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.”

“The allocation of five renovated leased spaces, including salary and fringe benefits of personnel in lease- and renovation-related roles, resulted in the institute showing a negative expense for management-related occupancy for the year ended june 30, 2024.”

“Devillier, et al. V. Texas richie devillier is a farmer who has lived on his family's land in winnie, texas, for generations. For as long as anyone could remember, the devilliers' land never flooded - that is, before the texas department of transportation renovated a nearby highway to control stormwater. Since then, the devillier family farm and many of the surrounding properties have been inundated after major storms. The effects were devastating. And even though the constitution guarantees just compensation for takings, shockingly, the 5th u.s. Circuit court of appeals sided with texas, holding that property owners whose land is taken by the state for flood control don't have any federal remedy at all. That ruling was wrong, and it conflicted with rulings of both the supreme court and other courts nationwide, which is why ij asked the supreme court to review and hold that states cannot ignore the constitution. The supreme court unanimously ruled that the devilliers' claims can go forward and that texas cannot evade the takings clause's requirements simply by virtue of being a state. The case is back to the trial court, where it will be taken over by its original counsel. Gonzalez v. City of castle hills 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 then 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's 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. 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 u.s. Circuit court of appeals held that sylvia could not make out a first amendment claim. Ij filed a petition for certiorari with the supreme court on behalf of sylvia. The court granted the petition and reversed the 5th circuit, opening the courthouse doors for those americans who have been arrested for criticizing the government. Bailey v. Iles it's not a crime to make a joke on the internet. But when waylon bailey posted an innocuous joke on facebook comparing the covid-19 pandemic to a zombie apocalypse, he learned the hard way overzealous local officials don't always honor that constitutional guarantee. Though the post was clearly satirical, the sheriff's office stormed waylon's house with guns drawn, arrested him, and took him to jail. In august 2023, the 5th u.s. Circuit court of appeals held that waylon's speech was constitutionally protected and that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. A jury ultimately awarded waylon $205,000 in damages, and in march 2024 ij received $72,733.77 in attorneys' fees. Rainwaters, et al. 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") would routinely enter private land on a whim to search for potential hunting violations without a warrant. They trespassed, took photos and videos, and even installed 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”

“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. Trial was held in this case in july 2023, and the judge granted the board's motion for a directed verdict. We appealed the trial court's decision to louisiana's first circuit court of appeal, which affirmed on june 21, 2024. We will be appealing this decision to the louisiana supreme court. 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 cosmetology and barbering, which forbids her from practicing eyelash extensions without a cosmetology or esthetician license. But brandy just wants to do eyelash extensions, not other cosmetology practices. Oklahomans have a right to earn an honest living and enjoy the gains of their industry without facing overbearing licensing demands. That is why brandy teamed up with ij to file a lawsuit to enforce her constitutional right to earn a living in her trade. Less than two weeks after filing suit, reform efforts began in both the board and the state legislature. We anticipate that the new rules will allow brandy to obtain her eyelash-extension license in november 2024. 360 virtual drone services llc and michael jones v. Ritter, et al. In march 2021, ij sued on behalf of michael jones after the north carolina board of examiners for engineers and surveyors threatened him with civil and criminal enforcement. Michael uses a drone to take photos of land and create maps for customers to monitor property. Michael does not practice surveying, a more formal profession that marks the legal boundaries of property. Even so, the board accused him of providing unlicensed surveying services. In response to the board's threats, michael shut down his business. The state's licensing laws stifle innovation, and they also unconstitutionally restrict free speech by requiring the government's permission to create and disseminate images and data. Michael partnered with ij to sue the board in federal court to disassemble the state's unconstitutional restrictions and open the door for other entrepreneurs to creatively use technology to provide cheaper, more convenient services. In march 2023, a district court judge upheld the restriction that prevents michael from creating maps with his drones. We appealed to the 4th u.s. Circuit court of appeals, and in a may 2024 decision, the fourth circuit affirmed. We will be petitioning the supreme court for certiorari. Crownholm, et al. V. Moore, et al. Ryan crownholm is the founder of a business called mysiteplan.com. Ryan uses publicly available information from the internet to make a digital drawing that shows the customer's lot lines and the buildings, driveways, fences, etc. On the property. But the california board for professional engineers, land surveyors, and geologists claimed that ryan was illegally practicing land surveying without a license. If all it takes to be illegally practicing land surveying is to depict property lines and some features of a property within those lines, anyone who has ever drawn an informal map is a criminal. The supreme court has made clear that the creation and dissemination of information are speec”

