TY 2013 Form 990

(A) Name and Title	(B) Average hours per week (list any hours for related organizations below dotted line)	(C) Position (do not check more than one box, unless person is both an officer and a director/trustee)	(E) Reportable compensation from related organizations (W- 2/1099-MISC)	(F) Estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations
(1) WILLIAM H MELLOR........................................................................ PRES. & GENERAL COUNSEL	40.00 .......................	X	X			474,108	145,174
(2) DAVID B KENNEDY........................................................................ DIRECTOR & CHAIRMAN	1.00 .......................	X				0	0
(3) MARY STIEFEL........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X				0	0
(4) JAMES LINTOTT........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X				0	0
(5) ABIGAIL THERNSTROM........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X				0	0
(6) ARTHUR DANTCHIK........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X				0	0
(7) STEPHEN W MODZELEWSKI........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X				0	0
(8) ROBERT GELFOND........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X				0	0
(9) WILLIAM DUNN........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X				0	0
(10) KEN LEVY........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X				0	0
(11) ROBERT A LEVY........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X				0	0
(12) STEVEN ANDERSON........................................................................ MANAGING VP-CFO/SECRETARY/TREASURER	40.00 .......................		X			183,407	30,003
(13) DEBORAH SIMPSON........................................................................ VP OF STATE OFFICES	40.00 .......................			X		184,971	34,312
(14) JOHN KRAMER........................................................................ VP FOR COMMUNICATIONS	40.00 .......................			X		261,143	52,924
(15) DANA BERLINER........................................................................ LITIGATION DIRECTOR	40.00 .......................			X		236,983	38,857
(16) BETH STEVENS........................................................................ VP FOR DEVELOPMENT	40.00 .......................			X		187,976	35,864
(17) SCOTT BULLOCK........................................................................ SENIOR ATTORNEY	40.00 .......................				X	237,517	37,628

Do not include amounts reported on lines 6b, 7b, 8b, 9b, and 10b of Part VIII.	(A) Total expenses	(B) Program service expenses	(C) Management and general expenses	(D) Fundraising expenses
1	Grants and other assistance to governments and organizations in the United States. See Part IV, line 21
2	Grants and other assistance to individuals in the United States. See Part IV, line 22
3	Grants and other assistance to governments, organizations, and individuals outside the United States. See Part IV, lines 15 and 16
4	Benefits paid to or for members
5	Compensation of current officers, directors, trustees, and key employees ....	1,931,340	1,586,640	99,025	245,675
6	Compensation not included above, to disqualified persons (as defined under section 4958(f)(1)) and persons described in section 4958(c)(3)(B) ....
7	Other salaries and wages	6,107,843	5,364,213	480,188	263,442
8	Pension plan accruals and contributions (include section 401(k) and 403(b) employer contributions) ....	530,227	435,097	61,737	33,393
9	Other employee benefits .......	488,564	399,862	53,042	35,660
10	Payroll taxes ...........	487,897	418,070	40,473	29,354
11	Fees for services (non-employees):
a	Management ......
b	Legal .........	152,526	138,698		13,828
c	Accounting ...........	74,140		74,140
d	Lobbying ...........	2,021	2,021
e	Professional fundraising services. See Part IV, line 17
f	Investment management fees ......
g	Other (If line 11g amount exceeds 10% of line 25, column (A) amount, list line 11g expenses on Schedule O) ........	576,950	539,275	30,185	7,490
12	Advertising and promotion ....	181,869	180,759	1,110
13	Office expenses .......	1,031,504	566,138	148,758	316,608
14	Information technology ......	181,433	23,317	156,740	1,376
15	Royalties ..
16	Occupancy ...........	1,193,714	958,380	138,304	97,030
17	Travel ............	582,587	563,220	5,325	14,042
18	Payments of travel or entertainment expenses for any federal, state, or local public officials ......
19	Conferences, conventions, and meetings ....	109,865	103,865	6,000
20	Interest ...........	2,498		2,498
21	Payments to affiliates .......
22	Depreciation, depletion, and amortization .....	302,206	250,317	29,577	22,312
23	Insurance ..............	121,376	66,120	53,422	1,834
24	Other expenses. Itemize expenses not covered above (List miscellaneous expenses in line 24e. If line 24e amount exceeds 10% of line 25, column (A) amount, list line 24e expenses on Schedule O.)
a	FILING & COURT FEES	29,765	29,765
b
c
d
e	All other expenses
25	Total functional expenses. Add lines 1 through 24e	14,088,325	11,625,757	1,380,524	1,082,044
26	Joint costs. Complete this line only if the organization reported in column (B) joint costs from a combined educational campaign and fundraising solicitation. Check here if following SOP 98-2 (ASC 958-720).

Part X Balance Sheet Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part X ..............
	1	Cash–non-interest-bearing .............	3,171	1	1,400
2	Savings and temporary cash investments .........	18,599,628	2	24,339,803
3	Pledges and grants receivable, net ...........	5,478,892	3	3,646,257
4	Accounts receivable, net .............	11,649	4	12,097
5	Loans and other receivables from current and former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, and highest compensated employees. Complete Part II of Schedule L ..................
			5
6	Loans and other receivables from other disqualified persons (as defined under section 4958(f)(1)), persons described in section 4958(c)(3)(B), and contributing employers and sponsoring organizations of section 501(c)(9) voluntary employees' beneficiary organizations (see instructions) Complete Part II of Schedule L
			6
7	Notes and loans receivable, net .............		7
8	Inventories for sale or use ..............		8
9	Prepaid expenses and deferred charges ..........	171,212	9	230,055
10a	Land, buildings, and equipment: cost or other basis. Complete Part VI of Schedule D	10a	3,076,574
b	Less: accumulated depreciation .....	10b	2,317,928	814,509	10c	758,646
11	Investments—publicly traded securities ..........	17,246,038	11	20,156,625
12	Investments—other securities. See Part IV, line 11 .....		12	4,960,861
13	Investments—program-related. See Part IV, line 11 .....		13
14	Intangible assets ...............		14
15	Other assets. See Part IV, line 11 ...........	47,393	15	164,723
16	Total assets. Add lines 1 through 15 (must equal line 34)......	42,372,492	16	54,270,467
	17	Accounts payable and accrued expenses .........	461,331	17	739,393
18	Grants payable .................		18
19	Deferred revenue ................		19	25,137
20	Tax-exempt bond liabilities .............		20
21	Escrow or custodial account liability. Complete Part IV of Schedule D..		21
22	Loans and other payables to current and former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, highest compensated employees, and disqualified
	persons. Complete Part II of Schedule L..........		22
23	Secured mortgages and notes payable to unrelated third parties ..		23
24	Unsecured notes and loans payable to unrelated third parties ....		24
25	Other liabilities (including federal income tax, payables to related third parties, and other liabilities not included on lines 17-24). Complete Part X of Schedule D....................	188,892	25	261,312
26	Total liabilities. Add lines 17 through 25.........	650,223	26	1,025,842
		Organizations that follow SFAS 117 (ASC 958), check here and complete lines 27 through 29, and lines 33 and 34.
27	Unrestricted net assets ..............	35,891,338	27	49,103,431
28	Temporarily restricted net assets ...........	5,830,931	28	4,141,194
29	Permanently restricted net assets ...........		29
	Organizations that do not follow SFAS 117 (ASC 958), check here and complete lines 30 through 34.
30	Capital stock or trust principal, or current funds ........		30
31	Paid-in or capital surplus, or land, building or equipment fund .....		31
32	Retained earnings, endowment, accumulated income, or other funds		32
33	Total net assets or fund balances ...........	41,722,269	33	53,244,625
34	Total liabilities and net assets/fund balances ........	42,372,492	34	54,270,467

- TIN:

SCHEDULE A
(Form 990 or 990EZ)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Public Charity Status and Public Support

Complete if the organization is a section 501(c)(3) organization or a section 4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust.

Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ. right arrow

See separate instructions.
right arrow

Information about Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2013

Open to Public
Inspection

Name of the organization

INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE

Employer identification number

52-1744337

Part I

Reason for Public Charity Status (All organizations must complete this part.) See instructions.

The organization is not a private foundation because it is: (For lines 1 through 11, check only one box.)

A church, convention of churches, or association of churches described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(i).

A school described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii). (Attach Schedule E.)

A hospital or a cooperative hospital service organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii).

A medical research organization operated in conjunction with a hospital described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii). Enter the hospital's name, city, and state:

An organization operated for the benefit of a college or university owned or operated by a governmental unit described in

section 170(b)(1)(A)(iv). (Complete Part II.)

A federal, state, or local government or governmental unit described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(v).

An organization that normally receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or from the general public described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). (Complete Part II.)

A community trust described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). (Complete Part II.)

