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/chief counsel, the senior vice president for litigation, the chief operating officer, the managing vice president and senior attorney, the vice president for strategic relations, and the cfo and general counsel/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/chief 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.”

“Ladd, et al. V. Real estate commission of pennsylvania sally ladd is an entrepreneur who manages 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 in pennsylvania. Sally teamed up with ij in july 2017 to challenge this heavy-handed licensing scheme. In october 2022, ij secured total victory when the pennsylvania commonwealth court ruled that the state's licensing requirements, as applied to short-term property managers like sally, are unreasonable and unduly oppressive. The ruling protects entrepreneurs like sally from the state's overburdening licensing requirements. Jackson, et al. V. Raffensperger mary jackson, a certified lactation counselor, and reaching our sisters everywhere - a nonprofit dedicated to providing breastfeeding support to minority communities - joined with ij in june 2018 to challenge georgia's mandate that lactation consultants get a license from the state, which they could only obtain if they were certified by a specific private organization, requiring two years of college courses and more than 300 hours of supervised clinical work. Imposing this requirement would have reduced the number of lactation consultants, especially outside of major cities. Ij's clients have years of experience, and there is no proof that this certification improves care. In a major victory for economic freedom in the peach state, in may 2023, the georgia supreme court unanimously ruled requiring lactation care providers to go through this ordeal to obtain a state-issued license is unconstitutional and violates georgian's right to earn an honest living. The ruling ensures that hundreds of georgian lactation consultants can continue to help women throughout the state. The decision also clearly laid out the georgia constitutional standard for evaluating laws that burden occupations. Those laws must actually protect the public, be supported by actual evidence, and not be unduly burdensome. The ruling helps not just the hundreds of affected lactation consultants but also entrepreneurs in many other occupations. 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 own innocence. The court ordered the forfeiture of jerry's money - but 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. The arizona court of appeals overturned the trial court's decision, and then, in november 2022, it granted ij's motion to publish the decision. On remand, in april 2023, the arizona superior court for maricopa county dismissed the state's case with prejudice and rightfully returned the money to jerry. The ruling holds that property owners do not have to prove their own innocence just to contest a forfeiture. 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 the family. In december 2019, the california cemetery and funeral bureau ruled that akhila and donna's”

“Human services, et al. North carolina makes it illegal for doctors to offer new health care services, build new facilities or buy new equipment without obtaining a certificate of need from a board dominated by regulators and industry insiders. If the board determines that there are already "enough" providers in a community, doctors are forbidden from offering services to patients who need them. In april 2020, ij joined up with dr. Jay singleton, an ophthalmologist from new bern, to file a challenge to north carolina's con law. Dr. Singleton owns a state-of-the-art outpatient operating facility but cannot start the con application process to perform surgeries there because a formula put in place by state regulators has already determined that his community does not "need" another surgery center. In june 2022, the north carolina court of appeals held that the state's anti-competitive law is constitutional, affirming a lower court's decision and dismissing the suit. Ij is appealing the decision to the state supreme court. Tiwari, et al. V. Meier, et al. Dipendra tiwari and kishor sapkotaare are nepali immigrants who wanted 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 6th circuit court of appeals upheld in february 2022 the summary-judgment loss we received in a lower court, and u.s. Supreme court declined to take the case. 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. We are now preparing for trial at the district court. 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. After ij filed its suit, the licensing board created a specialty license for threaders and granted a threading license to shazia's employee, thus paving the way for shazia to legally operate her business without requiring her other employees to complete unrelated classes. Davis v. Oklahoma state board of cosmetology and barbering, et al. Brandy davis' livelihood was stripped away from her in january 2022. A professional, licensed eyelash-extension specialist in texas, brandy had a thriving business in the lone star state. But when she moved to oklahoma, her state license, private certificate, and expertise meant nothing to the oklahoma state board of cosme”

