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 in the summer of 2020, the institute for justice (ij) secured a landmark u.s. Supreme court victory for educational choice 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. We filed this case in 2015 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. In fy21, we received $13,880.52 in costs from the state of montana. Timbs v. State of indiana after seven years in court, including a landmark u.s. Supreme court victory, ij client tyson timbs finally has his car back. 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 u.s. Supreme court held in 2019 that the ban on excessive fines and fees applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government, the 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. The indiana attorney general appealed the decision, placing tyson's case before the indiana supreme court for a third time. In june 2021, the indiana supreme court once again ruled in our client's favor, stating that forfeiting his car violated the eight amendment's excessive fines clause. We wait to see if the state will appeal the latest ruling, yet the victories in this case have established important protections for, and precedent surrounding, property rights that will be cited for years to come. Haveman, et al. V. Bureau of professional and occupational affairs, et al. In august 2020, ij won a case in pennsylvania that struck down a "collateral consequence" law, freeing our clients amanda spillane and courtney haveman to pursue their chosen careers. Pennsylvania's cosmetology board claimed that amanda and courtney lacked "good moral character and denied their licenses to practice as estheticians because of past criminal mistakes. But the board let amanda and courtney spend months and thousands of dollars completing cosmetology training before shutting down their dreams. Both partnered with ij to challenge this law. The state's intermediate appellate court ruled in our favor and called the state's requirement "unconstitutional and unenforceable." the decision will help everyone who has overcome a criminal history to enter the beauty professions. And the court's language endorsed ij's position and establishes important precedent ij can use in our casework across the nation. Sourovelis v. City of philadelphia in a case spanning more than six years, ij successfully dismantled the city of philadelphia's draconian civil forfeiture program. 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. Ij secured two sweeping consent decrees 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 compensat”

“Nashville, tennessee, is the center of country music. Yet, incredibly, the city banned musicians from making music in their own homes. Nashville outlawed home-based businesses that serve clients, preventing local musicians, hair stylists, and other budding entrepreneurs from building their own american dream. Nashville residents, like ij clients lij shaw and pat raynor, face steep fines if any customers physically come to their homes to do business. Ij and the beacon center of tennessee teamed up to vindicate the constitutional right to use your own home to earn an honest living. In october 2019, a nashville court dismissed the suit. We appealed that ruling and now wait to hear whether the state supreme court will accept the case for review. Barnes and mission investigations group, llc, v. Jess l. Anderson, et al. Ij scored a fast victory for economic liberty when we challenged utah's residency requirement for private investigator licenses on behalf of jeremy barnes, who lives just over the border in idaho and wants to expand his business into the beehive state. Recognizing that residency requirements for occupational licenses are constitutionally indefensible, the utah legislature passed a bill in june 2020 removing this requirement, just two months after ij filed suit. Ij officially closed the case in july 2020. 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. In december 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. In august 2020, the court rejected the challenge to the city's rules on mobile vendors, striking a blow to entrepreneurs in baltimore and across maryland. 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. In december 2020, a consent agreement was reached after the 5th circuit's ruling. Because the consent agreement recognizes that the services vizaline is providing are legal, vizaline and ij have agreed to drop the lawsuit. Opternative, inc. V. South carolina board of medical examiners technology allows consumers to take a routine vision test in the comfort of their own home using their personal computer and smartphone. An ophthalmologist reviews the results and writes a prescription. Developed by healthcare startup visibly (formerly opternative), these tests are inexpensive and enable more people to get eyeglass prescriptions more quickly and easily than ever before. But optometrists have gone to extraordinary lengths to protect themselves from online competitors like visibly. In south carolina, the government made it a crime for any optometrist to dispens”