An organization that normally receives: (1) more than 331/3% of its support from contributions, membership fees, and gross

receipts from activities related to its exempt functions—subject to certain exceptions, and (2) no more than 331/3% of

its support from gross investment income and unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 tax) from businesses

acquired by the organization after June 30, 1975. See section 509(a)(2). (Complete Part III.)

An organization organized and operated exclusively to test for public safety. See section 509(a)(4).

An organization organized and operated exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, or to carry out the purposes of one or more publicly supported organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or section 509(a)(2). See section 509(a)(3). Check the box that describes the type of supporting organization and complete lines 11e through 11h.

Type I

Type II

Type III - Functionally integrated

Type III - Non-functionally integrated

By checking this box, I certify that the organization is not controlled directly or indirectly by one or more disqualified persons other than foundation managers and other than one or more publicly supported organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or section 509(a)(2).

If the organization received a written determination from the IRS that it is a Type I, Type II, or Type III supporting organization, check this box ..................................................

Since August 17, 2006, has the organization accepted any gift or contribution from any of the
following persons?

(i) A person who directly or indirectly controls, either alone or together with persons described in (ii)

Yes

and (iii) below, the governing body of the supported organization? ................

11g(i)

(ii) A family member of a person described in (i) above? ......................

11g(ii)

(iii) A 35% controlled entity of a person described in (i) or (ii) above? ................

11g(iii)

Provide the following information about the supported organization(s).

(i) Name of supported organization	(ii) EIN	(iv) Is the organization in col. (i) listed in your governing document?		(v) Did you notify the organization in col. (i) of your support?		(vi) Is the organization in col. (i) organized in the U.S.?		(vii) Amount of monetary support
(i) Name of supported organization	(ii) EIN	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	(vii) Amount of monetary support


Total

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990EZ.

Cat. No. 11285F

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2013

Page 2

Part II

Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(iv) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 5, 7, or 8 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part III. If the organization fails to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part III.)

Section A. Public Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2009	(b) 2010	(c) 2011	(d) 2012	(e) 2013	(f) Total
1	Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") ....	12,109,095	18,305,447	18,582,104	18,598,848	23,917,519	91,513,013
2	Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf.......
3	The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge..
4	Total. Add lines 1 through 3	12,109,095	18,305,447	18,582,104	18,598,848	23,917,519	91,513,013
5	The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f)..						22,179,108
6	Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4.						69,333,905

Section B. Total Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2009	(b) 2010	(c) 2011	(d) 2012	(e) 2013	(f) Total
7	Amounts from line 4..	12,109,095	18,305,447	18,582,104	18,598,848	23,917,519	91,513,013
8	Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources...	181,289	54,026	85,201	161,654	173,350	655,520
9	Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on..
10	Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part IV.)..
11	Total support (Add lines 7 through 10).						92,168,533

Gross receipts from related activities, etc. (see instructions) ..................

3,073,878

First five years. If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a 501(c)(3) organization, check this box and stop here................................................. right arrow

Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage

Public support percentage for 2013 (line 6, column (f) divided by line 11, column (f)) .........

75.230 %

Public support percentage for 2012 Schedule A, Part II, line 14 ...............

73.720 %

16a

33 1/3% support test—2013. If the organization did not check the box on line 13, and line 14 is 33 1/3% or more, check this box
and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ....................... right arrow

33 1/3% support test—2012. If the organization did not check a box on line 13 or 16a, and line 15 is 33 1/3% or more, check this
box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ..................... right arrow

17a

10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2013. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, or 16b, and line 14
is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test, check this box and stop here. Explain
in Part IV how the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported
organization ..................................................... right arrow

10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2012. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, or 17a, and line
15 is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test, check this box and stop here.
Explain in Part IV how the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly
supported organization ................................................ right arrow

Private foundation. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, 17a, or 17b, check this box and see
instructions ..................................................... right arrow

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2013

Page 3

Part III

Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Section 509(a)(2)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 9 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part II. If the organization fails to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part II.)

Section A. Public Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2009	(b) 2010	(c) 2011	(d) 2012	(e) 2013	(f) Total
1	Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") .
2	Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose......
3	Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513..
4	Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf...
5	The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge..
6	Total. Add lines 1 through 5.
7a	Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons...
b	Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year.
c	Add lines 7a and 7b..
8	Public support (Subtract line 7c from line 6.)

Section B. Total Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2009	(b) 2010	(c) 2011	(d) 2012	(e) 2013	(f) Total
9	Amounts from line 6...
10a	Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources..
b	Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975.
c	Add lines 10a and 10b.
11	Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.
12	Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part IV.) ..
13	Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.)..

First five years. If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a 501(c)(3) organization,
check this box and stop here............................................. right arrow

Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage

Public support percentage for 2013 (line 8, column (f) divided by line 13, column (f)) .........

Public support percentage from 2012 Schedule A, Part III, line 15 ...............

Section D. Computation of Investment Income Percentage

Investment income percentage for 2013 (line 10c, column (f) divided by line 13, column (f)) ......

Investment income percentage from 2012 Schedule A, Part III, line 17 .............

19a

33 1/3% support tests—2013. If the organization did not check the box on line 14, and line 15 is more than 33 1/3%, and line 17 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ........ right arrow

33 1/3% support tests—2012. If the organization did not check a box on line 14 or line 19a, and line 16 is more than 33 1/3% and line 18 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ..... right arrow

Private foundation. If the organization did not check a box on line 14, 19a, or 19b, check this box and see instructions ..... right arrow

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2013

Page 4

Part IV

Supplemental Information. Provide the explanations required by Part II, line 10; Part II, line 17a or 17b; and Part III, line 12. Also complete this part for any additional information. (See instructions).

Facts And Circumstances Test

Explanation

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2013

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

Schedule B
(Form 990, 990-EZ,
or 990-PF)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Schedule of Contributors

Attach to Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF.

Information about Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2013

Name of the organization

INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE

Employer identification number

52-1744337

Organization type (check one):

Filers of:

Section:

Form 990 or 990-EZ

501(c)( ) (enter number) organization

4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust not treated as a private foundation

527 political organization

Form 990-PF

501(c)(3) exempt private foundation

4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust treated as a private foundation

501(c)(3) taxable private foundation

Check if your organization is covered by the General Rule or a Special Rule.
Note. Only a section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) organization can check boxes for both the General Rule and a Special Rule. See instructions.

General Rule

For an organization filing Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF that received, during the year, $5,000 or more (in money or
property) from any one contributor. Complete Parts I and II.

Special Rules

For a section 501(c)(3) organization filing Form 990 or 990-EZ that met the 33¹/3% support test of the regulations
under sections 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) and received from any one contributor, during the year, a contribution of the
greater of (1) $5,000 or (2) 2% of the amount on (i) Form 990, Part VIII, line 1h, or (ii) Form 990-EZ, line 1. Complete Parts I and II.

For a section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) organization filing Form 990 or 990-EZ that received from any one contributor,
during the year, total contributions of more than $1,000 for use exclusively for religious, charitable,
scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. Complete Parts I, II, and
III.

For a section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) organization filing Form 990 or 990-EZ that received from any one contributor,
during the year, contributions for use exclusively for religious, charitable, etc., purposes, but these contributions did
not total more than $1,000. If this box is checked, enter here the total contributions that were received during
the year for an exclusively religious, charitable, etc., purpose. Do not complete any of the parts unless the General Rule
applies to this organization because it received nonexclusively religious, charitable, etc., contributions of $5,000 or more
during the year ......................... Arrow Bullet

Caution. An organization that is not covered by the General Rule and/or the Special Rules does not file Schedule B (Form 990,
990-EZ, or 990-PF), but it must answer “No” on Part IV, line 2, of its Form 990; or check the box on line H of its
Form 990-EZ or on its Form 990PF, Part I, line 2, to certify that it does not meet the filing requirements of Schedule B (Form 990,
990-EZ, or 990-PF).

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions
for Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF.

Cat. No. 30613XSchedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2013)

Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2013)

Page 2

Name of organization INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE

Part I	Contributors (see instructions). Use duplicate copies of Part I if additional space is needed.
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
RESTRICTED	RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED, RESTRICTEDRESTRICTED	$RESTRICTED	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2013)

Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2013)

Page 3

Name of organization INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE

Part II	Noncash Property (see instructions). Use duplicate copies of Part II if additional space is needed.
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (see instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (see instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (see instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (see instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (see instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (see instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2013)

Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2013)

Page 4

Name of organization
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE

Employer identification number

52-1744337

Part III

Exclusively religious, charitable, etc., individual contributions to section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) organizations
that total more than $1,000 for the year. Complete columns (a) through (e) and the following line entry.
For organizations completing Part III, enter the total of exclusively religious, charitable, etc.,
contributions of $1,000 or less for the year. (Enter this information once. See instructions.) Arrow Bullet

$
Use duplicate copies of Part III if additional space is needed.