“In december 2020, ij filed a case on behalf of elizabeth brokamp, a professional counselor located and licensed in virginia. Across the potomac river, washington, d.c. Law does not allow elizabeth to provide teletherapy to clients located in d.c., even though elizabeth could meet in person with those same clients at an office in virginia. As a result, since moving her practice online during the pandemic, elizabeth has been forced to turn away new clients from the district. In april 2021, ij filed another suit on behalf of elizabeth, this time challenging a similar restriction in new york. D.c.'s and new york's restrictions are unconstitutional because teletherapy is speech and the government cannot require a license to talk. 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. In march 2022, a judge denied d.c.'s motion to dismiss the suit. In new york, a judge granted the government's motion to dismiss in late 2021, and the 2nd circuit affirmed the district court's decision. We are considering a petition to the u.s. Supreme court. Wayne nutt v. North carolina board of examiners for engineers and surveyors 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, in his later 70s, 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. Sanchez v. Office of the state superintendent of education ij joined with altagracia yluminada "ilumi" sanchez in april 2018 to fight the district of columbia's office of the state superintendent of education's regulations requiring many of the city's day care providers to go to college or lose their jobs. These regulations would have career-ending consequences for ilumi, who runs a day care in her home in northeast d.c. And has worked with children for over 20 years. To comply with the new regulations and return to school for a degree irrelevant to childcare is too much of a strain on ilumi's time and money. For parents, the regulations would raise prices and lower options. In january 2021, the u.s. District court for the district of columbia dismissed the lawsuit, and the u.s. Court of appeals for the d.c. Circuit affirmed that decision in december 2022. In january 2023, the supreme court of the united states denied our petition for review. That said, the requirement was set to take effect in 2020 for most providers when we first filed. That start date was delayed at least to the end of 2023. D.c. Also decided to exempt home providers with ten years of experience, including our client ilumi. Without ij, ilumi's day care would be closed, but she and other home providers now can continue to operate. 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”

“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. The district court dismissed the case and then denied our motion for reconsideration in august 2022, holding that the possibility of a pardon prevents rudy from challenging the law, even though the governor of virginia has not committed to ruling on his application any time soon. In re arm & rage llc joe armstrong owns wjbe, knoxville's only radio station focused on the black community. But the federal communications commission 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. David and peggy schroeder v. City of wilmington, et al. After retiring, david and peg schroeder bought a townhome in wilmington, north carolina, to stay at when they visited family. To afford the townhome, they planned also to offer it as a vacation rental when they were not living there. But after $75,000 in renovations, the city passed a zoning ordinance that created a hard cap on how many properties were allowed to engage in vacation rentals. Any property that fell within 400 feet of another vacation rental would be prohibited from operating as a vacation rental. To decide which property owners would retain their right to offer vacation rentals, the city devised a randomized lottery process that the schroeders lost. Then the city gave properties that did not win the lottery one year to "recoup their losses". This, according to the city, would absolve the city of having to pay the schroeders any compensation for destroying their rental business. But if the city wants to take the schroeders' property rights, it has to pay them. Ij partnered with david and peg to sue the city, arguing that the state constitution protects their right to rent, and it prohibits the city from granting exclusive privileges and creating rental monopolies that prohibit everyone else from renting. In september 2020, a superior court judge ruled the city's ordinance violated a statewide law, and in april 2022, an appeals court affirmed that ruling - establishing precedent that will prevent other north carolina cities from passing similar restrictions. Ij received from the city of wilmington, north carolina, $304,564.20 in attorneys' fees and $2,055.26 in costs recovered. Homeless charity, et al. V. Akron board of zoning appeals in response to a soaring homeless population in akron, ohio, 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. 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 were 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 may 2022, a state appellate court upheld the zoning board's refusal to allow sage to operate his shelter on private property. We were unsu”