“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 would be 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. According to the government, wayne could either get a license or stop talking. But wayne did not want to become a licensed engineer because, in his later 70s, he was 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 his speech. The court granted our motion for summary judgment, holding that the board's attempts to silence wayne's truthful description of his expertise and expressions of his opinions violated the first amendment. The board declined to appeal, and the judgment against it became final in mid-january 2024. The only thing remaining in the case is our pending motion for attorneys' fees. 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 keep would-be competitors out of business. Abdallah partnered with ij in march 2021 to sue the state regulatory agency. In march 2023, the colorado court of appeals dismissed abdallah's case. The colorado supreme court denied review of the case in december 2023, allowing the anticompetitive law to remain in place. Surfvive, et al. V. City of south padre island in south padre island, texas, the city government caps food truck permits at 12 and requires food trucks to get a restaurant owner's approval on their application. This means less choice and higher prices for south padre island residents and visitors, and it violates the texas constitution, which forbids laws that serve only to protect businesses from competition. Ij teamed up with surfvive - a local nonprofit's food truck - and food truck owners anubis and ramses avalos to challenge south padre island's law. In december 2020, a district court judge struck down the food truck permit cap. Astonishingly, the island chose to defy the order before it even filed an appeal. Then, after the city did appeal, in june 2022, texas's 13th court of appeals reversed the trial court decision, held that the law was a reasonable way to promote the economy, and said the government was immune from suit because the claims were not viable. Ij appealed to the texas supreme court, but that appeal was denied on november 3, 2023. Proctor, et al. V. City of jacksonville, et al. Nicole gonzalez owns property in jacksonville, north carolina, where she'd like to host a food truck alongside her general goods store there. Anthony proctor ("tony") and octavius raymond ("ray") are both marine veterans a”

“In bullhead city, arizona, your kindness might cost you your freedom. It nearly did for norma thornton, a 78-year-old grandmother who was arrested and criminally charged for feeding those in need in bullhead city. Under a new ordinance, the city deemed it a criminal misdemeanor - punishable by fines and even imprisonment - to share prepared food in a public park for charitable purposes. Homelessness is a complicated and serious problem, but criminalizing acts of charity isn't the solution. What's more, it's unconstitutional. That's why norma joined ij in a federal lawsuit against bullhead city to strike down this ordinance and allow norma, and others like her, to use charity to help those in need. Shaw, et al. V. Metro. Gov't of nashville and davidson county nashville, tennessee, is the center of country music. Yet, incredibly, the city banned musicians from making music in their own homes. Nashville outlawed home-based businesses that serve clients, preventing local musicians, hair stylists, and other budding entrepreneurs from building their own american dream. Nashville residents, like ij clients lij shaw and pat raynor, face steep fines if any customers physically come to their homes to do business. At the same time, nashville allows other types of home-based businesses. Ij and the beacon center of tennessee teamed up to vindicate the constitutional right to use your own home to earn an honest living. In october 2019, a nashville court dismissed the suit. We appealed that ruling to the state supreme court, and in august 2022, the high court vacated the dismissal, allowing our clients to continue their lawsuit. But on remand, the chancery court of davidson county ruled that the city's discrimination was constitutional because of deference to the government, but never actually addressed whether our clients were similarly situated to the privileged home-based businesses - a determination that we will once again appeal. Brinkmann, et al. V. Town of southold the family owners of brinkmann's hardware thought they had found the perfect location for a new store in southold, new york. But even though they followed all the rules, the town of southold is trying to use eminent domain to take their property for a "passive park" (by which the town means that it will leave the land as an unimproved lot). It is an extreme and unconstitutional tactic to prevent an entirely legal business from serving the community. The town where they purchased a commercial-zoned lot has done everything possible to stop the brinkmanns: it slow-played the permitting process, imposed exorbitant fees, and then enacted a targeted moratorium on building permits along a one-mile stretch of road, with the brinkmanns' property in the center. The brinkmanns have teamed up with ij in federal court to end the town's unconstitutional attempts to use eminent domain to stop a completely legal use of property to build a business. A loss in the trial court was affirmed by the 2nd u.s. Circuit court of appeals in a 2-1 decision. We petitioned the supreme court for certiorari in early june 2024. Jones, et al. V. Port freeport, et al. The port in freeport, texas, used eminent domain to condemn several properties in a historically black neighborhood - even though its ceo has admitted at deposition that the port has no specific plans for the property besides leasing it to third parties for economic development. This is precisely the kind of taking that texas outlawed in 2009 (in the wake of the widely criticized kelo decision), so ij has taken on this case to oppose the condemnation. The district court granted summary judgment to the port, and we have appealed. Fisher, et al. V. City of ocean springs ocean springs, mississippi, designated as "slum or blighted" more than 200 properties in a historic black neighborhood - a designation that never expires, and carries with it the power of eminent domain. But even though the government's designation never expires, mississippi prope”