(a) No.
from
Part I

(b) Purpose of gift

(d) Description of how gift is held

(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4	Relationship of transferor to transferee

(a) No.
from
Part I

(b) Purpose of gift

(d) Description of how gift is held

(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4	Relationship of transferor to transferee

(a) No.
from
Part I

(b) Purpose of gift

(d) Description of how gift is held

(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4	Relationship of transferor to transferee

(a) No.
from
Part I

(b) Purpose of gift

(d) Description of how gift is held

(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4	Relationship of transferor to transferee

Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2013)

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

SCHEDULE C
(Form 990 or 990-EZ)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Political Campaign and Lobbying Activities

For Organizations Exempt From Income Tax Under section 501(c) and section 527
SchCMd Bullet

Complete if the organization is described below. SchCMd Bullet

Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
SchCMd Bullet

See separate instructions. SchCMd Bullet

Information about Schedule C (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2013

Open to Public
Inspection

If the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990, Part IV, Line 3, or Form 990-EZ, Part V, line 46 (Political Campaign Activities), then
Round Bullet

Section 501(c)(3) organizations: Complete Parts I-A and B. Do not complete Part I-C.
Round Bullet

Section 501(c) (other than section 501(c)(3)) organizations: Complete Parts I-A and C below. Do not complete Part I-B.
Round Bullet

Section 527 organizations: Complete Part I-A only.
If the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990, Part IV, Line 4, or Form 990-EZ, Part VI, line 47 (Lobbying Activities), then
Round Bullet

Section 501(c)(3) organizations that have filed Form 5768 (election under section 501(h)): Complete Part II-A. Do not complete Part II-B.
Round Bullet

Section 501(c)(3) organizations that have NOT filed Form 5768 (election under section 501(h)): Complete Part II-B. Do not complete Part II-A.
If the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990, Part IV, Line 5 (Proxy Tax) or Form 990-EZ, Part V, line 35c (Proxy Tax), then
Round Bullet

Section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6) organizations: Complete Part III.

Name of the organization

INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE

Employer identification number

52-1744337

Part I-A

Complete if the organization is exempt under section 501(c) or is a section 527 organization.

Provide a description of the organization’s direct and indirect political campaign activities in Part IV.

Political expenditures .................................... SchCMd Bullet

Volunteer hours ........................................

Part I-B

Complete if the organization is exempt under section 501(c)(3).

Enter the amount of any excise tax incurred by the organization under section 4955 ......... SchCMd Bullet

Enter the amount of any excise tax incurred by organization managers under section 4955 ...... SchCMd Bullet

If the organization incurred a section 4955 tax, did it file Form 4720 for this year? ..............

Yes No

Was a correction made? .........................................

Yes No

If "Yes," describe in Part IV.

Part I-C

Complete if the organization is exempt under section 501(c), except section 501(c)(3).

Enter the amount directly expended by the filing organization for section 527 exempt function activities SchCMd Bullet

Enter the amount of the filing organization's funds contributed to other organizations for section 527 exempt function activities ................................... SchCMd Bullet

Total exempt function expenditures. Add lines 1 and 2. Enter here and on Form 1120-POL, line 17b.. SchCMd Bullet

Did the filing organization file Form 1120-POL for this year? ..........................

Yes No

Enter the names, addresses and employer identification number (EIN) of all section 527 political organizations to which the filing
organization made payments. For each organization listed, enter the amount paid from the filing organization’s funds. Also enter the amount of political contributions received that were promptly and directly delivered to a separate political organization, such as a separate segregated fund or a political action committee (PAC). If additional space is needed, provide information in Part IV.

(a) Name	(b) Address	(c) EIN	(d) Amount paid from filing organization's funds. If none, enter -0-.	(e) Amount of political contributions received and promptly and directly delivered to a separate political organization. If none, enter -0-.

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the instructions for Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Cat. No. 50084S

Schedule C (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2013

Page 2

Part II-A

Complete if the organization is exempt under section 501(c)(3) and filed Form 5768 (election under section 501(h)).

A Check SchCMd Bullet

if the filing organization belongs to an affiliated group (and list in Part IV each affiliated group member's name, address, EIN, expenses, and share of excess lobbying expenditures).
B Check SchCMd Bullet

if the filing organization checked box A and "limited control" provisions apply.

Limits on Lobbying Expenditures (The term "expenditures" means amounts paid or incurred.)		(a) Filing organization's totals	(b) Affiliated group totals
1a	Total lobbying expenditures to influence public opinion (grass roots lobbying) ......	5,383
b	Total lobbying expenditures to influence a legislative body (direct lobbying) .......	33,334
c	Total lobbying expenditures (add lines 1a and 1b) ...................	38,717
d	Other exempt purpose expenditures ........................	14,049,608
e	Total exempt purpose expenditures (add lines 1c and 1d) ...............	14,088,325
f	Lobbying nontaxable amount. Enter the amount from the following table in both columns.	854,416
	If the amount on line 1e, column (a) or (b) is:The lobbying nontaxable amount is:
	Not over $500,00020% of the amount on line 1e.
	Over $500,000 but not over $1,000,000$100,000 plus 15% of the excess over $500,000.
	Over $1,000,000 but not over $1,500,000$175,000 plus 10% of the excess over $1,000,000.
	Over $1,500,000 but not over $17,000,000$225,000 plus 5% of the excess over $1,500,000.
	Over $17,000,000$1,000,000.

g	Grassroots nontaxable amount (enter 25% of line 1f) .................	213,604
h	Subtract line 1g from line 1a. If zero or less, enter -0-. ................	0
i	Subtract line 1f from line 1c. If zero or less, enter -0-. ................	0
j	If there is an amount other than zero on either line 1h or line 1i, did the organization file Form 4720 reporting section 4911 tax for this year? ......................................		Yes No

4-Year Averaging Period Under Section 501(h) (Some organizations that made a section 501(h) election do not have to complete all of the five columns below. See the instructions for lines 2a through 2f on page 4.)
Lobbying Expenditures During 4-Year Averaging Period
	Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)	(a) 2010	(b) 2011	(c) 2012	(d) 2013	(e) Total

2a	Lobbying nontaxable amount	695,991	779,127	790,605	854,416	3,120,139

b	Lobbying ceiling amount (150% of line 2a, column(e))					4,680,209

c	Total lobbying expenditures	52,876	32,430	59,017	38,717	183,040

d	Grassroots nontaxable amount	173,998	194,782	197,651	213,604	780,035

e	Grassroots ceiling amount (150% of line 2d, column (e))					1,170,053

f	Grassroots lobbying expenditures	10,693	12,261	15,644	5,383	43,981

Schedule C (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2013

Page 3

Part II-B

Complete if the organization is exempt under section 501(c)(3) and has NOT filed Form 5768 (election under section 501(h)).

For each "Yes" response to lines 1a through 1i below, provide in Part IV a detailed description of the lobbying activity.

(a)

Yes

(b)

Amount

During the year, did the filing organization attempt to influence foreign, national, state or local legislation, including any attempt to influence public opinion on a legislative matter or referendum, through the use of:

Volunteers? .........................................

Paid staff or management (include compensation in expenses reported on lines 1c through 1i)? ....

Media advertisements? ....................................

Mailings to members, legislators, or the public? .........................

Publications, or published or broadcast statements? .......................

Grants to other organizations for lobbying purposes? .......................

Direct contact with legislators, their staffs, government officials, or a legislative body? ........

Rallies, demonstrations, seminars, conventions, speeches, lectures, or any similar means? ......

Other activities? ..........................

Total. Add lines 1c through 1i ...............................

Did the activities in line 1 cause the organization to be not described in section 501(c)(3)? .....

If "Yes," enter the amount of any tax incurred under section 4912 .................

If "Yes," enter the amount of any tax incurred by organization managers under section 4912 .....

If the filing organization incurred a section 4912 tax, did it file Form 4720 for this year? .......

Part III-A

Complete if the organization is exempt under section 501(c)(4), section 501(c)(5), or section 501(c)(6).

Yes

Were substantially all (90% or more) dues received nondeductible by members? ................

Did the organization make only in-house lobbying expenditures of $2,000 or less? ................

Did the organization agree to carry over lobbying and political expenditures from the prior year? ..........

Part III-B

Complete if the organization is exempt under section 501(c)(4), section 501(c)(5), or section 501(c)(6) and if either (a) BOTH Part III-A, lines 1 and 2, are answered "No" OR (b) Part III-A, line 3, is answered “Yes."

Dues, assessments and similar amounts from members .....................

Section 162(e) nondeductible lobbying and political expenditures (do not include amounts of political
expenses for which the section 527(f) tax was paid).