“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 in june 2022. But the city appealed. In june 2023, ij defended its client and the jury's verdict before the 5th circuit court of appeals. Sark, et al. V. City of mauldin, south carolina, et al. Jeremy sark and marie dougherty are classic small-town entrepreneurs who own an automotive repair shop and u-haul rental business in mauldin, south carolina. But mauldin officials decided that u-haul trucks and trailers are simply too ugly for the new downtown they envision. The mauldin city council amended the city's zoning ordinance to outlaw u-haul rentals almost everywhere, forcing jeremy and marie to close this important part of their small business. But that violates south carolina law - the government can't prohibit someone from continuing a safe, reasonable, preexisting use of private property. That's why jeremy and marie joined ij to fight back. In december 2022, the city council voted to change its zoning code to allow jeremy and marie's u-haul rental business to continue. In re: sandersville railroad company's petition for approval to acquire real estate by condemnation to bring rail service to one privately held rock quarry, the sandersville railroad company wants to drive a track straight through the heart of several parcels of property in the small town of sparta, georgia - including parcels that have been in the garrett and smith families for generations. Under georgia law, private railroad companies can use the power of eminent domain only for a public use - but grabbing land that belongs to others to build a track to service private interests is not a public use. That's why the garretts and the smiths have joined with ij to stand up to sandersville railroad's attempt to wield the state's power of eminent domain to take their generational land. They are asking the commission to deny sandersville railroad's request for authority to take their land to build the track because it is not a public use. 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. 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 b”

“Orange city, iowa, also forces landlords and tenants to open their properties and homes to submit to intrusive inspections. The 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. In fall 2021, a judge denied the city's motion to dismiss the suit. Brumit v. City of granite city city officials in granite city, illinois, tried 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 did 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 did 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 kept debi and andy safely in their home while the lawsuit proceeded through discovery and summary judgment briefing. However, in september 2022, a judge from the u.s. District court for the southern district of illinois upheld the ordinance. Ij appealed the decision and argued that appeal in may 2023. 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. After a victory in the 6th circuit in may 2023 recognizing federal courts have authority to hear challenges against local governments when they create judicial systems that violate constitutional rights, sarah and joseph will carry on their fight; the case is now remanded to the district court for further discovery and briefing. Adams v. City of seattle, washington seattle, like many cities, is experiencing a housing shortage. Their attempt to address it only makes matters worse. In 2019, the city created the mandatory housing affordability (mha) program, which places unique burdens on anyone building in certain zones throughout the city. Longtime central district homeowner anita adams wants to build a modest addition to house her two adult children. But before she can get a building permit, the city demands that she either b”

“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 argued our appeal to the 5th u.s. Circuit court of appeals in august 2022. Devillier, et al. V. State of texas richie devillier is a farmer who has lived on his family's land in winnie, texas, for generations. For as long as anyone can remember, the devilliers' land has never flooded - that is, until the early 2000s, when the texas department of transportation renovated a nearby highway. Now, whenever a major storm hits, the devillier family farm and many of the surrounding properties are inundated. The effects have been devastating. Even though the constitution guarantees just compensation for takings, shockingly, the 5th circuit sided with texas, holding that property owners whose land is taken by the state don't have any federal remedy at all. That ruling is wrong, and it conflicts with rulings of both the supreme court and other courts nationwide, which is why ij asked the supreme court to review and affirm states cannot ignore the constitution. Valancourt books, llc v. Claggett, et al. Valancourt is a small publishing company operating 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. In july 2021, a district court upheld the law. We appealed to the d.c. Circuit court of appeals and held oral arguments in october 2022. 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. In march 2022, a three-judge trial court panel declared the w”