“In 2019, nebraska joined most states in allowing home bakers to sell their shelf-stable goods directly to informed consumers without the burdensome permitting and inspections that apply to restaurants. Lincoln, nebraska's cindy harper, who had testified in favor of the change, started selling her sugar cookies and cupcakes under the new law. Such foods are safe and give buyers and sellers greater choice about what to eat and how to support themselves. A few months later, however, the city of lincoln passed new regulations locally that subject lincoln home bakers to many of the same permitting and inspection requirements the nebraska legislature exempted them from. Local ordinances cannot preempt state law, so cindy and ij challenged lincoln's ordinance in court. In march 2021, the town amended its ordinance to allow homemade food producers to sell their goods free of burdensome regulations. Ij moved to voluntarily dismiss the case. Elijah and ashley durham, et al. V. City of tarpon springs, et al. After elijah durham lost his job last year as a chef, he decided to take his culinary talents to the streets by opening a burger food truck with his wife, ashley. They thought their timing could not be better. Thanks in large part to ij's efforts in 2020, florida made it illegal for cities to ban food trucks. But the city passed a new ordinance that only allowed food trucks operated by brick-and-mortar restaurants in the downtown area where all the restaurants, craft breweries, and customers are located. All other food trucks were relegated to a small strip of land by the highway, an unsuitable location for a business that relies on foot traffic. The city passed this ordinance at the behest of local brick-and-mortar restaurant owners to limit competition, so elijah and ashley partnered with ij in may 2021 to challenge the protectionist law. 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 ij 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. Surfvive, et al. V. City of south padre island in south padre island, texas, the city government caps food truck permits at 12 and requires food trucks to get a restaurant owner's approval on their application. This means less choice and higher prices for south padre island residents and visitors, and it violates the texas constitution, which forbids laws that serve only to protect businesses from competition. Ij teamed up with surfvive - a local nonprofit's food truck - and food truck owners anubis and ramses avalos to challenge south padre island's law. In december 2020, a district court judge struck down south padre's anti-competitive food truck permit cap. Astonishingly, the island chose to defy the order without even filing an appeal. In march 2021, ij asked the texas supreme court to enforce the earlier ruling, and we will continue to work alongside food truck owners until this abuse stops. 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 was the town board's scheme to protect established restaurants from healthy competition. With ij's hel”

“For years, brothers jim and cliff courtney wanted to provide convenient ferry service across lake chelan in washington state. 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 joined with ij to protect their right to pursue an honest living free from protectionist interference by the government. In april 2020, the u.s. Court of appeals for the 9th circuit ruled against jim and cliff, so in september 2020, we appealed the case the u.s. Supreme court. In january 2021, the court denied review of the case. Shazia ittiq and seema panjwani v. Oklahoma state board of cosmetology and barbering, et al. Shazia ittiq and seema panjwani are eyebrow threaders in oklahoma who are subjected to onerous and irrelevant regulations by the oklahoma board of cosmetology. The board requires threaders to complete at least 600 hours of cosmetology schooling, not a minute of which addresses threading. They also must pass two exams that only test practices threaders never use. Shazia and seema have practiced threading since they were teenagers and spent years developing their businesses from the ground up. Both partnered with ij in february in a lawsuit designed to export the precedent ij established in our 2015 victory in patel v. Texas department of licensing and regulation. The texas supreme court struck down the state's licensing requirements for eyebrow threaders, and ij has freed threaders in louisiana and arizona from similar requirements. Now, we seek to establish the same protections for oklahoma threaders. N'dakpri, et al. V. Louisiana state board of cosmetology, et al. Ij represents three natural hair braiders - ashley n'dakpri, lynn schofield, and michelle robertson - who want to earn an honest living but face enormous and irrational occupational licensing hurdles. Although hair braiding is not a threat to public safety, the louisiana state board of cosmetology requires anyone seeking a braiding license to complete 500 hours of unnecessary and irrelevant training. This runs afoul of the louisiana constitution, which does not allow the government to license something as safe and common as braiding hair. In october 2019, a judge in baton rouge denied the board's motion to dismiss, so the case continues. Marcus & millichap real estate investment services of