Current year .........................................

Carryover from last year ....................................

Total ............................................

Aggregate amount reported in section 6033(e)(1)(A) notices of nondeductible section 162(e) dues .

If notices were sent and the amount on line 2c exceeds the amount on line 3, what portion of the excess does the organization agree to carryover to the reasonable estimate of nondeductible lobbying and political expenditure next year? ................................

Taxable amount of lobbying and political expenditures (see instructions) ..............

Part IV

Supplemental Information

Provide the descriptions required for Part l-A, line 1; Part l-B, line 4; Part l-C, line 5; Part II-A (affiliated group list); Part II-A, line 2; and Part ll-B, line 1. Also, complete this part for any additional information.

Return Reference	Explanation

Schedule C (Form 990 or 990EZ) 2013

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

SCHEDULE D
(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Supplemental Financial Statements

Complete if the organization answered "Yes," to Form 990,
Part IV, line 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e, 11f, 12a, or 12b
SchDMd Bullet

Attach to Form 990. SchDMd Bullet

See separate instructions. SchDMd Bullet

Information about Schedule D (Form 990) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2013

Open to Public Inspection

Name of the organization

INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE

Employer identification number

52-1744337

Part I

Organizations Maintaining Donor Advised Funds or Other Similar Funds or Accounts. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990, Part IV, line 6.

		(a) Donor advised funds	(b) Funds and other accounts
1	Total number at end of year .........
2	Aggregate contributions to (during year) ...
3	Aggregate grants from (during year) .....
4	Aggregate value at end of year ........

Did the organization inform all donors and donor advisors in writing that the assets held in donor advised
funds are the organization's property, subject to the organization's exclusive legal control? ............

Yes No

Did the organization inform all grantees, donors, and donor advisors in writing that grant funds can be
used only for charitable purposes and not for the benefit of the donor or donor advisor, or for any other purpose conferring impermissible private benefit? ...................................

Yes No

Part II

Conservation Easements. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990, Part IV, line 7.

Purpose(s) of conservation easements held by the organization (check all that apply).

Preservation of land for public use (e.g., recreation or education) Preservation of an historically important land area

Protection of natural habitat Preservation of a certified historic structure

Preservation of open space

Complete lines 2a through 2d if the organization held a qualified conservation contribution in the form of a conservation easement on the last day of the tax year.


a	Total number of conservation easements .......................	2a
b	Total acreage restricted by conservation easements ..................	2b
c	Number of conservation easements on a certified historic structure included in (a) .....	2c
d	Number of conservation easements included in (c) acquired after 8/17/06, and not on a historic structure listed in the National Register ....................	2d

Number of conservation easements modified, transferred, released, extinguished, or terminated by the organization during
the tax year SchDMd Bullet

Number of states where property subject to conservation easement is located SchDMd Bullet

Does the organization have a written policy regarding the periodic monitoring, inspection, handling of violations, and
enforcement of the conservation easements it holds? .............................

Yes No

Staff and volunteer hours devoted to monitoring, inspecting, and enforcing conservation easements during the year
SchDMd Bullet

Amount of expenses incurred in monitoring, inspecting, and enforcing conservation easements during the year
SchDMd Bullet

Does each conservation easement reported on line 2(d) above satisfy the requirements of section 170(h)(4)(B)(i) and section 170(h)(4)(B)(ii)? .......................................

Yes No

In Part XIII, describe how the organization reports conservation easements in its revenue and expense statement, and
balance sheet, and include, if applicable, the text of the footnote to the organization’s financial statements that describes
the organization’s accounting for conservation easements.

Part III

Organizations Maintaining Collections of Art, Historical Treasures, or Other Similar Assets.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990, Part IV, line 8.

If the organization elected, as permitted under SFAS 116 (ASC 958), not to report in its revenue statement and balance sheet works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets held for public exhibition, education, or research in furtherance of public service, provide, in Part XIII, the text of the footnote to its financial statements that describes these items.

If the organization elected, as permitted under SFAS 116 (ASC 958), to report in its revenue statement and balance sheet works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets held for public exhibition, education, or research in furtherance of public service, provide the following amounts relating to these items:

(i)

Revenues included in Form 990, Part VIII, line 1 ........................ SchDMd Bullet

(ii)

Assets included in Form 990, Part X .............................. SchDMd Bullet

If the organization received or held works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets for financial gain, provide the
following amounts required to be reported under SFAS 116 (ASC 958) relating to these items:

Revenues included in Form 990, Part VIII, line 1 .......................... SchDMd Bullet

Assets included in Form 990, Part X ............................... SchDMd Bullet

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990.

Cat. No. 52283D

Schedule D (Form 990) 2013

Page 2

Part III

Organizations Maintaining Collections of Art, Historical Treasures, or Other Similar Assets (continued)

Using the organization’s acquisition, accession, and other records, check any of the following that are a significant use of its collection items (check all that apply):

Public exhibition

Loan or exchange programs

Scholarly research

Other

Preservation for future generations

Provide a description of the organization’s collections and explain how they further the organization’s exempt purpose in
Part XIII.

During the year, did the organization solicit or receive donations of art, historical treasures or other similar
assets to be sold to raise funds rather than to be maintained as part of the organization’s collection?........

Yes No

Part IV

Escrow and Custodial Arrangements. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990,
Part IV, line 9, or reported an amount on Form 990, Part X, line 21.

Is the organization an agent, trustee, custodian or other intermediary for contributions or other assets not
included on Form 990, Part X? ....................................

Yes No

If "Yes," explain the arrangement in Part XIII and complete the following table:


c	Beginning balance .................................	1c
d	Additions during the year ..............................	1d
e	Distributions during the year .............................	1e
f	Ending balance ...................................	1f

Did the organization include an amount on Form 990, Part X, line 21? .....................

Yes No

If "Yes," explain the arrangement in Part XIII. Check here if the explanation has been provided in Part XIII ........

Part V

Endowment Funds. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990, Part IV, line 10.

		(a)Current year	(b)Prior year	b (c)Two years back	(d)Three years back	(e)Four years back
1a	Beginning of year balance ....
b	Contributions ........
c	Net investment earnings, gains, and losses
d	Grants or scholarships .....
e	Other expenditures for facilities and programs ........
f	Administrative expenses ....
g	End of year balance ......

Provide the estimated percentage of the current year end balance (line 1g, column (a)) held as:

Board designated or quasi-endowment SchDMd Bullet

Permanent endowment SchDMd Bullet

Temporarily restricted endowment SchDMd Bullet

The percentages in lines 2a, 2b, and 2c should equal 100%.

Are there endowment funds not in the possession of the organization that are held and administered for the
organization by:

Yes

(i) unrelated organizations ........................

3a(i)

(ii) related organizations ........................

3a(ii)

If "Yes" to 3a(ii), are the related organizations listed as required on Schedule R? .........

Describe in Part XIII the intended uses of the organization's endowment funds.

Part VI

Land, Buildings, and Equipment. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' to Form 990, Part IV, line 11a. See Form 990, Part X, line 10.

Description of property		(b)Cost or other basis (other)	(c) Accumulated depreciation	(d) Book value
1a	Land .................
b	Buildings ................
c	Leasehold improvements ............	1,243,813	1,092,412	151,401
d	Equipment ................	1,671,929	1,225,516	446,413
e	Other .................	160,832		160,832
Total. Add lines 1a through 1e. (Column (d) must equal Form 990, Part X, column (B), line 10(c).).......				758,646

Schedule D (Form 990) 2013

Page 3

Part VII

InvestmentsOther Securities. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' to Form 990, Part IV, line 11b. See Form 990, Part X, line 12.

(a) Description of security or category (including name of security)	(b)Book value	(c) Method of valuation: Cost or end-of-year market value
(1)Financial derivatives
(2)Closely-held equity interests
(3)Other (A) HEDGE FUND	4,960,861	F








Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col. (B) line 12.)	4,960,861

Part VIII

InvestmentsProgram Related. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' to Form 990, Part IV, line 11c. See Form 990, Part X, line 13.

(a) Description of investment		(b) Book value	(c) Method of valuation: Cost or end-of-year market value









Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col.(B) line 13.)

Part IX

Other Assets. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' to Form 990, Part IV, line 11d. See Form 990, Part X, line 15.

(a) Description				(b) Book value









Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col.(B) line 15.)...........

Part X

Other Liabilities. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' to Form 990, Part IV, line 11e or 11f. See Form 990, Part X, line 25.

1.(a) Description of liability		(b) Book value
Federal income taxes
DEFERRED RENT		108,117
CAPITAL LEASE LIABILITY		27,363
GIFT ANNUITY		125,832






Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col.(B) line 25.)		261,312
2. Liability for uncertain tax positions In Part XIII, provide the text of the footnote to the organization's financial statements that reports the organization's liability for uncertain tax positions under FIN 48 (ASC 740). Check here if the text of the footnote has been provided in Part XIII ..................................................