“Our client, amy hadley, had her home in south bend, indiana, blasted with tear-gas grenades and ransacked by police who were searching for a dangerous fugitive. But the police had made a major mistake in their investigation and had the wrong house. Amy and her family had no connection to the fugitive. They were victims of a destructive, costly raid and were left to shoulder thousands of dollars in property damage. In december 2023, we launched a case against the government entities who contributed to the destruction, claiming that they took amy's property without just compensation, as required by the indiana and federal constitutions. 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 public service commission to deny sandersville railroad's request for authority to take their land to build the track because it is not a public use. An agency hearing officer recommended ruling in favor of the railroad, and our clients have sought review before the full public service commission. 8307 manchester llc, et al. V. City of brentwood since 2018, brentwood, missouri, has planned to redevelop a commercial area it calls the manchester corridor. Desperate to redevelop the area to increase its economic output, the city has used shifting justifications to designate the area as "blighted." we represent several small businesses challenging the blight designation. Not only does it not meet the statutory standard, but blight is also a pretext for the real motivation, economic development (an improper justification under missouri's post-kelo law). Thomas, et al. V. County of humboldt, et al. Humboldt county, california, imposes a daily civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation, for up to 90 days, for any code violation it says is related to cannabis. Shockingly, humboldt will fine new homebuyers millions of dollars because before they bought the place, the prior property owner allegedly grew marijuana illegally. While these innocent owners have all of ten days to weigh their options under the threat of millions in fines, the county typically offers a compliance agreement, under which owners waive their rights in exchange for a single day's worth of fines. These tactics have put hundreds of innocent property owners under immense pressure and legal uncertainty. They never grew cannabis - but they also can't get their day in court - they face crippling fines, and they can't develop their land. This state of affairs is unjust and unconstitutional. That's why four humboldt residents have joined with ij to file a putative class action against the county. In may 2023, a federal judge granted the county's motion to dismiss; ij has appealed the decision. Davis, et al. V. City of chicago in april 2019, ij filed a class action lawsuit challenging chicago's massive and unconstitutional vehicle impound program. In a city that runs a chronic budget deficit of more than $100 million, impounding vehicles has become an easy and significant source of cash. The lead plaintiffs in our class action are innocent owners jerome davis and veronica walker-davis. The city impounded their car after an auto-shop employee took it for a joy ride while it was in the shop for repairs. After fighting the city for nearly a year a”