nevada, inc. V. Chandra marcus & millichap real estate investment services, inc. Is a commercial real estate investment services company with offices throughout the u.s. And canada. Most states accommodate the sort of interstate brokerage work that marcus & millichap performs. Nevada, however, requires individual licensees to maintain a physical presence in the state and prohibits most out-of-state broker involvement, even if working in cooperation with a local broker. Marcus & millichap filed suit in 2016 in federal court to challenge nevada's system as protectionist and unconstitutional. The trial court ultimately upheld nevada's law and marcus & millichap appealed to the u.s. Court of appeals for the 9th circuit. The company asked the court of appeals to rule that the trial court had erred. The state of nevada then asked the court of appeals to rule that the trial court got things right. Rather than deciding which side was right, the 9th circuit resurrected a procedural argument that no one had made on appeal. It gave no reason for taking that unusual step, and on the strength of that new theory, it withdrew the federal courts from a case they had the power to decide. Few questions are more demanding of uniform, transparent resolution than whether and when the federal courts can abdicate their duty to decide cases, so ij asked the u.s. Supreme court”

“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. 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 joined with ij to file a lawsuit in federal court to defend their first amendment right to free speech and their 14th amendment right to earn an honest living. Mills and southwest engineering concepts, llc v. Arizona board of technical 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 a state-issued license, which the board's rules say he would not 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, 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. Hight v. U.s. Dep't of homeland security captain matthew hight has been a merchant mariner for more than 20 years. He decided to work toward getting his license to pilot commercial vessels on the saint lawrence seaway and lake ontario. Captain hight was required by the coast guard to train with the saint lawrence seaway pilots' association, a for-profit business. After disagreements over the financial practices of the association's leadership, the association suddenly informed the coast guard that it recommended against granting captain hight a license. With no meaningful way to contest the recommendation with the coast guard, hight teamed up with ij in march 2019 to defend his right to due process and ask the coast guard to stop delegating its power to the private organization. In march 2021, ij won a first-round victory on behalf of captain hight in a rare decision in which a federal agency lost a case about how it interprets its own regulations. A district court judge ruled that the coast guard had violated federal law, and captain hight was allowed to take the necessary exam to obtain his license. Ben and hank brinkmann, and mattituck 12500 llc., v. Town of southold, new york the family owners of brinkmann's hardware thought they had found the perfect location for a new store in southold, new york. But even though they followed all the rules, the town of southold is trying to use eminent domain to take their property for a "park" (by which the town means that it will leave the land as an unimproved lot). It is an extreme and unconstitutional tactic to prevent an entirely legal business from serving the community. The town, where they purchased a commercial-zoned lot, has done everything possible to stop the brinkmanns: it slow-played the permitting process, imposed exorbitant fees, and then enacted a targeted moratorium on building permits along a one mile stretch of road with the brinkmanns' property in the center. The brinkmanns have teamed up with ij in federal court to end the town's attempts to thwart their business. Brown and rolin v. Transportation security administration, et al. When travelers go online to find out whether it is legal to fly with cash, the government tells them that there are no restrictions on traveling with any amount of money on domestic flights. What it does not tell flyers is that, upon seeing cash, transportation security administration (tsa) screeners will deta”

“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." for over two years, the agency held gerardo's truck without ever taking its case before a judge while gerardo continued to make his monthly car payments. In october 2017, gerardo joined with ij to file a class action lawsuit against cbp. The agency tried to moot his case by returning his truck. But the trial court and appeals court held that the case was not moot - as gerardo could move forward with class action claims on behalf of all u.s. Citizens who have had vehicles seized at the border. Still, having rejected the government's attempt to moot the case, both courts held that due process does not require government to provide a prompt post-seizure hearing after seizing automobiles. Ij appealed the case to the u.s. Supreme court in december 2020, but the court denied review of the