Schedule D (Form 990) 2013

Page 4

Part XI Reconciliation of Revenue per Audited Financial Statements With Revenue per Return Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' to Form 990, Part IV, line 12a.
1	Total revenue, gains, and other support per audited financial statements .......			1	25,610,681
2	Amounts included on line 1 but not on Form 990, Part VIII, line 12:
a	Net unrealized gains on investments ..........	2a	997,094
b	Donated services and use of facilities .........	2b
c	Recoveries of prior year grants ...........	2c
d	Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ............	2d
e	Add lines 2a through 2d .....................			2e	997,094
3	Subtract line 2e from line 1.....................			3	24,613,587
4	Amounts included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 12, but not on line 1:
a	Investment expenses not included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 7b .	4a
b	Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ...........	4b
c	Add lines 4a and 4b.......................			4c	0
5	Total revenue. Add lines 3 and 4c. (This must equal Form 990, Part I, line 12.) ......			5	24,613,587

Part XII Reconciliation of Expenses per Audited Financial Statements With Expenses per Return. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' to Form 990, Part IV, line 12a.
1	Total expenses and losses per audited financial statements ...........		1	14,088,325
2	Amounts included on line 1 but not on Form 990, Part IX, line 25:
a	Donated services and use of facilities ..........	2a
b	Prior year adjustments ..............	2b
c	Other losses ................	2c
d	Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ............	2d
e	Add lines 2a through 2d......................		2e	0
3	Subtract line 2e from line 1.....................		3	14,088,325
4	Amounts included on Form 990, Part IX, line 25, but not on line 1:
a	Investment expenses not included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 7b ..	4a
b	Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ............	4b
c	Add lines 4a and 4b.......................		4c	0
5	Total expenses. Add lines 3 and 4c. (This must equal Form 990, Part I, line 18.) ......		5	14,088,325

Part XIII

Supplemental Information

Provide the descriptions required for Part II, lines 3, 5, and 9; Part III, lines 1a and 4; Part lV, lines 1b and 2b;
Part V, line 4; Part X, line 2; Part XI, lines 2d and 4b; and Part XII, lines 2d and 4b. Also complete this part to provide any additional information.

Return Reference	Explanation

Schedule D (Form 990) 2013

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

SCHEDULE F(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Statement of Activities Outside the United States

Complete if the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990,Part IV, line 14b, 15, or 16. Right pointing arrow large image

Attach to Form 990. Right pointing arrow large image

See separate instructions. Right pointing arrow large image

Information about Schedule F (Form 990) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2013

Open to Public Inspection

Name of the organization
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE

Employer identification number

52-1744337

Part I

General Information on Activities Outside the United States. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990, Part IV, line 14b.

For grantmakers.Does the organization maintain records to substantiate the amount of its grants and

other assistance, the grantees’ eligibility for the grants or assistance, and the selection criteria used

to award the grants or assistance? ...............................

Yes

For grantmakers. Describe in Part V the organization’s procedures for monitoring the use of its grants and other assistance outside the United States.

Activites per Region. (The following Part I, line 3 table can be duplicated if additional space is needed.)

(a) Region		(b) Number of offices in the region	(c) Number of employees, agents, and independent contractors in region	(d) Activities conducted in region (by type) (e.g., fundraising, program services, investments, grants to recipients located in the region)	(f) Total expenditures for and investments in region
	CAYMAN ISLANDS	0	0	INVESTMENTS	4,960,861
















3a	Sub-total .....	0	0		4,960,861
b	Total from continuation sheets to Part I ...	0	0		0
c	Totals (add lines 3a and 3b)	0	0		4,960,861

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990.Cat. No. 50082W Schedule F (Form 990) 2013

Schedule F (Form 990) 2013

Page 2

Part II

Grants and Other Assistance to Organizations or Entities Outside the United States. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990, Part IV, line 15, for any recipient who received more than $5,000. Part II can be duplicated if additional space is needed.

1 (a) Name of organization		(b) IRS code section and EIN (if applicable)	(c) Region	(d) Purpose of grant	(e) Amount of cash grant	(f) Manner of cash disbursement	(g) Amount of non-cash assistance	(h) Description of non-cash assistance	(i) Method of valuation (book, FMV, appraisal, other)

Enter total number of recipient organizations listed above that are recognized as charities by the foreign country, recognized as tax-exempt by the IRS, or for which the grantee or counsel has provided a section 501(c)(3) equivalency letter .... MediumBullet

Enter total number of other organizations or entities ....................... MediumBullet

Schedule F (Form 990) 2013

Schedule F (Form 990) 2013Page 3

Part III

Grants and Other Assistance to Individuals Outside the United States. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990, Part IV, line 16.

Part III can be duplicated if additional space is needed.

(a) Type of grant or assistance		(b) Region	(c) Number of recipients	(d) Amount of cash grant	(e) Manner of cash disbursement	(f) Amount of non-cash assistance	(g) Description of non-cash assistance	(h) Method of valuation (book, FMV, appraisal, other)

Schedule F (Form 990) 2013

Page 4

Part IV

Foreign Forms

Schedule F (Form 990) 2013

Page 5

Part V

Supplemental Information
Provide the information required by Part I, line 2 (monitoring of funds); Part I, line 3, column (f) (accounting method; amounts of investments vs. expenditures per region); Part II, line 1 (accounting method); Part III (accounting method); and Part III, column (c) (estimated number of recipients), as applicable. Also complete this part to provide any additional information (see instructions).

ReturnReference	Explanation

Schedule F (Form 990) 2013

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

Schedule J
(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Compensation Information

For certain Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest
Compensated Employees
SchJMediumBullet

Complete if the organization answered "Yes" to Form 990, Part IV, line 23.
SchJMediumBullet

Attach to Form 990. SchJMediumBullet

See separate instructions.
SchJMediumBullet

Information about Schedule J (Form 990) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2013

Open to Public Inspection

Name of the organization

INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE

Employer identification number

52-1744337

Part I

Questions Regarding Compensation

Yes

Check the appropiate box(es) if the organization provided any of the following to or for a person listed in Form
990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a. Complete Part III to provide any relevant information regarding these items.

First-class or charter travel Housing allowance or residence for personal use

Travel for companions Payments for business use of personal residence

Tax idemnification and gross-up payments Health or social club dues or initiation fees

Discretionary spending account Personal services (e.g., maid, chauffeur, chef)

If any of the boxes in line 1a are checked, did the organization follow a written policy regarding payment or reimbursement or provision of all of the expenses described above? If "No," complete Part III to explain....

Did the organization require substantiation prior to reimbursing or allowing expenses incurred by all
directors, trustees, officers, including the CEO/Executive Director, regarding the items checked in line 1a? ..

Indicate which, if any, of the following the filing organization used to establish the compensation of the
organization's CEO/Executive Director. Check all that apply. Do not check any boxes for methods
used by a related organization to establish compensation of the CEO/Executive Director, but explain in Part III.

Compensation committee Written employment contract

Independent compensation consultant Compensation survey or study

Form 990 of other organizations Approval by the board or compensation committee

During the year, did any person listed in Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a with respect to the filing organization or a related organization:

Receive a severance payment or change-of-control payment? ................

Participate in, or receive payment from, a supplemental nonqualified retirement plan? .........

Yes

Participate in, or receive payment from, an equity-based compensation arrangement? .........

If "Yes" to any of lines 4a-c, list the persons and provide the applicable amounts for each item in Part III.

Only 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations only must complete lines 5-9.

For persons listed in Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, did the organization pay or accrue any
compensation contingent on the revenues of:

The organization? ...........................

Any related organization? .........................

If "Yes," to line 5a or 5b, describe in Part III.

For persons listed in Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, did the organization pay or accrue any
compensation contingent on the net earnings of:

The organization? ...........................

Any related organization? .........................

If "Yes," to line 6a or 6b, describe in Part III.

For persons listed in Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, did the organization provide any non-fixed
payments not described in lines 5 and 6? If "Yes," describe in Part III ............

Yes

Were any amounts reported in Form 990, Part VII, paid or accured pursuant to a contract that was
subject to the initial contract exception described in Regulations section 53.4958-4(a)(3)? If "Yes," describe
in Part III .............................

If "Yes" to line 8, did the organization also follow the rebuttable presumption procedure described in Regulations section 53.4958-6(c)? .........................

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990.

Cat. No. 50053T

Schedule J (Form 990) 2013

Page 2

Part II

Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees. Use duplicate copies if additional space is needed.