“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 by obtaining a permit. While engaging with the dob, he amassed approximately $11,000 in fines. Eventually, he conceded and took down the coop. But this process did not sit well with joe, and he teamed up with ij to fight back. Penalizing a homeowner with fines that can range up to $25,000 per violation and failing to provide a recourse to appeal simply raises money for the government and deprives property owners of due process. Joe is fighting to change this system and ensure that homeowners are treated with dignity and due process. In january 2022, a district court dismissed the suit on statute of limitations grounds. We filed an amended complaint. Toth v. United states of america under the bank secrecy act of 1970, americans with foreign bank accounts containing more than $10,000 are required to file a one-page foreign bank and financial accounts reporting (fbar) form with the federal government. Until 2010, monica toth was unaware of the need to file fbars, so she caught up on her filings, and was assessed a relatively modest amount of back taxes and penalties that she paid promptly and in full. However, because the irs can impose civil penalties, they levied the maximum penalty of $2,173,703 for her failure to timely file the fbars. A district court and then the 1st circuit rejected her eighth amendment defense on startling grounds - they ruled the penalty of over $2 million is not a "fine," so the eighth amendment does not apply. Working with ij on her appeal, monica asked the supreme court to intervene and confirm what should be obvious: a debilitating civil penalty, which compensates no financial loss to the government, is just the sort of punishment the excessive fines clause exists to check. Unfortunately, the supreme court denied review. Katergaris v. City of new york serafim katergaris bought a home in harlem in 2014. A title report confirmed the property was free and clear of any encumbrances. But seven years later, when he went to sell the property, he learned that the new york city department of buildings had fined him $1,000 way back in 2014 - all because a prior owner allegedly failed to file paperwork in 2013 certifying the home's boiler was inspected that year. Not only did serafim not own the house at the time, but the owner from whom he purchased the property had removed the boiler before serafim bought the place, so, there was no boiler for serafim to inspect. The failure to certify a boiler inspection is one of the department's many unreviewable fines. Serafim has teamed up with ij to sue the city in federal court and take a stand on behalf of all new yorkers. He has asked the court to declare that unreviewable fines are unconstitutional and order dob to afford people their right to be heard as due process requires. Brittany coleman v. Town of brookside, alabama, et al. Since 2018, the tiny town of brookside, alabama, has been a revenue-generating fiefdom. Hundreds of residents - most innocent of any wrongdoing - were pulled over and the police seized and towed their cars. To get their cars back, they were forced to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars for towing fees, court costs, and trumped-up tickets. Town officials openly discussed their desire to extract revenue from their constituents. Ij filed a sweeping class action against the town in april 2022. While a few local attorneys have challenged the town's actions, ij's case is the only comprehensive class action lawsuit to”

“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. In june 2023, a federal district judge partially granted and partially denied the government's motions to dismiss. 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 detain them and turn them over to law enforcement, who will take their money without any cause for suspicion and without filing any criminal charges. That is what happened to ij client terry rolin and his daughter rebecca brown, who had terry's life savings of $82,000 seized at the pittsburgh airport by the tsa and drug enforcement administration when rebecca was trying to take the money home with her to boston to deposit into a new joint bank account. To end these unconstitutional practices, ij has filed a fourth amendment class action lawsuit on behalf of terry, rebecca, and other travelers. In march 2021, ij won a first-round victory when a federal judge rejected the government's motion to dismiss the case. 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. 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 now, the michigan supreme court accepted review of the mid-level court decision that reversed our win. 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, thus dismantling much of detroit's car forfeiture system. Nwaorie v. U.s. Customs and border protection anthonia nwaorie is a”