case. Paul snitko, et al. V. United states of america, et al. Using civil forfeiture, the u.s. Department of justice is seeking to permanently take the contents of hundreds of safe deposit boxes, including over $85 million in cash and precious metals, jewelry, and other valuables worth millions more. But the boxes' owners have not been accused of any crime and have not been told what the government thinks they did wrong. In may 2021, several of those owners joined with ij to stop the government's forfeiture plans in their tracks. Just a month later, we secured a temporary restraining order against the federal government that prevents it from moving forward with forfeiture actions against our clients while the litigation continues. Rainwaters and hollingsworth v. Tennessee wildlife resources agency, et al. Terry rainwaters and hunter hollingsworth own rural properties in tennessee, which they use for hunting and other activities. Their properties are their sanctuaries, but officers from the tennessee wildlife resources agency (twra) routinely enter private land on a whim to search for potential hunting violations without a warrant. They trespass, take photos and videos, and even install cameras to record 24/7. The tennessee constitution prohibits state officials from barging in whenever they wish. Terry and hunter teamed up with ij to sue twra in tennessee state court to vindicate the right of all tennesseans to be free from unconstitutional searches. Catherine h. Barber memorial shelter, inc. V. Board of adjustment of the town of north wilkesboro et al. In north wilkesboro, north carolina, the catherine h. Barber memorial shelter works closely with local social services to temporarily shelter those in need. After operating for 30 years, the shelter sought a larger, more permanent space, so it applied for a permit. But the town board of adjustment denied the application because it would not be "harmonious" with its neighbors. It is illegal for the government to use its zoning power to penalize or arbitrarily restrict the property rights of certain kinds of people or certain types of places. For these reasons, the barber shelter partnered with ij in october 2020 to challenge this unconstitutional restriction on private property and defend the shelter's right to offer private charity on private property. Joseph corsini v. City of new york the new york city department of buildings (dob) imposes fines for violations to ensure the safety of the city and its inhabitants. Too often though, it penalizes property owners over trivial issues and leaves them owing thousands of dollars, as it did with joe corsini. Joe is a pigeon keeper - a common hobby in the city. He decided to build a small pigeon coop on the roof of his home but did not realize he needed to obtain a building permit. He soon received $3,000 in fines and an order that he bring his coop into compliance”

“Joseph victor v. Town of eagle et al. Ij represents annalyse and joseph victor in one lawsuit and erica brewer and zach mallory in another against the town of eagle, wisconsin. The town imposed $87,900 in fines and fees on annalyse and joseph victor for a variety of violations related to a few trucks that were parked on their nearly 10 acres of rural property. Similarly, the town targeted erica and zach mallory after erica spoke in support of a neighbor at the town meeting. Soon, the town threatened them with $20,000 in fines and fees for violations like an unpermitted flower planter, tall grass, and the location of a barn that was on the property when they purchased the land. Local governments cannot levy disproportionate fines to raise money or target people as retaliation, so we are fighting in court to stop this abuse. Bean, et al. V. Seattle, et al. Seattle treats its rental tenants as second-class citizens by forcing them to allow government-mandated inspectors into their homes without first getting a warrant. Renters matthew bentley, wesley williams, and joseph briere found that out firsthand when the city informed their landlord that their home needed to be inspected by a government-mandated housing inspector. Bentley, williams, and briere, along with their respective roommates, all value their privacy and informed the city that they did not want their home inspected. Their landlords agreed, and told the city their tenants refused to allow an inspector. The city responded by threatening fines upwards of $500 per day if the landlords did not coerce their tenants to allow the unconstitutional inspection. All three residents, their landlords, and a group of other renters partnered with ij in december 2018 to file a class action lawsuit against seattle asking the courts to shut down seattle's warrantless inspections program. Unfortunately, the trial court dismissed the case, and ij has taken it to the washington court of appeals. Oral argument was held on june 2, 2021. We await the court's decision. Amanda wink, et al. V. City of orange city, et al. Orange city, iowa, also has a rental inspection law that forces landlords and tenants to open their properties and homes to submit to intrusive inspections. This ordinance allows the government to enter the most intimate confines of