For each individual whose compensation must be reported in Schedule J, report compensation from the organization on row (i) and from related organizations, described in the
instructions, on row (ii). Do not list any individuals that are not listed on Form 990, Part VII.
Note. The sum of columns (B)(i)-(iii) for each listed individual must equal the total amount of Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, applicable column (D) and (E) amounts for that individual.

(A) Name and Title		(B) Breakdown of W-2 and/or 1099-MISC compensation			(C) Retirement and other deferred compensation	(D) Nontaxable benefits	(E) Total of columns (B)(i)-(D)	(F) Compensation reported as deferred in prior Form 990
(A) Name and Title		(i) Base compensation	(ii) Bonus & incentive compensation	(iii) Other reportable compensation	(C) Retirement and other deferred compensation	(D) Nontaxable benefits	(E) Total of columns (B)(i)-(D)	(F) Compensation reported as deferred in prior Form 990
(1)WILLIAM H MELLORPRES. & GENERAL COUNSEL	(i) (ii)	402,108 0	72,000 0	0 0	126,000 0	19,174 0	619,282 0	0 0
(2)STEVEN ANDERSONMANAGING VP-CFO/SECRETARY/TREASURER	(i) (ii)	168,407 0	15,000 0	0 0	23,369 0	6,634 0	213,410 0	0 0
(3)DEBORAH SIMPSONVP OF STATE OFFICES	(i) (ii)	184,971 0	0 0	0 0	27,237 0	7,075 0	219,283 0	0 0
(4)JOHN KRAMERVP FOR COMMUNICATIONS	(i) (ii)	246,143 0	15,000 0	0 0	33,750 0	19,174 0	314,067 0	0 0
(5)DANA BERLINERLITIGATION DIRECTOR	(i) (ii)	231,983 0	5,000 0	0 0	31,508 0	7,349 0	275,840 0	0 0
(6)BETH STEVENSVP FOR DEVELOPMENT	(i) (ii)	172,976 0	15,000 0	0 0	28,641 0	7,223 0	223,840 0	0 0
(7)SCOTT BULLOCKSENIOR ATTORNEY	(i) (ii)	227,517 0	10,000 0	0 0	30,280 0	7,348 0	275,145 0	0 0
(8)CLARK NEILYSENIOR ATTORNEY	(i) (ii)	185,605 0	10,000 0	0 0	28,468 0	6,773 0	230,846 0	0 0
(9)JEFFREY ROWESSENIOR ATTORNEY	(i) (ii)	182,408 0	10,000 0	0 0	25,935 0	7,206 0	225,549 0	0 0
(10)ROBERT GALLSENIOR ATTORNEY	(i) (ii)	184,639 0	10,000 0	0 0	25,592 0	7,211 0	227,442 0	0 0
(11)RICHARD KOMERSENIOR ATTORNEY	(i) (ii)	157,588 0	5,000 0	0 0	19,907 0	7,018 0	189,513 0	0 0

Schedule J (Form 990) 2013

Page 3

Part III

Supplemental Information

Provide the information, explanation, or descriptions required for Part I, lines 1a, 1b, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 7, and 8, and for Part II.
Also complete this part for any additional information.

Return Reference	Explanation
PART I, LINE 4B	A $75,000 CONTRIBUTION TO A SEC. 457(F) PLAN FOR WILLIAM H. MELLOR WAS AUTHORIZED AND FUNDED IN THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2014.
PART I, LINE 7	THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE DETERMINES, ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, THE BONUS TO BE AWARDED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE INSTITUTE. FOR ALL OTHERS, BONUSES ARE DETERMINED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE INSTITUTE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. ALL BONUSES ARE BASED UPON A BOARD APPROVED BUDGET.

Schedule J (Form 990) 2013

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

Schedule L
(Form 990 or 990-EZ)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Transactions with Interested Persons

Complete if the organization answered
"Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, lines 25a, 25b, 26, 27, 28a, 28b, or 28c,
or Form 990-EZ, Part V, line 38a or 40b.
MediumBullet

Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ. MediumBullet

See separate instructions.
MediumBullet

Information about Schedule L (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2013

Open to Public Inspection

Name of the organization

INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE

Employer identification number

52-1744337

Part I

Excess Benefit Transactions (section 501(c)(3) and section 501(c)(4) organizations only).
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 25a or 25b, or Form 990-EZ, Part V, line 40b.

1(a) Name of disqualified person	(c) Description of transaction	(d) Corrected?
1(a) Name of disqualified person	(c) Description of transaction	Yes	No

Enter the amount of tax incurred by organization managers or disqualified persons during the year under section 4958. ........................... Bullet Image

Enter the amount of tax, if any, on line 2, above, reimbursed by the organization ....... Bullet Image

Part II

Loans to and/or From Interested Persons.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990-EZ, Part V, line 38a, or Form 990, Part IV, line 26; or if the organization reported an amount on Form 990, Part X, line 5, 6, or 22

(a) Name of interested person	(b) Relationship with organization	(c) Purpose of loan	(d) Loan to or from the organization?		(e)Original principal amount	(f)Balance due	(g) In default?		(h) Approved by board or committee?		(i)Written agreement?
(a) Name of interested person	(b) Relationship with organization	(c) Purpose of loan	To	From	(e)Original principal amount	(f)Balance due	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No






Total ...... $

Part III

Grants or Assistance Benefitting Interested Persons.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 27.

(a) Name of interested person	(b) Relationship between interested person and the organization	(c) Amount of assistance	(d) Type of assistance	(e) Purpose of assistance

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Cat. No. 50056A

Schedule L (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2013

Page 2

Part IV

Business Transactions Involving Interested Persons.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 28a, 28b, or 28c.

(a) Name of interested person	(b) Relationship between interested person and the organization	(c) Amount of transaction	(d) Description of transaction	(e) Sharing of organization's revenues?
(a) Name of interested person		(c) Amount of transaction	(d) Description of transaction	Yes	No
(1) STEVEN SIMPSON	HUSBAND OF DEBORAH SIMPSON, VP OF STATE OFFICES	123,946	REGULAR EMPLOYEE OF THE INSTITUTE		No

Part V

Supplemental Information
Provide additional information for responses to questions on Schedule L (see instructions).

Return Reference	Explanation

Schedule L (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2013

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

SCHEDULE M
(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service

Noncash Contributions

Complete if the organizations answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, lines 29 or 30.
Right pointing arrow large image

Attach to Form 990.
Right pointing arrow large image

Information about Schedule M (Form 990) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2013

Open to Public Inspection

Name of the organization

INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE

Employer identification number

52-1744337

Part I

Types of Property

	(a) Check if applicable	(b) Number of contributions or items contributed	(c) Noncash contribution amounts reported on Form 990, Part VIII, line 1g	(d) Method of determining noncash contribution amounts
1 Art—Works of art ....
2 Art—Historical treasures .
3 Art—Fractional interests ..
4 Books and publications ..
5 Clothing and household goods .......
6 Cars and other vehicles ..
7 Boats and planes ....
8 Intellectual property ...
9 Securities—Publicly traded .	X	33	1,432,963	FMV
10 Securities—Closely held stock .
11 Securities—Partnership, LLC, or trust interests ....
12 Securities—Miscellaneous ..
13 Qualified conservation contribution—Historic structures .....
14 Qualified conservation contribution—Other ...
15 Real estate—Residential .
16 Real estate—Commercial ..
17 Real estate—Other ...
18 Collectibles .....
19 Food inventory ...
20 Drugs and medical supplies .
21 Taxidermy ......
22 Historical artifacts ....
23 Scientific specimens ..
24 Archeological artifacts ...
25 Other ( )
26 Other ( )
27 Other ( )
28 Other ( )

Number of Forms 8283 received by the organization during the tax year for contributions
for which the organization completed Form 8283, Part IV, Donee Acknowledgement ...

Yes

30a

During the year, did the organization receive by contribution any property reported in Part I, lines 1 through 28, that

it must hold for at least three years from the date of the initial contribution, and which is not required to be used

for exempt purposes for the entire holding period? ..................

30a

If "Yes," describe the arrangement in Part II.

Does the organization have a gift acceptance policy that requires the review of any non-standard contributions?

Yes

32a

Does the organization hire or use third parties or related organizations to solicit, process, or sell noncash

contributions? ..........................

32a

Yes

If "Yes," describe in Part II.

If the organization did not report an amount in column (c) for a type of property for which column (a) is checked,

describe in Part II.

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990.

Cat. No. 51227J

Schedule M (Form 990) (2013)

Page 2

Part II

Supplemental Information. Provide the information required by Part I, lines 30b,
32b, and 33, and whether the organization is reporting in Part I, column (b), the number of contributions, the number of items received, or a combination of both. Also complete this part for any additional information.

Return Reference	Explanation
PART I, LINE 32B:	THE INSTITUTE UTILIZES A BROKERAGE FIRM TO SELL DONATED SECURITIES AND OTHER INVESTMENT VEHICLES.