“Cristal starling runs a mobile food cart in rochester, new york, to provide for herself and her grandnephew. But in the fall of 2020, the local police raided her apartment and seized $8,040. Police accused cristal's then-boyfriend of dealing drugs, but he was acquitted by a jury. That didn't stop law enforcement from trying to keep her money permanently through civil forfeiture. Unable to hire a lawyer, cristal fought for her money as best she could, but missed the deadline to file one required piece of paper. In a non-forfeiture case, the court would have let cristal continue her case. Ij has joined with cristal to appeal a lower court's decision that cristal cannot continue challenging the forfeiture. United states of america v. Brian moore, jr. In 2021, drug enforcement administration (dea) agents seized $8,500 in cash from brian moore at atlanta's airport while he was waiting to board a flight. Brian sued to get the money back and, after about a year of litigation, the government eventually returned his money. But the federal court refused to acknowledge brian's victory. After the court dismissed the case, brian asked for the $15,200 in fees that his attorneys had accrued while defending his property from forfeiture. Yet the court ruled that brian did not really win the case - despite getting his money back and getting the entire case dismissed - because the government had voluntarily asked for its case to be dismissed. Now, brian has teamed up with ij to appeal his case to the 11th u.s. Circuit court of appeals. It costs money to defend your property against civil forfeiture and those who successfully fight the government's attempt to take their property deserve to be made whole. If they are not compensated for the cost of successfully litigating their case, even more property owners will simply give up rather than contest this government abuse. 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 lawsuit against one of the state's most prolific contingency-fee prosecutors. The claim is as simple as it is important: under basic due-process principles, prosecutors cannot have a personal financial stake in the cases they prosecute. Such a system delegitimizes the justice system and skews prosecutorial incentives. It's past time to put an end to for-profit prosecutions. In september 2022, a federal court allowed the lawsuit to proceed and authorized the case as a class action. State of indiana v. $2,435 in united states currency, et al. Most states, including indiana, have constitutional provisions securing the right to jury trials in civil cases. In september 2022, the indiana court of appeals held that this protection in the indiana constitution doesn't apply when the government brings civil forfeiture actions. This ruling deprives individuals statewide of vital constitutional protection in the process. In november 2022, ij petitioned the indiana supreme court to take the case and confirm what should already be obvious: when the government sues to forfeit your property, you're entitled to make your case to a jury. Platt v. Moore, et al. Arizona's forfeiture laws are so complicated that even lawyers often struggle to understand them - let alone the average person. Two victims of this maze are terry and ria platt, an elderly couple who had their car seized after police pulled over their son, who did not own the car, for a window tint violation. The police found cash and a small amount of personal use marijuana, both of which the son said were his. Prosecutors tried to ignore the law and forfeit the car. When the platts tried to get their car back, the government denied them their day in court using a loophole in arizo”

“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. The kentucky supreme court accepted our appeal, but sided with opponents of the program, and declared the program unconstitutional in december 2022. Columbus city school district et al. Vs. Ohio et al. In january 2022, a group representing five public school districts filed a legal challenge to strike down two of ohio's eight private school choice programs. This case involves a flurry of allegations, like that the programs unconstitutionally divert money from the state's public schools to private schools. The most unique claim is an accusation that ohio's voucher programs result in segregated public schools: since an allegedly disproportionate percentage of non-minority students use the program, the percentage of minority students in some public school districts has increased. Their complaint disregards the interests of thousands of hardworking families (like our clients) of all races who for years have depended on this program to access schools they would otherwise be unable to afford. In january 2022, ij teamed up with five ohio families to defend the opportunities ohio's choice programs offer. Howes v. Edelblut, et al. In june 2021, new hampshire enacted the education freedom account (efa) program, providing granite state families with educational choice. But while parents count on the program to help them educate their children, opponents think those parents - even parents who cannot afford other options - should only be able to send their children to public schools. To that end, the head of the american federation of teachers in new hampshire filed a lawsuit against the program. If the efa program's opponents succeed, they will deprive low-income families of the opportunity to send their children to schools that better meet their needs. Ij is defending the program on behalf of three parents whose children are eligible to receive efas under the program. Alexander, et al. V. Acting commissioner heidi teshner as a sparsely populated state, alaska faces unique challenges in ensuring that all children can receive an education. To address this concern, the state created "correspondence programs," in which a student's public school uses the post office or float planes to deliver lessons to students across the state and then picks up and grades assignments. In january 2023, a lawsuit was filed challenging the correspondence program. A group of alaska families who benefit from the program teamed up with ij to defend it against this lawsuit, because all parents should be able to direct their child's education. Regulus books, llc, v. City of charlottesville and divers; hart v. County of albemarle the city of charlottesville, virginia, and albemarle county, virginia, decided to require a business license to write novels, and they 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 l”