“When a court proceeding may result in a person's 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, provides the due process that the constitution requires and is held accountable for making both of them homeless. After a victory in the 6th u.s. Circuit court of appeals in may 2023, recognizing that 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 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 build additional affordable housing units or pay nearly $77,000 into the mha program. Those fees make anita's plans impossible - and leave the city with fewer affordable housing units. Across the city, anyone wishing to construct a home must face incomprehensibly high fees or burdensome and intrusive new housing mandates levied in the name of "affordable housing." anita has partnered with ij to challenge seattle's counterproductive and unconstitutional mha program. On june 28, 2024, the district court ruled against us, and we will be seeking further review. Decker, et al. V. City of meridian, et al. Chasidy decker, a native of the treasure valley in idaho, had a savvy solution to owning a home after being priced out of the general boise real estate market: she bought a beautiful 252-square foot tiny house on wheels and found a local meridian homeowner who would let her park it on his property for $600 per month. But the day after chasidy moved in, the city threatened both chasidy and the homeowner with criminal prosecution and fines of $1,000 per day unless she moved out of her tiny house. Cities like meridian should promote rather than discourage their residents' private efforts to find affordable housing during a housing crisis. But meridian's ban on tiny homes on wheels is not just bad policy - it is unconstitutional. With ij, chasidy filed a constitutional lawsuit against meridian's irrational ban on living in tiny homes. In november 2022, a state district court allowed chasidy's case to move forward. A bench trial was held in april 2024, and we await a decision from the court. Tiny house hand up, inc. V. City of calhoun, et al. Cindy tucker runs tiny house hand up, or thhu, to fill a niche for smaller, less costly homes. They're ready to build a community of southern-style cottages with 540 to 600 square feet of living space each in calhoun, georgia, but the city demands houses have over 1,000 square feet. Georgia's constitution requires zoning laws to be substantially related to public health, safety, morality, or general welfare. Calhoun's ban on smaller homes is not related to anything other than excluding people with lower incomes and forcing people to live in homes that are larger than they want. So, cindy and thhu have teamed up with ij to fight for their right to build modestly sized homes. In octo”

“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, but the d.c. Circuit court of appeals reversed on august 29, 2023, agreeing with our takings clause arguments and holding that the government violated the fifth amendment by demanding that valancourt turn over books free of charge. (because this grants us complete relief, the court did not reach our first amendment claim.) we continue to litigate the scope of the appropriate remedy on remand in the district court. Taylor, et al. V. Nocco using a crude computer algorithm, the pasco county, florida, sheriff's office creates a list of people they think are likely to commit crimes. Then, deputies routinely show up unannounced at the homes of those identified to interrogate them and, especially, their family and friends. To intimidate their targets and family members into submission, county deputies aggressively issue citations for innocuous offenses like missing house numbers. In the words of a former pasco county deputy, they were under orders to "[m]ake their lives miserable until they move or sue." so, in march 2021, that's exactly what ij did. This case will send a message to state and local governments across the country that fines and fees should be used only to protect the public, not to force undesirable residents out of town. In august 2021, a judge denied the sheriff's motion to dismiss, meaning our clients will have their day in court. The case aims to end both pretextual code enforcement and harassment of people that police think might commit crimes in the future. 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. The class related to indio has been fully paid; a final class approval hearing in our related class action regarding coachella has not yet been held. Sun valley orchards, llc v. U.s. Dep't 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”