Schedule M (Form 990) (2013)

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

SCHEDULE O
(Form 990 or 990-EZ)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Supplemental Information to Form 990 or 990-EZ

Complete to provide information for responses to specific questions on
Form 990 or to provide any additional information.
MediumBullet

Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
MediumBullet

Information about Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at
www.irs.gov/form990.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2013

Open to Public
Inspection

Name of the organization

INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE

Employer identification number

52-1744337

Return Reference	Explanation
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION A, LINE 1	WILLIAM H. MELLOR SERVES AS PRESIDENT & GENERAL COUNSEL AND IS EMPLOYED BY THE ORGANIZATION.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11	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.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C	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.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15	THE PRESIDENT/GENERAL COUNSEL'S COMPENSATION IS SET BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AT THE FALL BOARD MEETING. THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PROVIDES THE BOARD'S COMPENSATION COMMITTEE WITH PRESENT AND PAST COMPENSATION AMOUNTS FOR THE PRESIDENT/GENERAL COUNSEL, AS WELL AS COMPARABLE DATA FROM THE MOST RECENTLY AVAILABLE FORM 990 FOR SIMILARLY SITUATED NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. THE CFO ALSO ANNUALLY ENGAGES AN OUTSIDE VENDOR TO PROVIDE AN INDEPENDENT COMPENSATION SURVEY. THE FULL BOARD (EXCEPT FOR THE PRESIDENT/GENERAL COUNSEL, WHO IS RECUSED) THEN VOTES TO DETERMINE COMPENSATION AND THE DECISION IS CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RECORDED AND COMMUNICATED TO THE CFO BY THE CHAIRMAN AND PLACED IN THE PRESIDENT/GENERAL COUNSEL'S CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT FILE. 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. IN DETERMINING THE FISCAL YEAR BUDGET, THE COMPENSATION AMOUNTS OF OTHER OFFICERS AND KEY EMPLOYEES ARE DETERMINED IN COMPARISON TO SIMILARLY SITUATED OFFICERS AND KEY EMPLOYEES AT SIMILARLY SITUATED NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. SUCH DETERMINATION IS CONTEMPORANEOUSLY SUBSTANTIATED THROUGH RECORDATION OF THE PASSAGE OF THE BUDGET. THE COMPENSATION DETERMINATION IS PLACED IN THE OFFICER OR OTHER KEY EMPLOYEE'S CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT FILE.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19	THE INSTITUTE'S 990 AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ON ITS AND OTHER WEBSITES. THE INSTITUTE'S 990, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND OTHER IRS DOCUMENTATION, GOVERNING DOCUMENTS AND CERTAIN OTHER POLICIES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC UPON REQUEST.
FORM 990, PART XII, LINE 2C:	THE INSTITUTE HAS AN AUDIT COMMITTEE THAT ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR OVERSIGHT OF THE AUDIT OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SELECTION OF AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR. THE PROCESS HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE THE PRIOR YEAR.
CASES IN LITIGATION	GHALEB IBRAHIM V. CITY OF MILWAUKEE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE CLIENT GHALEB IBRAHIM IS A MILWAUKEE ENTREPRENEUR WHO SIMPLY WANTED TO OWN AND DRIVE HIS OWN TAXI CAB. BUT MILWAUKEE LIMITED THE NUMBER OF TAXI PERMITS TO 321 FOR THE ENTIRE CITY, AND THE ONLY WAY TO GET A PERMIT WAS TO PURCHASE ONE FROM AN EXISTING PERMIT HOLDER. THE COST? MORE THAN $150,000, WHICH IS HIGHER THAN THE COST OF AN AVERAGE HOME IN MILWAUKEE. THE LAW DID NOTHING BUT FUNNEL MONEY TO A SMALL GROUP OF ENTRENCHED BUSINESSES AT THE EXPENSE OF ENTREPRENEURS AND CONSUMERS. MEDIA RANGING FROM THE FINANCIAL TIMES OF LONDON TO THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL COVERED THE CASE, AND IN APRIL 2013, A MILWAUKEE COUNTY JUDGE RULED THE CAP UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE CITY DECIDED NOT TO APPEAL, SO THE CASE IS NOW CLOSED. THIS RULING WILL BE HELPFUL AS OTHER CITIES AND TOWNS ACROSS THE COUNTRY CONSIDER SIMILAR MEASURES THAT RESTRICT THE RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING. WE SOUGHT AND RECOVERED $2,694 IN COSTS FROM THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE. EDWARDS V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN A RESOUNDING VICTORY FOR FREE SPEECH, IN JUNE THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STRUCK DOWN WASHINGTON, D.C.S TOUR-GUIDE LICENSING SCHEME IN RESPONSE TO IJS LAWSUIT. UNDER THE LAW, TOUR GUIDES FACED FINES AND 90 DAYS IN JAIL UNLESS THEY PASSED A CITY-MANDATED HISTORY TEST. THE COURT TOOK ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT THE REGULATIONS, WHICH IMPOSED SERIOUS BURDENS ON PEOPLE WHO WANT TO TALK TO TOUR GROUPS, WERE WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED BY EVIDENCE. WE REPRESENT BILL MAIN AND TONIA EDWARDS, WHO OPERATE A SEGWAY RENTAL AND TOUR COMPANY AND WANTED THE RIGHT TO TALK TO THEIR CUSTOMERS WITHOUT FIRST SEEKING GOVERNMENT APPROVAL. AS THE WASHINGTON POST EDITORIALIZED, THE RULING "AFFIRMED THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, AND IT STRUCK A BLOW FOR COMMON SENSE. WE NOW WAIT TO SEE IF THE CITY WILL APPEAL. NIEHAUS V. HUPPENTHAL IN MARCH, THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO REVIEW OUR UNANIMOUS COURT OF APPEALS DECISION THAT DECLARED ARIZONAS EMPOWERMENT SCHOLARSHIP ACCOUNT PROGRAM CONSTITUTIONAL. THIS PROGRAM ALLOWS ELIGIBLE FAMILIES TO APPLY FOR A PUBLICLY FUNDED EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNT THAT CAN BE USED TO PAY FOR A WIDE VARIETY OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES, INCLUDING TUTORING, HOME-SCHOOL CURRICULUM, PRIVATE SCHOOL TUITION, AND TEXTBOOKS. OUR CLIENT CRYSTAL FOX CREDITS THE PROGRAM WITH SAVING HER SON AUSTINS LIFE. AUSTIN HAS ASPERGERS SYNDROME AND WAS READY TO DROP OUT OF HIS PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL IN 10TH GRADE. BUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ESA PROGRAM AND CHOOSE A SCHOOL FOR HIMSELF CONVINCED AUSTIN TO STAY IN SCHOOL. HIS NEW-FOUND ACADEMIC SUCCESS AND HIGH SAT AND ACT SCORES MEANT HE WAS COLLEGE-BOUND UPON GRADUATION. THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION JOINS A GROWING LIST OF STATE COURTS TO VINDICATE THE PARENTAL RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT THAT BEST SUITS THEIR CHILDS UNIQUE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS. U.S. V. 2601 W. BALL ROAD, ANAHEIM, CA IJ CLIENT TONY JALALI FLED IRAN IN 1978 TO ESCAPE TYRANNY AND ENJOY THE PROTECTIONS THE RULE OF LAW AFFORDS. ALTHOUGH TONY HAS NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME, THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TEAMED UP WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DO AN END-RUN AROUND STATE LAW TO TAKE HIS $1.5 MILLION OFFICE BUILDING THROUGH CIVIL FORFEITURE BECAUSE HE LEASED SPACE TO TWO MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES-BUSINESSES