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.”

“Baker v. City of mckinney, texas in summer 2020, the mckinney, texas, swat team used tear gas grenades, explosives, and an armored vehicle to bombard vicki baker's home to pursue a fugitive who had hidden inside. The city then refused to pay any of the more than $50,000 in damage they caused. Yet when the government deliberately destroys an innocent owner's property in service of the public good - in this case, public safety - it must compensate that owner. Unfortunately, some lower courts in recent years have held that the constitution does not require the government to reimburse owners for property damaged by police actions. Ij filed suit in march 2021 on vicki's behalf. In april 2022, for the first time ever, a federal court ruled the constitution requires compensation when police intentionally destroy an innocent person's property. Thanks to that victory, a jury awarded vicki $59,656.59 in damages that june. David and amy carson v. Commissioner of the maine department of education carson v. Makin was ij's vehicle to close a loophole in our 2020 u.s. Supreme court victory in espinoza v. Montana, in which the court declared states could not exclude schools from participating in an educational choice program due to their religious status. Maine had been providing tuition funds to families in areas without public schools so that the families could attend the private school of their choice, except religious private schools. Seizing on a grey area in the espinoza opinion, the state of maine insisted its tuitioning program didn't reject religious schools because of their religious status, but because public funds could be put to religious use, a supposedly acceptable form of discrimination. Ij and our clients argued otherwise: a state must remain neutral with regard to religion. After oral argument in december 2021, the justices released their decision on june 21, 2022. In a 6-3 victory, the justices held that maine's refusal to let families spend education benefits at schools that offer religious instruction violated the constitution. Lara v. State of nevada, et al. Former marine stephen lara was driving from texas to visit his daughters in california in the winter of 2021 when the nevada highway patrol (nhp) pulled him over on a flimsy pretext and seized his life savings, despite having no evidence of any crime. They handed his money over to the u.s. Drug enforcement administration, in the anticipation that the agency would kick back a portion to the highway patrol. So stephen teamed up with ij. One day after filing the lawsuit, and only hours after a top washington post story on the case, the dea agreed to return stephen's money. But stephen's case is not over. We also sued the nhp in nevada state court to hold the government to account and to stop the nhp from violating nevada law in exchange for lucrative kickbacks from the federal government. 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 had not graduated from high school. California's law violated the first amendment, so bob, a potential student, and ij challenged it in court. In june 2020, the u.s. Court of appeals for the 9th circuit ruled that california restricted speech by placing conditions on teaching horseshoeing and sent the case back to the district court, where the state would have been required to prove that its law could survive first amendment scrutiny. Then, in september 2021, the california assembly repealed the law, freeing bob and others like him to continue teaching students who want to learn. Taylor et al. V. Nocco pasco, florida's pretextual code enforcement uses the threat of fines to accomplish things government could not lawfully do by other means. Using a crude computer algorithm, the sheriff's office creates a list of people they think are likely to commit crimes. Then,”

“Sally ladd is an entrepreneur who managed various vacation properties in pennsylvania's pocono mountains. Though not a real estate broker, sally received a call from the pennsylvania department of state informing her that she was under investigation for the unlicensed practice of real estate. To continue, she would have to spend three years working for an established broker, pass two exams, and set up her own brick-and-mortar office. Sally teamed up with ij in july 2017 to challenge this heavy-handed licensing scheme. In may 2020, the pennsylvania supreme court held that sally's lawsuit against the pennsylvania real estate commission could move forward, vindicating the right to earn an honest living enshrined in the pennsylvania constitution. The decision provided a definitive ruling outlining and applying the protections of the state constitution when challenging economic liberty restrictions in court. The decision will affect all pennsylvanians and most due process and equal protection challenges in pennsylvania state court. Sally's case was sent back to the pennsylvania commonwealth court, where we continue to fight for sally and all pennsylvanians. Wisconsin cottage foods association v. Wisconsin department of agriculture, et al. Wisconsin bans the sale of many homemade foods. Those who would sell a piece of fudge made in their home kitchen risk $1,000 in fines or six months in jail. Wisconsin even banned the sale of home-baked goods until three wisconsin bakers joined forces with ij to successfully challenge the state's ban. Many home-prepared foods are shelf-stable, meaning they can be safely left at room temperature and then eaten. But wisconsin is interpreting that court order in a wrongly restrictive way to still ban many safe foods, like coffee beans and candy. So, in february 2021, seven wisconsinites and the wisconsin cottage foods association joined with the institute for justice in a lawsuit to enforce that earlier win. In june, the court rejected wisconsin's motion to dismiss the case. Russinko, et al. V. New jersey dep't of health, et al. Home bakers heather russinko, liz cibotariu, and martha rabello teamed up with ij to contest the new jersey department of health's requirement that they be licensed as a "retail food establishment" to sell their homemade goods. This entails using a commercial-grade kitchen separate from one's home kitchen, paying fees, and abiding by hundreds of pages of regulations. Banning the sale of home-baked goods directly to consumers gives commercial bakers undue protection from competition. The court served ij and the home bakers a first-round victory in april 2018 when it denied the new jersey health department's request to dismiss the lawsuit challenging the state's ban. Motivated by pressure from the lawsuit, the health department used the rulemaking process in october 2021 to do away with the state's total ban and allow heather, liz, martha, and other new jersey bakers to sell their homemade baked goods. Elijah and ashley durham, et al. V. City of tarpon springs, et al. After elijah durham lost his job as a chef during the pandemic, 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 of tarpon springs 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. Unfortunately, elijah and ashley were forced to”