“Since 2018, the tiny town of brookside, alabama, has been a revenue-generating fiefdom. Hundreds of residents - many 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 end this regime of systemic abuse. In march 2023, a federal district court rejected brookside's efforts to dismiss the case, and the case remains ongoing. Root, et al. V. City of sierra vista amanda root has called sierra vista, in southeast arizona, home for more than 20 years. In the late '90s, amanda acquired a small lot in the then-cloud 9 mobile home park. Sadly, in 2016, amanda's mobile home burned to the ground, leaving her temporarily homeless. But in 2017, amanda was given a park trailer to put on her property and live in. Then in july 2020 - during the middle of the covid-19 pandemic - the city tried to kick amanda and her neighbors out of their homes and off their property. The city gave them just 30 days to leave. There was no hearing or appeal offered. The city says that amanda lives in an "rv" instead of a "manufactured home." to be clear, it is perfectly legal to live in an rv in sierra vista. The city just says amanda cannot have an rv on the property she owns because of the technicalities of the city's zoning laws. No one should be made homeless in the name of zoning, so amanda and her neighbors teamed up with ij to sue the city and protect their homes. A judge dismissed the lawsuit in september 2021, and the appeals court ruled that the homeowners could not even appeal that decision. But in january 2023, the arizona supreme court overturned the appeals court decision and asked the judges to reconsider the case considering another recent victory by ij. The case now is entering discovery. Martinez v. City of lantana, et al. 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 at the city 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. But in june 2023, that same court granted the city's motion for summary judgment. We have appealed that decision to florida's fourth district court of appeals. Long lake township v. Maxon, et al. Todd and heather maxon live on a five-acre property in rural long lake township, in northern michigan. Long lake used a drone to repeatedly surveil their home without a warrant for over two years - taking intrusive, high-resolution photographs and videos of their home and backyard that could not be captured without a drone. Then, the government tried to use those photos and videos as evidence in a zoning enforcement laws”

“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 a serious hit. 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. The case remains ongoing. Brown, et al. 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 the 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. 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 drug enforcement administration (dea), 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. The trial court denied the government's motion to dismiss in january 2024, and the case continues. 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. The 6th u.s. Circuit court of appeals ultimately ruled in our favor, holding that the government must provide a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker within 14 days of a vehicle seizure; the remaining issues are still being litigated in district court. We are also fighting for the return of our client stephanie wilson's car in state court. An appeals court overturned our win in stephanie's forfeiture case in a lower court, and the michigan supreme court acc”

“In still another follow-up case to the same doj raid of safe deposit boxes in the two preceding cases, ij is suing on behalf of don mellein, a retired civil servant who invested in precious metals and coins to save for his retirement. His box was one of the hundreds seized by the fbi in march 2021; and although the fbi promised to "preserve the property" for safe keeping until it could be returned to its rightful owners, 63 of don's coins - worth over $100,000 - remain missing to this day. The fbi has refused to compensate don for his loss. Ij's lawsuit seeks to hold the fbi responsible for its failure to uphold its promise to keep rightful owners' property safe. United states of america v. $8,040 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 she 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 joined with cristal to appeal a lower court's decision that cristal cannot continue challenging the forfeiture. In august 2023, the second circuit agreed with us that the district court erred by granting default judgment to the government. In response, the government has abandoned any attempt to forfeit the property and has finally returned cristal's money. The parties are now fighting over cristal's right to interest and attorneys' fees. United states of america v. Moore in 2021, drug enforcement administration agents seized $8,500 in cash from brian moore at atlanta's airport while he was waiting to board a flight. Brian litigated to get the money back and, after about a year of litigation, the government eventually moved to dismiss the case against his money with prejudice. The court entered the dismissal order and directed the government to return the money, but then 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 the dismissal. 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 district court allowed the lawsuit to proceed and certified the case as a class action. In february 2024, however, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. We have appealed. Indiana v. $2,435 i”