tenants' homes, even when landlords and tenants object. Ordinarily, when a person does not want the government to enter their home, they can request a warrant supported by some evidence that a violation of the law has occurred. But in orange city, the government can go to court and readily obtain an "administrative" warrant, which does not require any evidence that anything is wrong with the home. The u.s. And iowa constitutions guarantee strong property rights and the right to privacy in the home, meaning that the government needs voluntary consent or probable cause to enter your home. Orange city's inspection scheme defies these constitutional principles, so in may 2021, we teamed up with orange city tenants amanda wink, bryan singer, and erika nordyke, and their landlords, to file a lawsuit challenging the government's use of administrative warrants. Dorothy rivera et al. V. Borough of pottstown and keith a. Place pottstown, pennsylvania, has a similar rental inspection law that forces landlords and tenants to open their properties and homes to submit to intrusive inspections searching for housing code violations even if a landlord or tenant objects. The fourth amendment to the u.s. Constitution and article i, section 8 of the pennsylvania constitution guarantee property rights and the right to privacy in the home. That is why ij teamed up with a pottstown landlord and his tenants to challenge the government's use of administrative warrants to search homes without voluntary consent or a warrant based upon traditional probable cause. Lozano, et al. V. Zion in zion, illinois, the city requires landlords to force tenants to open the doors of their h”

“Anthonia nwaorie is a registered nurse and an american citizen who was on her way 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. In august 2019, a district court dismissed the case, but we have appealed the dismissal to the u.s. Court of appeals for the 5th circuit. 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. Doraville homeowner hilda brucker was fined and sentenced to six months of probation for having cracks in her driveway. Hilda's neighbor jeff thornton was fined $1,000 for having a stack of firewood in his backyard. In may 2018, hilda, jeff, and two others partnered with ij to stop doraville's unconstitutional reliance on fines and fees income. Ij secured a first-round victory in april 2019 and a second win that july. But in december 2020, a federal judge ruled against our clients, upholding the town's fines and fees. We have appealed that decision and are awaiting notice of oral argument. Valancourt books, llc v. Claggett, et al. Valancourt is a small publishing company operated out of the richmond, virginia, home of james jenkins, who revives and popularizes rare, neglected, and out-of-print fiction. Valancourt has published more than 300 books, all of which it has permission to reprint. But in june 2018, james received an email from the u.s. Copyright office demanding that he provide it with copies of every single book in valancourt's catalog, and threatening him with fines that could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars if he failed to comply. A little-known provision of federal law makes it illegal to publish a new book without providing the federal government with two free copies. Valancourt books joined with ij in august 2018 to file a federal lawsuit against the copyright office and the department of justice, claiming that the book-deposit mandate is unconstitutional because it violates the takings clause of the fifth amendment and operates as a penalty on people who publish physical books without turning over a copy. Homeless charity, et al. V. Akron board of zoning appeals; the homeless charity, et al. V. City of akron akron, ohio, has a soaring homeless population. Sage lewis stepped up to provide real support to those in need by allowing a few homeless men and women to pitch their tents in the back lot of his building and keep warm in the basement when needed. This informal arrangement evolved into a community designed to help homeless men and women transition back to independence. But while akron officials do not offer adequate solutions to the city's homeless problem, they are all too quick to use zoning laws to shut down sage's charity. Ij joined with sage in october 2018 to vindicate the right to carry on this work by keeping vulnerable people off the streets. In april 2020, the ohio supreme court declined to hear our case. But our suit against the city zoning board continues. We plan to appeal our lawsuit against the city's zoning board after the city continued to refuse to allow sage to operate his shelter”