“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. The constitution protects the right to earn an honest living free from unreasonable government interference, and it is unreasonable for kentucky to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. So dipendra, kishor, and ij challenged kentucky's con requirement for home health agencies in federal court. Unfortunately, the sixth circuit court of appeals upheld in february 2022 the summary-judgment loss we received in a lower court. We are preparing to ask the u.s. Supreme court to take the case. Abdallah batayneh et al. V. Colorado public utilities commission et al. Ij and our client abdallah batayneh filed a lawsuit against colorado's monopolistic scheme that prevented him from launching a shuttle service business. Abdallah works at a hot springs resort and heard numerous complaints that existing services were too expensive and had poor customer service, so he decided to create his own company that would provide better service. Unfortunately, colorado law allows powerful industry insiders to deny new competition by requiring new would-be businesses to obtain permission from existing monopolies. Existing shuttle companies used this law to thwart abdallah in starting his business by arguing that his services were not "needed." the government should not be allowed to pick winners and losers, and existing companies should not have the power to deny competition. Abdallah partnered with ij in march 2021 to sue the state regulatory agency. A court dismissed the suit in november 2021, and we have appealed the dismissal. Okech v. Thompson in march 2022, ij achieved one of our fastest victories yet when we sued on behalf of tedy okech, charlotte amoussou, and sonia ekemon, three african-style hair braiders in idaho challenging the state's requirement that they receive a cosmetology license to braid hair, a license that entails 1,600 hours of training at a cost of up to $20,000 and teaches almost nothing on braiding. Recognizing the irrationality of the requirement, the idaho legislature quickly passed a new bill exempting braiders from cosmetology licensing, and the governor signed it into law later that month. Ij and our clients filed a stipulated dismissal of our lawsuit. 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 2021. In response to the lawsuit, the state passed a temporary measure creating less burdensome threading licenses, and the legislature is considering a draft bill to make the measure permanent. We will continue litigating this case until the legislature makes the exemption permanent to ensure that threaders may practice their craft without irrelevant licensing requirements. 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 see”

“Dario gurrola learned how to fight fires in california's well-known inmate firefighting program. When he turned his life around, he thought he could turn the skills he learned while incarcerated into a career serving the public as a firefighter. But california, despite using thousands of inmates to fight its 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. 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 to earn an honest living. And, in september 2020, ij partnered with a new plaintiff, fernando herrera, who is similarly prevented from becoming a certified first responder because of his record. Since then, california partially reformed the law, allowing some former inmates to receive emt certification. In june 2022, 9th circuit court of appeals upheld a lower court's dismissal of the case. We will petition for rehearing. Carey v. Land rudy carey had a long battle with addiction and spent time in prison before turning his life around. His first-hand experience makes him well-suited to guide others through recovery, and he worked successfully for five years as a counselor at a fredericksburg, virginia, treatment facility - until he discovered his career was illegal. The state bans people with convictions for any of 176 "barrier crimes" (ranging from reckless boat driving to burglary) from being employed in a "direct care" position. In september, ij teamed up with rudy in federal court to vindicate a simple truth: virginia should judge who people are today, not who they were two decades ago. In january 2022, a district court dismissed the case, ruling that rudy has no right to sue until he has been denied a pardon. In may, the court denied our motion for reconsideration and directed the governor of virginia to prioritize rudy's pardon application. In re arm & rage llc joe armstrong owns wjbe, knoxville's only radio station focused on the black community. But the federal communications commission (fcc) is threatening to shut it down; not for anything wjbe did, but because joe was convicted of making a false statement on his 2008 personal tax return, four years before he even bought the station. The u.s. Constitution protects americans from this type of irrational government interference. Ij will defend joe at an administrative hearing and, if necessary, fight for his constitutional rights in court. 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. 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. We argued a motion for summary judgment before a district court in february 2022 and are awaiting a decision. 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. G”