“Secondary education in massachusetts, all students with special needs are entitled to special education and related services. But state regulators do not allow students whose parents have placed them in private schools to receive these benefits; instead, those students must receive those services at public school or some other "neutral" location. Public school students receive their services at their school, and private school students who are assigned to a private school by the school system also receive their services at their own school. Only students whose parents chose their school must leave school multiple times per week to get services. In may 2024, we filed a lawsuit on behalf of two families challenging this restriction to ensure that all students in massachusetts are treated equally. Metro. Government of nashville and davidson county, et al. V. Tennessee department of education, et al.; mcewen, et al. V. Tennessee 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 two lawsuits challenging its constitutionality, one brought by two tennessee counties and another brought by parents who oppose the program. Ij and our clients appealed our loss at chancery court to the tennessee supreme court, and 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. In november 2022, the chancery court for davidson county dismissed all legal claims raised in two lawsuits challenging the program. The county plaintiffs abandoned their lawsuit shortly thereafter, but the intermediate appellate court held in january 2024 that the individual plaintiffs have standing and ripe claims. As a result, the mcewen case remains ongoing. Labresh, et al. V. Cox, et al. The utah fits all scholarship bill, which went into effect in may 2023, provides families with $8,000 scholarship accounts that can be used for private school tuition, therapies, after-school programs, relevant technology, curricula, transportation, testing, and other similar educational expenses. On may 29, 2024, the utah education association filed a lawsuit challenging the program under the utah constitution, arguing that it violates the state's education clause, impermissibly uses income tax revenue, and unconstitutionally delegates authority. We have moved to intervene and are preparing to defend the program. Faulkenberry, et al. V. Arkansas dep't of education, et al. In march 2023, arkansas enacted the learns act, a large package of educational reforms that includes the new arkansas children's educational freedom account (efa) program, which provides $6,600 annually to eligible students and which will become universal for the 2025-26 academic year. On june 7, 2024, four plaintiffs with children in public schools filed a lawsuit challenging the efa program, arguing that the arkansas constitution prohibits using state funds for non-public-school education. We filed a motion to intervene on june 18, 2024, on behalf of three mothers who either use the efa program now to pay for their children's education or want to use it next year when they become eligible. 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 professional-engineer license, which the board's rules say he would”

“Upsolve began by offering a free app to walk people through chapter 7 bankruptcy - an award-winning innovation that has now helped relieve hundreds of millions of dollars in debt. Upsolve's next project, the american justice movement, was designed to train volunteers, like reverend john udo-okon, to give basic legal advice people need to defend themselves against debt-collection suits that plague so many new yorkers. The sort of advice contemplated by upsolve's new project is a crime and could jail reverend john for up to four years for engaging in the "unauthorized practice of law." that is why reverend john and upsolve have joined with ij to challenge new york's prohibition on legal advice from people who are not lawyers under the first amendment. It cannot be a crime simply to give someone advice. In may 2022, the district court agreed with us and granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The government has appealed, and ij has directly taken over the case for appeal and any further proceedings afterward. Fink v. Kirchmeyer, et al. California's anti-spam law allows spam recipients to sue spammers. Our client, jay fink, is an entrepreneur who goes through a client's junk or spam folder, reads the emails, and then generates a list that the client can take to a lawyer to try and sue spammers. Ninety-nine percent of what jay does is read emails, think thoughts about them, and then communicate those thoughts - all activities protected by the first amendment. Even so, california has told him he is breaking the law by being an unlicensed private investigator. And jay cannot get a license without three years of irrelevant training. We sued on his behalf in november 2023, and the federal district court granted an unheard-of preliminary injunction, holding that the law failed to pass the rational-basis test. Knott, et al. V. Frerichs, et al. Every state has a system to hold onto unclaimed property - such as uncashed checks and abandoned bank accounts - until claimed by the owner. But owners often find it difficult to find their funds, let alone assemble the paperwork to recover them. Our client, entrepreneur david knott, is an expert at navigating these systems, and he has a successful small business helping owners find and recover these unclaimed funds for a small fee. But illinois is demanding that for this work, david become a licensed private detective - a burdensome license that has nothing to do with david's day-to-day work. We have sued on behalf of david to vindicate his free-speech and petition rights under the first amendment. Young, et al. V. Town of conway leavitt's country bakery has been a pillar of the town of conway, new hampshire, for over 45 years. The bakery's owner, sean young, allowed a group of local high school art students to paint over the blank facade above the bakery's front door. The result was a whimsical depiction of a sunny new england mountain landscape made entirely of baked goods. But the town's zoning officials insist the mural must come down - claiming that the mural is no mural at all, but rather, a sign larger than what the town's sign code allows. Government officials don't get to tell people, including entrepreneurs and businesses, what they can and can't paint. To protect his rights, sean has teamed up with ij to file a federal lawsuit challenging conway's unconstitutional sign code. Przybocki, et al. V. U.s. Dep't of agriculture, et al. 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 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 cont”