“For nearly 20 years, the city of sherwood, arkansas, arrested, fined, and jailed tamatrice williams, all because she wrote four bad checks to pay for groceries and other necessities. She filed a lawsuit against the city, but a panel erroneously concluded the city could not be held accountable because the city's actions occurred through state (not city) courts and because tamatrice did not allege that city policymakers had directed city officials to behave unconstitutionally. After this decision, tamatrice partnered with ij to appeal her case. Unfortunately, her appeals were denied, with the u.s. Supreme court declining the case in october 2020. David and amy carson v. Commissioner of the maine department of education in ij's 2020 historic victory in espinoza v. Montana department of revenue, the u.s. Supreme court left for another day whether states may distinguish between the religious status of an organization receiving money through a public program and the so-called religious use of that money. In october 2020, the u.s. Court of appeals for the 1st circuit used this distinction to uphold a law we are challenging in maine that bans religious schools from its tuition program. We have appealed this decision to the u.s. Supreme court and await word as to whether the court will hear the case. If it does, we will have the opportunity to strike down the state law and establish nationwide precedent. Metro. Government of nashville and davidson county, et al., v. Tennessee department of education, et al. In may 2019, tennessee enacted the tennessee education savings account pilot program act, giving thousands of low- and middle-income families in tennessee greater school choice. Ij is intervening on behalf of two parents, natu bah and builguissa diallo, to defend the program from a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality. The program provides scholarships worth up to $7,300 to families from shelby county and metro nashville school districts to send their children to private schools. Unfortunately, in may 2020 the chancery court for davidson ruled that the program violated the home rule amendment of the tennessee constitution and enjoined further implementation of the program. Natu, builguissa, and ij are appealing this ruling to preserve a lifeline for families who would like to leave public schools that do not meet their children's needs. In february 2021, the tennessee supreme court agreed to hear our case, and oral argument was held in june. We await the court's decision. Kelly, et al., v. State of north carolina, et al. Passed into law in 2013, the opportunity scholarship program (osp) provides scholarships to over 12,000 k-12 students in north carolina who use the program to attend 451 participating schools. The osp has grown every year since its inception, and it has empowered thousands of families to provide educational opportunities for their children. But despite these accomplishments, the osp is now in the crosshairs of a constitutional challenge - and not for the first time. In 2015, the north carolina supreme court upheld the osp, but in july 2020, a new coalition of plaintiffs filed a new legal challenge to this previously upheld program. The new lawsuit alleges many of the same constitutional claims considered - and rejected - by the north carolina supreme court in its 2015 decision. Along with a coalition of north carolina parents, ij is once again fighting to secure the opportunities the osp has brought. Michael and nancy valente et al. V. Vermont agency of education et al. Since 1869, vermont has given parents a choice: if their local school district does not provide instruction for their child's grade-level, then the state gives parents a stipend to spend at any school, public or private, except private religious schools. But in ij's victory in espinoza v. Montana department of revenue in june 2020, the u.s. Supreme court ruled that a state cannot discriminate against religious schools. Because vermont schools co”

“General of the state of new york et al. In december 2020, ij launched a case on behalf of elizabeth brokamp, a professional counselor located and licensed in virginia. Normally, elizabeth met with clients from washington, d.c., in person. During the pandemic elizabeth transitioned to providing therapy online. But d.c. Does not allow therapists to provide professional service unless they are licensed in d.c. Not only has elizabeth been unable to help clients she saw previously, but she also has had to turn away new clients from the district. In april, ij filed another suit on behalf of elizabeth, this time challenging a similar law in new york. D.c.'s and new york's restrictions are unconstitutional because the government cannot punish people who speak for a living. We argue that the technology that allows our client to help patients across state lines should not be subject to restrictions that violate first amendment rights. 360 virtual drone services llc and michael jones v. North carolina board of examiners for engineers and surveyors et al. In march 2021, ij sued on behalf of michael jones after the north carolina board of examiners for engineers and surveyors intimidated him with civil and criminal consequences. Michael uses a drone to take photos of land and create maps for customers to monitor property. Michael does not practice surveying, a more formal profession that marks the legal boundaries of property. Even so, the board accused him of providing unlicensed surveying services, and, in response to the board's threats, michael shut down his business. Ultimately, the state's licensing laws stifle innovation and restrict free speech since you do not need the government's permission to take and edit pictures. Michael partnered with ij to