“Empyreal logistics transports proceeds from cash-intensive businesses, including state-licensed cannabis businesses, to financial institutions. Empyreal works only with state-legal businesses, and neither they nor their clients have been accused of any criminal behavior or wrongdoing. Sheriff's deputies stopped and searched empyreal's vehicles at least five times and then handed the funds over to federal agencies to take through federal forfeiture procedures that could kick back 80% of the funds to the local police. These forfeitures aren't allowed under state or federal law, so empyreal teamed up with ij to fight back. In april 2022, the government agreed to return the money and we voluntarily dismissed the case. Shaheed, et al. V. City of wilmington, delaware, et al. Wilmington, delaware, issues a lot of parking tickets and then allows private companies to tow any car with more than $200 in outstanding fines. Rather than pay money to those companies for their services, the city contractually empowers the towing companies to keep and scrap cars. The tow companies get to keep the full value of the cars - the value does not even offset the owner's outstanding tickets. Wilmington's entire system is fundamentally unconstitutional for being woefully deficient of due process and repeatedly demanding grossly disproportionate fines. In september 2021, two wilmington residents teamed up with ij to end this scheme. Ingram, et al. V. Wayne county 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. 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 when wayne county seized them based on other people's alleged misbehavior. So they have partnered with ij in a major federal class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of wayne county's forfeiture program. We are also fighting for the return of our client stephanie wilson's car. An appeals court overturned our win in stephanie's forfeiture case in a lower court, and we are now seeking review of that judgment by the michigan supreme court. Our goal with this case is to enforce the federal constitutional right to due process and the right to be free from unreasonable seizures and excessive fines and thus dismantling much of detroit's car forfeiture system. State of arizona v. Jerry johnson ij filed a lawsuit on behalf of jerry johnson after officers interrogated him at the phoenix airport and seized the almost $40,000 he was carrying. Jerry had committed no crime and was on his way to buy a truck for his small trucking business. But the officers baselessly accused him of laundering money. State prosecutors then used civil forfeiture to take jerry's money. Jerry had to prove the money was his, but the court found that jerry was more likely to be transporting the proceeds of drug trafficking than traveling with the money on a legitimate business trip. This effectively required jerry to prove his innocence. The court ordered the forfeiture of jerry's money and now the state retains it. It violates due process to require someone to prove their innocence to secure the return of their property, so jerry partnered with ij to appeal the court's decision. In may 2022, the arizona court of appeals ruled that jerry may contest the civil forfeiture of his money. Jerry's case also motivated the arizona legislature to strengthen due process protections for property owners facing civil forfeiture. Sparger-withers v. Taylor, et al. Unlike every other state in the nation, indiana outsources civil forfeiture suits to private lawyers on a contingency-fee basis. The more property the state forfeits, the more money the lawyers pocket. Hundreds of these for-profit civil forfeiture cases are filed each year. In fall 2021, ij pushed back with a federal class-action lawsui”

“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. In march 2022, a three-judge trial court panel declared the warrantless entry statute "unconstitutional, unlawful, and unenforceable." the state has appealed, so we will continue the fight. Bennett v. Mertz, et al. Jeremy bennett owns a taxidermy and deer processing business in ohio, right next to his home. For years, the ohio department of natural resources (odnr) has conducted intrusive, warrantless inspections of his and other shops searching for game violations, even threatening him with jail when he asked them to come back later. The fourth amendment generally forbids warrantless searches of private businesses, so jeremy and ij filed a federal suit against odnr to end its unconstitutional searches. In early 2022, odnr amended its warrantless inspection regulation to end involuntary warrantless inspections, and we dismissed the case in june 2022. Punxsutawney hunting club, inc., et al. V. Pennsylvania game commission, et al. Like many states, pennsylvania grants its wildlife officers virtually unlimited power to enter private land whenever they please to snoop around for potential hunting violations. Knowing that, wildlife officers have repeatedly entered hunting clubs' properties without consent or warrants to spy on members and interrogate them about their compliance with hunting laws. In 2007, the state supreme court said that was legal. But the pennsylvania constitution has unique text protecting private land from warrantless searches, and the time has come for the court to honor that text. The punxsutawney and pitch pine hunting clubs, represented by ij, are suing in state court to restore all pennsylvanians' right to be secure on their land. Quinonez v. 5 united states postal service and united states postal inspection service officials in the spring of 2020, law enforcement agents working for the united states postal service baselessly seized a set of four ordinary boxes containing thousands of covid-19 face masks with political slogans. The masks belonged to rene quinonez, who operates oakland-based movement ink llc. Black lives matter organizers hired rene to print as many face masks as possible to distribute to protestors. He worked nearly nonstop to print and ship the masks. But they didn't arrive in time because officials seized the plain brown boxes without a warrant, claiming they looked like other boxes from other cities that had contained drugs. Rene's business took serious damage. In june 2022, rene and movement ink partnered with ij to file a federal lawsuit to vindicate his fourth amendment rights. 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 p”