“Michelle przybocki and entrepreneur ketan vakil suffer from digestive issues. When ketan saw how difficult it was to determine which foods were low fodmap (an acronym for difficult-to-digest sugars), he started a business to provide low-fodmap foods to individuals with digestive issues. But then the u.s. Department of agriculture (usda) informed him that a federal law banned providing this information on food labels - not because such labeling would be false, but merely because it is not included on the government's list of preapproved "nutrient content claims." michelle and ketan have joined with ij to file a first amendment lawsuit in federal court challenging the usda's censorship of low-fodmap labels. Victory will mean that tens of millions of americans will finally be able to identify which foods will help them avoid debilitating pain, and it will remind the federal government that censorship hurts consumers and is unconstitutional. Del castillo v. Florida department of health in 2014, heather del castillo started a business providing personalized health coaching. She never claimed to be a licensed nutritionist or dietitian, but the florida department of health ordered her to cease providing nutritional advice and demanded that she pay over $750 in fines. Heather could not afford to spend years and thousands of dollars getting the degree to become a licensed dietician, so she shut her business down. These sorts of occupational licensing laws protect the economic interests of license holders by censoring what others can say and hear. Heather and ij filed a federal lawsuit challenging florida's unconstitutional restriction on giving dietary advice. Unfortunately, in july 2019, a federal district upheld the licensing requirement on the basis that heather's advice was "conduct not "speech and therefore exempt from first amendment protections. We appealed the decision to the u.s. Court of appeals for the 11th circuit, which upheld the lower court's decision in february 2022, and in december 2022, the supreme court of the united states declined our petition for review. Sylvia gonzalez v. City of castle hills, texas sylvia gonzalez, a retired resident of castle hills, texas, ran for local office in 2019 and defeated a well-connected and powerful incumbent after knocking on more than 500 doors and talking with hundreds of residents. Sylvia helped organize a non-binding petition calling for the removal of the castle hills city manager. Incensed by the criticism, city officials retaliated with a campaign of harassment that culminated in sylvia being arrested and spending a day in jail, accused of stealing her own petition. In september 2020, sylvia teamed up with ij to hold accountable the city officials who violated her constitutional rights. City officials claimed they could not be sued because of qualified immunity. In march 2021, a federal district court judge denied the officials immunity, ruling that throwing someone in jail for exercising their right to free speech is a clearly established violation of the first amendment. City officials appealed the ruling, and the 5th circuit held that the officials were entitled to immunity. Ij filed a petition for certiorari with the united states supreme court on behalf of sylvia in april 2023, and we await a decision. 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 locatio”

“During divorce proceedings between matthew gibson and his ex-wife, the judge in the case, raleigh county, west virginia, family-court judge louise goldston, personally forced her way into matthew's home to search for items that were in dispute. Goldston was ultimately censured and fined by the west virginia high court for violating the state's code of judicial conduct. When matthew sued for these egregious violations of his privacy and free speech rights, goldston argued that she was not liable by invoking a court-made doctrine called judicial immunity. But judicial immunity is reserved for judicial actions, and searching someone's home is not a judicial act. The trial court correctly recognized this principle and denied goldston judicial immunity for her actions. Nonetheless, goldston is now appealing that decision to the 4th u.s. Circuit court of appeals. On appeal, matthew is teaming up with ij to protect important constitutional guarantees by holding judges accountable. 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 several different claims in a single suit. Unfortunately, the 6th circuit cited outdated case law to apply immunity and let the government off the hook. Now, ij is asking the u.s. Supreme court to hear the case once again. Rosales v. Bradshaw 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. Rosales v. Lewis, et al. Now living in louisiana, in june 2022, mario rosales from the case described above and his girlfriend gracie were driving home from work. They weren't doing anything suspicious, and mario was following the traffic laws. Despite that, a police vehicle followed and immediately pulled mario over. When mario and gracie asked why they had been pulled over, the officers answered that mario failed to use his turn signal - but multiple recordings of the incident clearly show that mario used his blinker. Over 20 minutes after pulling over mario and gracie, the officers let them go. The constitution protects against this stop-first-justify-later form of policing. That is why mario and gracie have sued the police officers and the city of alexandria, louisiana - to enforce the constitu”

