating in the nation's second-oldest school choice program. Maine's "tuitioning" program, which enables parents in towns that do not operate public high schools to choose the public or private school that best suits their children's needs, has barred religious options for nearly four decades. But by singling out religious schools, and only religious schools, for discrimination, maine is violating both the religious freedom and equal protection guarantees in the u.s. Constitution. Last june, a district court judge upheld the exclusive, anti-choice law. The case is now on appeal at the u.s. Court of appeals for the 1st circuit. Ij's landmark u.s. Supreme court victory in espinoza v. Montana in june shows that maine's restriction is clearly unconstitutional. Summit christian academy, et al. V. Meotti, et al. Washington's work-study program is a financial aid program that provides funding for low- and middle-income students who want to earn money during college, often by working in jobs that relate to their field of study. Participating employers range from nonprofit organizations to businesses and government agencies, but all have one thing in common: in order to participate, the employer and the position a student would fill must not have any religious affiliation. The u.s. Constitution requires government to be neutral toward religion, neither favoring nor disfavoring it. That is why ij teamed up with a sectarian employer - a private christian school - and a university student group in august 2018 to challenge washington state's sectarian exclusion. In response to the lawsuit, washington adopted new rules so that washington's students and religious employers, for the first time ever, now have full freedom to participate in the program. 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, 2019 and june 30, 2020: j.k.j. V. Polk county, wisconsin state of washington v. Joel villela david thompson, et al. V. Heather hebdon, et al. Jesus hernandez, et al. V. Jesus mesa, jr americans for prosperity foundation v. Xavier becerra doe v. Iowa state of kansas v. Charles glover cindy mendoza, et al. V. Matthew l. Garrett ctia - the wireless association v. City of berkeley, ca ii catherine regina harper, et al. V. Professional probation services, inc. In re merrill lynch mortgage investors trust mortgage loan asset-backed certificates, series 2006-rm2 fred robinson, et al. V. Jeff long state of arizona v. William mixton arizona advocacy network, et al. V. Citizens clean elections commission, et al. V. The state of arizona fnu tanzin, et al. V. Muhammed tanvir, et al. Violet dock port, inc., l.l.c., v. Drew m. Heaphy, et al. Roxanne torres v. Janet madrid, et al. Micah jessop et al. V. City of fresno, et al. Bethany austin v. State of illinois city of chicago v. Robbin l. Fulton, et al. Sec v. Barry d. Romeril state of washington v. Shannon b. Blake clyde s. Bovat v. State of vermont”