“The city of lantana, florida, fined sandy martinez more than $165,000 for minor property code violations - including a $100,000 fine for parking her cars in her driveway in such a way that the tires on one side of the car were on the edge of the lawn instead of on the paved driveway. The city also fined her for a storm-damaged fence and cracks in her driveway. The fines add up to more than half the value of her home. Even after sandy moved her car, the city continued to assess daily fines because, supposedly, she did not inform someone she had moved her car's wheels so that they were no longer on any grass in her front yard. But the government cannot lock you into a lifetime of debt and cripple you financially because your driveway is too narrow and your fence fell in a hurricane. By trying to impose ruinous fines on sandy for such minor infractions, lantana is violating sandy's constitutional right to be free from excessive fines. To fight back, she teamed up with ij in february 2021 to file a lawsuit in florida state court to hold the city accountable for this unconstitutional behavior. That july, a court rejected lantana's attempt to dismiss the lawsuit. Erica brewer and zachary mallory v. Town of eagle et al.; annalyse and 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 after erica spoke in support of a neighbor at a 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. In august 2021, a court granted our request for a preliminary injunction protecting erica and zach from continued harassment by the town while they seek to vindicate their constitutional rights. In may 2021, a court denied our motion to vacate the fines against the victors and we have appealed. 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 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 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 in july of 2021 the washington court of appeals upheld that dismissal. In december 2021, the washington supreme court denied review, diminishing the privacy rights of tenants across washington. 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 thei”

“The u.s. Constitution requires judges to be objective when deciding whether to deprive a person of her liberty or property. When judges have a personal, political, or financial interest in a case, they violate the 14th amendment's guarantee of due process. Hakeem meade, marshall sookram, and too many others in new orleans were ordered to submit to ankle monitoring by a judge who had personal, political, and financial ties to the company that provided and charged for this service. Now, hakeem and marshall are fighting to ensure that ankle monitoring decisions in orleans parish and elsewhere are made without bias or the appearance of bias. In may 2020, they teamed up with ij to file a civil rights class action lawsuit seeking an order declaring that judicial decisions influenced by a judge's ties to a private party violate the constitution and requiring the company to disgorge the fees it has collected from defendants appearing before the judge and cancel any remaining fees. In september 2021, a judge dismissed the lawsuit, and ij appealed to the fifth u.s. Circuit court of appeals. Hohenberg and hanson v. Shelby county, tennessee, et al. When a court proceeding may result in a person losing their home, the u.s. Constitution demands a fair process with rigorous safeguards. For defendants in memphis' environmental court, the process is anything but fair. Sarah hohenberg and joseph hanson both ended up in environmental court after trees fell on their houses. Both ended up losing their homes after a years-long process in a court where witnesses are not sworn in, evidence is not authenticated, and proceedings are not recorded, making decisions all but impossible to appeal. Sarah and joseph have partnered with ij in a lawsuit to ensure that the environmental court, and similar housing courts across the country, provide the due process that the constitution requires and that the court be held accountable for making both of them homeless. Morales v. City of indio, et al. Local government officials in indio, california, teamed up with a private law firm to charge property owners the costs of their own prosecutions. Under this outrageous scheme, the law firm provided indio and several other california cities with "cost-neutral" code enforcement services. This means that every ticket the city issued for violations such as un-mowed grass or "sun-damaged" address numbers was money in the bank for the city and the law firm, which then billed property owners thousands of dollars for "prosecution fees." if owners dared to contest the fees, their legal bills simply grew larger. Ij filed a class action lawsuit against the city in february 2018 to put a stop to this egregious form of policing for profit. And that december, we won a resounding victory when the city of indio agreed to return the money of everyone who was victimized by the city's scheme. But then, after the case had settled and substantively concluded, a trial judge nonetheless granted summary judgment in favor of the private law firm that had issued these fees - even though the actual government defendants had long since fired the firm and it was not a party to the case. Ij has appealed that ruling to establish that former government officials do not have standing to object to settlements entered into by their erstwhile employers. Nwaorie v. U.s. Customs and border protection 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”