sue the board in federal court to disassemble the state's unconstitutional restrictions and open the door for other entrepreneurs to creatively use technology to provide cheaper, more convenient services. Wayne nutt v. North carolina board of examiners for engineers and surveyors wayne nutt practiced engineering for four decades. Because he did not build for public works, he was exempt from north carolina's licensing requirements for engineers. Now that wayne is retired, he no longer wants to practice engineering, he only wants to talk about it. He has found himself deploying his hard-won expertise to testify at town council meetings and write letters to government officials. He also wants to testify in other lawsuits related to his area of expertise - hydraulics. The trouble is that all of this is a crime according to the north carolina board of examiners for engineers and surveyors. In the government's view, only licensed engineers can talk about engineering, even if unlicensed engineers can do actual engineering. Wayne can either get a license or stop talking. But he does not want to be a licensed engineer because, at 77, he is not looking to start a brand-new career. So he teamed up with ij to file a federal lawsuit to strike down this unconstitutional restriction on professional speech. Kimberly billups, et al. V. City of charleston, south carolina previously, before someone could give you a tour of charleston, they had to obtain the city's approval. Charleston law made it illegal to tell stories to tour groups without first passing two different examinations covering the things city government officials think are important, or, in some cases, actually getting the government to approve your script in advance. People who talked to paying tour groups without the city's approval faced fines and even jail time. This violated the first amendment. Tour guides are storytellers, and the government cannot be in the business of deciding what stories are important or who is allowed to tell them. That is why in january 2016, three would-be charleston tour guides joined forces with ij to file a federal lawsuit against the city's tour-guide licensing scheme. In august 2020, a u.s. District court”

“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 online, mostly to those who lacked access to veterinarians and often for free. 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 his 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 adopted ij's arguments on this type of speech and affirmed that the first amendment protects it, so ron and ij filed a new lawsuit to vindicate his right to give veterinary advice to pet owners. In december 2020, the u.s. Court of appeals for the 5th circuit changed its prior ruling and instead held that restricting dr. Hines' online pet advice curbed his first amendment rights. The appellate decision will protect speakers throughout texas, and the case continues in the district court. Cato institute v. Sec 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. Cato teamed up with ij 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 could not challenge the sec's policy because it does not regulate cato directly. After appealing this ruling, the u.s. Court of appeals for the d.c. Circuit upheld the dismissal of our case, and ij is planning next steps on how to move forward. Brownback v. King in 2014, james king, an innocent college student, was mistaken for a petty thief by plainclothes officers acting as part of a joint federal-state task force. When they took his wallet, james thought he was being mugged and tried to flee. The officers tackled him, brutally beat him, and choked him unconscious. When the officers responsible realized their mistake, they charged james with several violent felonies. Eventually, james was fully acquitted on all charges by a jury. But the process of clearing his name cost james years of his life and his family's entire savings. In 2016, he filed a federal lawsuit against the task force members. But government immunity doctrines made james' options extremely limited and practically impossible. He teamed up with ij to vindicate his rights and ensure that other americans could hold the government to account when it violates the constitution. In february 2021, the u.s. Supreme court issued its decision rejecting the government's request to create a new kind of immunity for the officers. The decision was mixed in that it didn't categorically rule for police victims either. Instead, it sent the case back to the u.s. Court of appeals for the 6th circuit to resolve an issue about whether police victims can bring a number of different claims in a single suit. The supreme court's decision has created the opportunity for ij to argue the case based solely on its merits rather than defending it from the government's claims that it should not be considered at all. Jose oliva v. Mario nivar, et al. In 2016, jose oliva, a 75-year-old vietnam war veteran, visited the el paso, texas, veterans affairs hospital for a dentist appointment. He made his way to the security checkpoint and emptied his pockets just as you do at an airport. Among the items he placed in the plastic bin was his identification. When a”