“A group of immigrant nurses (under the guidance of attorney felix vinluan) resigned from sentosa nursing home after sentosa broke its contract with the workers. Sentosa then attempted multiple efforts to punish the nurses, despite the fact the nurses were repeatedly found to have done nothing wrong. In 2009, a new york appellate court ordered that the prosecution of the nurses be stopped because the suffolk county district attorney office brought charges "without or in excess of jurisdiction." in december 2022, with the help of ij, the nurses and felix asked the united states supreme court to hear their case against the officials from the county district attorney office who brought forward the bogus charges. Prosecutors are not above the law, and when they blatantly violate people's rights, they should be held accountable. Sadly, in april 2023, the supreme court declined to hear the case. J.t.h., et al. V. Cook in may 2018, a 15-year-old boy was sexually abused by brandon cook, a deputy in the scott county, missouri, sheriff's department. A few months after the assault, the boy's parents threatened to sue brandon cook's employer, scott county, for its negligence in allowing brandon - who had been disciplined in previous law enforcement jobs - to serve as a deputy. Only seven weeks after that threat, the parents found themselves subject to an intrusive investigation for child neglect by a child-welfare investigator in scott county, spring cook, who claimed that the parents were the ones to blame for letting their son be sexually abused. After they were exonerated, they sued the cps officer. But according to the court, there is no such thing as constitutional protection from retaliatory investigation. Investigations can be an effective tool for intimidation, and government officials across the ideological spectrum weaponize this power to punish those who speak out against them. Ij teamed up with the parents in the u.s. Supreme court to give them their day in court. The court declined to hear the case in january 2023. Yassin v. Weyker ifrah yassin was one of several immigrants whose lives were upended by st. Paul police officer heather weyker. It is well documented that weyker fabricated a crime ring and single-handedly ruined the lives of dozens of people she landed in federal prison over a fictitious story. Ifrah stood trial - facing life in prison - and was ultimately found not guilty. A federal appeals court has stated clearly that weyker lied. Because weyker was also deputized as a federal officer to work on a joint state-federal task force, both federal and state courts rejected ifrah's efforts to hold weyker accountable. No police officer should be able to lie, ruin an innocent person's life, and get away with it. Yet, nationwide, courts now grant officers who serve on joint state-federal task forces blanket immunity from accountability when they violate someone's constitutional rights. That's why ij, on ifrah's behalf, asked the u.s. Supreme court to hear ifrah's case. Unfortunately, in february 2023, the supreme court declined to hear her appeal. Mohamud v. Weyker in august 2021, ij filed a petition asking the u.s. Supreme court to take up a case challenging blanket immunity for federal officials. A somali refugee named hamdi mohamud was framed by a minnesota police officer (the same officer mentioned above) in an attempt to salvage a fabricated investigation. The officer's lies sent hamdi to federal detention for two years. According to the 8th circuit, the officer's role on a joint federal-state task force means she cannot be held accountable as a federal officer for derailing a teenager's future. Unfortunately, the high court denied her petition in june 2022. Even so, the 8th circuit held that, if hamdi could show the officer was acting as a state officer when she violated the constitution, hamdi's case could move forward. With newly discovered documents, hamdi has returned to the federal district court to prove the o”