“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. In june 2020, the mayor of chicago proposed reforms to the impound program that would fix some of the glaring constitutional problems. Then, in august 2020, a federal district court judge rejected the city's request to dismiss several claims in the case, so the case continues. Ficken v. City of dunedin, florida, et al. 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 fined 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, the fines 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. Unfortunately, a district court judge ruled against jim by upholding the city's outrageous fine. The decision tees up several important issues for review by the u.s. Court of appeals for the 11th circuit, where we currently are litigating the case. Brumit v. City of granite city city officials in granite city, illinois, 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 does not want to evict them. That is why debi and andy teamed up with ij to sue granite city to affirm 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 has kept debi and andy safely in their home while the lawsuit has proceeded through discovery and summary judgment briefing. Sun valley orchards, inc. V. U.s. Department of labor, et al. The u.s. Department of labor fined sun valley orchards, a fourth-generation family farm in southern new jersey, over $550,000, the bulk of which was because of a single paperwork violation. The two brothers who own the orchard spent the next five years trying to fight the agency's decision in the agency's in-house administrative courts. In every hearing, the agency served as prosecutor, judge, and jury, and the agency won every time. In september 2021, the brothers joined with ij to fight for their right, and the right of all americans, to have proceedings by the government to impose significant monetary penalties heard by a real court. Timbs v. State of indiana ij client tyson timbs'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 constitution's 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, pl”

“Department of education, et al. In may 2019, tennessee enacted the tennessee education savings account pilot program act, which provides scholarships worth up to $7,300 to families from shelby county and metro nashville school districts to send their children to private schools. Ij is intervening on behalf of two parents to defend the program from a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality. Ij and our clients appealed our loss at chancery court to the tennessee supreme court, and we re-argued the appeal in february 2022 after the unexpected death of a justice. In may 2022, the justices ruled in our favor and directed the lower court to reopen the case and consider the remaining claims that were not analyzed in the initial ruling against ij. 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 is now in the crosshairs of a constitutional challenge for the second time. Along with a coalition of north carolina parents, ij is once more fighting to secure the opportunities the osp has brought. Before litigating on the merits of the argument, we are fighting on appeal to ensure this case is heard in its proper forum: a three-judge panel. After oral argument in june 2022, we're waiting for a decision from the n.c. Court of appeals regarding which tribunal - a single judge or a panel - we'll be litigating the merits before. 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. Despite ij's victory in espinoza v. Montana in june 2020, which confirmed that the constitution outlaws religious status-based discrimination, vermont continued to exclude private religious schools from its tuitioning program. Thus, three vermont families teamed up with ij to file a lawsuit. Litigation in vermont was stayed pending the outcome of carson v. Makin - which addressed the same legal issue - at the u.s. Supreme court. Our victory in carson means vermont officials now must wrestle with whether to conform to the court's decision or else attempt to argue that carson somehow doesn't apply. Either way, ij will be there to ensure carson rightly puts the nail in the coffin of vermont's policy. Dennis and catherine griffin v. New hampshire department of education dennis and cathy griffin live in the small town of croydon, new hampshire, and are raising their grandson clayton. Because croydon is so small, it does not operate a middle school and instead pays students' tuition at nearby private or public schools. But the griffins were not eligible for that assistance because they selected a religious school, to which the state prohibits tuitioning towns from paying tuition. Ij helped the griffins sue in september 2020 because such discrimination is both unfair and unconstitutional. In july 2021, the griffins and ij concluded our lawsuit with a legislative victory when gov. Chris sununu signed a bill expanding the state's tuitioning program to include religious private schools. Council for better education, inc., et al. V. Kentucky finance and administration cabinet, et al. In june 2021, ij intervened in a kentucky lawsuit in order to protect the state's new educational choice program, the education opportunity account program. The program gives thousands of low- and middle-income families in kentucky increased educational freedom and is funded entirely by private donations. But a group representing kentucky public school districts filed a lawsuit challenging the program's constitutionality. In october 2021, a trial court judge ruled the program unconstitutional on two grounds. In february 2022, the k”