“This federal lawsuit seeks to vindicate the free-speech rights of justin pulliam, a citizen journalist in fort bend, texas, who was excluded from a police press conference and arrested for filming a police encounter with a mentally ill man. As part of his project to instill more accountability and transparency into the actions of public officials, justin tracks calls on a scanner and drives to the scene to document law enforcement responses. The fort bend county sheriff's office began to single justin out and intimidate him, and authorities are now prosecuting him for interfering with police duties, even though he did not interfere with the officers in any way. Now, justin and ij are fighting back against the fort bend deputies' unlawful behavior. He has filed a federal lawsuit to protect his first and fourteenth amendment rights and to ensure the constitutional accountability of government officials who violate them. Fambrough v. City of 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, ohio. 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. Gibson v. Goldston 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. The 4th u.s. Circuit court of appeals affirmed this decision in october 2023, holding that "[j]udicial immunity protects only judicial acts." 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's options extremely limited. 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 6th u.s. Circuit court of appeals 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, and the u.s. Sup”

“Former assistant district attorney ralph petty of midland, texas, spent his days prosecuting criminal cases and his nights acting as a law clerk on the very cases he was prosecuting. Ij client erma wilson cannot pursue her dream of becoming a nurse because of a felony drug conviction following a tainted trial prosecuted by petty - who as a clerk also drafted the final judgment and sentencing order against her. For 20 years, petty acted on both sides of the bench in more than 300 cases. Such a plain conflict of interest violates the right to a fair and impartial court of law. So, in april 2022, erma joined with ij to file a lawsuit against petty, other responsible officials, and midland county itself. The district court dismissed the case, and in april 2023 a panel of the 5th u.s. Circuit court of appeals reluctantly affirmed, finding it was bound to do so by circuit precedent. Ij filed a petition for rehearing en banc to overturn that precedent, which the 5th circuit granted in february 2024 and heard in may 2024. Mohamud v. Weyker in august 2021, ij filed a petition asking the 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 in an attempt to salvage a fabricated investigation. The officer's lies sent hamdi to federal detention for two years. According to the 8th u.s. Circuit court of appeals, 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 hamdi's 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 returned to the federal district court to prove the officer was acting as a state officer, even while she acted as a federal officer. The district court has once again dismissed the case, ignoring this new information, and we have once again appealed to the 8th circuit. Ij will continue this fight until justice is secured for those whose rights are violated by federal officers and state officials. Murphy v. Schmitt mason murphy was walking to a store on a rural missouri road when a police officer stopped him and demanded his identification. When mason refused and asked for the reason he was being detained, the officer called other police officers to brainstorm some basis on which to charge him - all of which was captured on videotape. When mason sued for violation of his rights against such a pretextual stop, his case was dismissed because he was walking on the wrong side of the street, and thus, the court concluded, there was probable cause to arrest him. Ij took over the case at the certiorari stage, asking the supreme court to overturn the 8th u.s. Circuit court of appeals and hold that officers can be held liable when there is objective evidence of pretext like that presented in mason's case.”

“Andre v. Clayton county benning v. Oliver, et al. Board of supervisors of fairfax county v. Leach-lewis brown v. Pouncy chiaverini, et al. V. City of napoleon, et al. Chris graham, et al. V. District attorney of hampden county davis v. California edison, et al. V. South carolina dep't of education, et al. Fbi v. Fikre florence owner 1, llc v. Duke energy kentucky, inc. Hile v. Michigan jw v. Paley cert pet locke v. County of hubbard maid v. Montana michigan v. Armstrong monroe v. Connor newell-davis, et al. V. Phillips, et al. No on e, et al. V. David chiu, et al. O'connor v. Eubanks sec v. Jarkesy, et al. Sharpe v. Winterville police dep't, et al. Smith, et al. V. Georgia tanvir, et al. V. Sajjad, et al. Texas dep't of insurance v. Stonewater roofing, ltd. Co. The commons of lake houston, ltd. V. City of houston tiktok inc. V. Garland united states v. Hendler united states v. Niksich united states v. Jackson veterans guardian v. Matthew platkin villarreal v. Alaniz watson memorial spiritual temple of christ v. Korban yamhill county, et al. V. Real property, et al.”