“Wayne nutt practiced engineering for four decades. Because he worked for big manufacturers throughout his whole career, 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 those same unlicensed engineers can do actual engineering. Wayne can either get a license or stop talking. But wayne does not want to become 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. Regulus books, llc, v. City of charlottesville and divers; hart v. County of albemarle the city of charlottesville, virginia, and albemarle county, virginia, have decided to require a business license to write novels, and they have assessed thousands of dollars in back taxes against some of their hardworking freelance writers, while exempting newspapers, magazines, radio, and television. Charlottesville's money-grab is unconstitutional, so bestselling novelists corban addison and john hart teamed up with ij in july 2019 to file lawsuits against the city and county asking for refunds of their business license taxes and challenging the taxes' constitutionality under the first and 14th amendments. In june 2022, the virginia supreme court upheld a lower court's decision that dismantled the tax levied by the city. As a result, corban will receive a tax refund and will no longer be subject to the business license tax. This victory will also help our lawsuit against the county. Gray v. Maine department of public safety joshua gray is a private investigator in massachusetts who wishes to expand his business into maine. He also writes about what he sees as abusive police practices. But when gray used facebook to criticize the conduct employees of the maine department of public safety in a fatal shooting, that very same department denied his application for a professional investigator's license, saying he lacks the "good moral character" required for licensure. Gray challenged the denial of his license all the way to the maine supreme judicial court, which in april 2021 upheld the department's decision. Then he joined with ij to ask the u.s. Supreme court to review the case, but unfortunately the court declined. William fambrough v. East cleveland et al. In 2021, william fambrough used his van - outfitted as a sound truck with a candidate poster - to campaign for a challenger to the incumbent mayor of east cleveland. Rather than respect william's first amendment rights, the city government retaliated against him. Police officers repeatedly showed up at william's home, fined him and towed his van. And they cited william for "noise pollution," despite his obtaining a permit to broadcast campaign messages from his van. William and ij are fighting back with a lawsuit against east cleveland so that other cities do not use their codes or ordinances as pretexts to violate their residents' free speech rights. Smith v. Gallaher in may 2022, ij won a free speech victory on behalf of kelly gallaher, a mount pleasant, wisconsin, community activist who was slapped with a frivolous defamation suit by the mount pleasant village attorney. The first amendment protects kelly's right to publicly criticize government officials without suffering crushing financial damages over a simple difference of opinion. Recognizing that, a judge granted our motion to dismiss the case. Hines v. Texas state board of”

“In 2018, mario rosales was driving home when he passed an off-duty chaves county, new mexico sheriff's deputy. In a fit of road rage, the deputy followed mario home, blocked him in the driveway, and ultimately pointed a gun at him. The deputy lost his job and was convicted of aggravated assault, but when mario sued him, a federal court dismissed his suit because of qualified immunity. Government agents are not entitled to immunity for actions outside the scope of their job, and pointing a gun at a non-threatening person is clearly established as unconstitutional. Mario has joined with ij to appeal this decision to the 10th circuit and hold the officer accountable. Pollreis v. Marzolf in december 2021, ij filed a cert petition asking the u.s. Supreme court to take up an unconstitutional arrest case on behalf of two boys who were handcuffed and held at gunpoint while walking home from their grandmother's house in 2018. A district court found that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for violating the boys' fourth amendment rights, but the 8th circuit held that qualified immunity shields the officer because the boys had never been "arrested" at all. This continues a growing trend of federal courts considering highly intrusive, sometimes violent law enforcement conduct as constitutionally permissible encounters. In january 2022, the high court denied the boys' petition. The case continues through ij's separate appeal to the 8th circuit on behalf of the boys' mother, cassi pollreis, who an officer threatened with a taser. Despite denying the officer qualified immunity on the boys' claims, the district court granted immunity on cassi's. But police cannot draw weapons on bystanders who pose no threat. 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. Oliva v. Nivar in january 2021, ij filed a petition for cert at the u.s. Supreme court on behalf of jose oliva, a veteran who was violently attacked by va security officers on his way to a routine dental appointment. The trial court denied the officers' claim for qualified immunity. But on appeal, the 5th u.s. Circuit court of appeals held that jose still cannot sue them because they work for the federal - rather than a state - government. In doing so, the 5th circuit further restricted an already narrow avenue to sue federal workers for constitutional violations under the bivens doctrine, effectively making federal police fully immune from liability in the states within its jurisdiction. In may 2021, the supreme co”