THAT ARE PERFECTLY LEGAL IN THE STATE. TONYS ONLY CRIME WAS HAVING SOMETHING THE GOVERNMENT WANTED: A MORTGAGE-FREE PROPERTY THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD SELL IN ORDER TO KEEP THE PROCEEDS TO PAD ITS BUDGET. IN OCTOBER 2013, AFTER A YEAR-LONG FIGHT IN FEDERAL COURT, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT DROPPED ITS FORFEITURE ACTION, GIVING UP ITS ATTEMPT TO TAKE TONYS BUILDING. CIVIL FORFEITURE SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A PUNISHMENT FOR PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAVE COMMITTED NO CRIME. AS TONY SAID, "I DID NOT WANT TO BE BULLIED AND STOOD UP TO THE GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT MY PROPERTY AND MY REPUTATION. LOVING V. IRS IN MAY 2014, IJS VICTORY OVER THE IRS BECAME FINAL AFTER THE AGENCY DECLINED TO FILE A PETITION SEEKING REVIEW FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THE CASE AROSE WHEN THE IRS, FOLLOWING SEVERAL FAILURES TO SECURE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION, UNILATERALLY IMPOSED SWEEPING NEW REGULATIONS THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED ALL TAX-RETURN PREPARERS TO OBTAIN A LICENSE AND SUBMIT TO ONGOING, MANDATORY IRS-APPROVED EDUCATION. THE BURDEN WOULD HAVE FALLEN ON CONSUMERS AND SMALL ENTREPRENEURS LIKE OUR CLIENT ELMER KILIAN, WHO HAS BEEN PREPARING TAX RETURNS FOR THE PEOPLE OF EAGLE, WISC., FOR 30 YEARS. MEANWHILE, POWERFUL INDUSTRY INSIDERS STOOD TO REAP THE BENEFITS OF DECREASED COMPETITION. AS THE WALL STREET JOURNAL SAID, "BIG-FOOT TAX PREPARERS LIKE H&R BLOCK AND JACKSON HEWITT LOBBIED FOR THE REGULATION AND HAVE BEEN EXPLICIT IN HOPING IT WILL SQUEEZE LOWER-PRICED COMPETITION. IJ BELIEVES THAT TAXPAYERS-NOT THE IRS-SHOULD BE THE ONES WHO DECIDE WHO PREPARES THEIR TAXES. ST. JOSEPH ABBEY V. CASTILLE IN AN IMPORTANT VICTORY FOR ECONOMIC LIBERTY, THE 5TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REJECTED ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM AS A LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST WHEN IT ISSUED A UNANIMOUS DECISION RULING THAT THE BENEDICTINE MONKS OF SAINT JOSEPH ABBEY IN COVINGTON, LA., DO NOT NEED TO OBTAIN A FUNERAL DIRECTORS LICENSE IN ORDER TO SELL THEIR HANDMADE CASKETS. THE DECISION WILL BENEFIT MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ACROSS THE COUNTRY STRUGGLING TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING UNDER THE WEIGHT OF GOVERNMENT LICENSING RULES THAT CREATE BARRIERS TO ENTRY AND SUPPRESS COMPETITION. AS IJ CLIENT ABBOT JUSTIN BROWN SAID, "KNOWING THAT NOT ONLY HAS OUR ECONOMIC LIBERTY BEEN PROTECTED FOREVER, BUT THAT WE ALSO HELPED TO SECURE THE SAME RIGHTS FOR OTHERS MAKES THIS YEARS-LONG BATTLE WORTH IT.
VERLIN STOLL, ET AL. V. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MORTUARY	SCIENCE SECTION, ET AL. IJ CLIENT VERLIN STOLL WANTED TO EXPAND HIS LOW-COST FUNERAL HOME BUSINESS BY ADDING A NEW LOCATION, BUT THE STATE OF MINNESOTA EFFECTIVELY FORECLOSED THIS OPTION BY FORCING VERLIN TO WASTE $30,000 BUILDING ANOTHER EMBALMING ROOM HE DID NOT WANT, DID NOT NEED, AND WOULD NEVER USE. THE LAW SERVED ONLY ONE PURPOSE: TO PROTECT THE BIG, FULL-AMENITY FUNERAL HOME BUSINESSES FROM INNOVATORS LIKE VERLIN. IN OCTOBER 2013, A STATE COURT RULED THE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL, SAYING IT "CONSTITUTES AN IRRATIONAL EXERCISE OF THE STATES POLICE POWER. VICTORIES LIKE THESE SHOW THAT JUDGES ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE INCREASINGLY ENGAGED IN PROTECTING ECONOMIC LIBERTY, AND IJ WILL USE THE DECISION TO OPEN DOORS FOR ENTREPRENEURS IN OTHER AREAS WHO ARE CRUSHED BY POINTLESS GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. WE RECEIVED $4,851 IN COSTS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR THIS CASE. ASTRAMECKI V. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MINNESOTA PERMITS PEOPLE TO SELL CERTAIN FOODS (LIKE BAKED GOODS AND JAMS) MADE IN THE HOME, BUT IT PROHIBITS THE SALE OF SUCH "COTTAGE FOODS ANYWHERE OTHER THAN FARMERS MARKETS AND COMMUNITY EVENTS. THAT MEANS NO SALES FROM A GOURMET FOOD SHOP, JOBSITE, OR ONLINE. WORSE YET, THE STATE LIMITS A COTTAGE FOOD PRODUCERS REVENUES TO JUST $5,000 ANNUALLY-AND THATS GROSS RECEIPTS, NOT PROFITS. IJ CLIENT JANE ASTRAMECKI STARTED HER HOME-BAKING BUSINESS AFTER SUFFERING AN INJURY THAT MADE WORKING OUTSIDE THE HOME IMPRACTICAL. HER HOMEMADE CAKES, COOKIES, SCONES, AND JAMS ARE A HIT WITH HER CUSTOMERS AND ALLOW HER TO EARN MONEY TO SUPPORT HER FAMILY. BUT UNDER MINNESOTAS LAW, JANE REGULARLY HAS TO TURN DOWN REQUESTS FOR HER TREATS OR FACE FINES OR EVEN JAIL TIME. MINNESOTAS LAW SIMPLY MAKES NO SENSE. A COOKIE IS A COOKIE. IF ITS SAFE TO SELL AT A FARMERS MARKET, ITS SAFE TO SELL AT A SHOP OR FOOD STAND. SO JANE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FIGHT BACK AND FILED A LAWSUIT DESIGNED TO HELP FOOD ENTREPRENEURS ACROSS THE COUNTRY FIGHT BACK AGAINST SIMILAR RESTRICTIVE LAWS. PATEL V. TEXAS DEPT OF LICENSING AND REGULATION EYEBROW THREADING IS BOOMING ACROSS THE COUNTRY AS A CHEAPER, FASTER, AND LESS PAINFUL ALTERNATIVE TO WAXING. BUT THE STATE OF TEXAS REQUIRES EYEBROW THREADERS, WHO ARE PREDOMINANTLY INDIAN IMMIGRANTS, TO OBTAIN BETWEEN 750 AND 1,500 HOURS OF WESTERN-STYLE COSMETOLOGY TRAINING AT A COST OF APPROXIMATELY $15,000, BUT THE TRAINING DOESNT TEACH THREADING. AS WITH MOST LICENSING LAWS, THIS ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH PROTECTING INDUSTRY INSIDERS FROM COMPETITION. OUR CLIENTS INCLUDE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND EYEBROW THREADERS WHO HAVE BEEN FINED $2,000 AND TOLD THAT THEY MUST STOP WORKING UNTIL THEY OBTAIN COSMETOLOGY LICENSES. WE FILED SUIT IN 2009 AND CURRENTLY ARE ON APPEAL WITH THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT. A VICTORY HERE WILL SEND A MESSAGE TO STATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY CONSIDERING SIMILAR ANTI-COMPETITIVE LICENSING SCHEMES.
NIVEA EARL V. NATHANAEL SMITH; NDIOBA NIANG V. EMILY	CARROLL; AND SYLLA V. KOHLER IN JUNE, IJ LAUNCHED THREE CASES ON THE SAME DAY TO VINDICATE THE RIGHTS OF AFRICAN HAIR BRAIDERS IN ARKANSAS, MISSOURI, AND WASHINGTON STATE. HAIR BRAIDING IS A TIME-TESTED, SAFE PRACTICE THAT IS DEEPLY ROOTED IN AFRICAN CULTURAL HERITAGE AND CARRIES WITH IT SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE. BUT ACROSS THE COUNTRY, STATE GOVERNMENTS MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR BRAIDERS TO MAKE MONEY FROM THEIR BRAIDING SKILLS UNLESS THEY FIRST SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND ATTEND HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS, OF HOURS OF GOVERNMENT-MANDATED COSMETOLOGY TRAINING THAT DOESNT EVEN TEACH THEM TO BRAID HAIR. THE RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF OUR NATIONS PROMISE OF OPPORTUNITY, AND WITH THESE LAWSUITS, IJ WILL STRENGTHEN THAT RIGHT FOR BRAIDERS AND OTHER ENTREPRENEURS NATIONWIDE. BRANTLEY V. KUNTZ IJ CLIENT ISIS BRANTLEY IS A WIDELY RECOGNIZED EXPERT ON AFRICAN HAIRBRAIDING WHO WANTS TO TEACH PEOPLE TO BRAID HAIR FOR A LIVING IN DALLAS. BUT EVEN WITH HER DECADES OF EXPERIENCE, TEXAS IS TELLING ISIS SHE MUST NOW CONVERT HER MODEST HAIRBRAIDING SCHOOL INTO A LARGE BARBER COLLEGE, AND BECOME A STATE-LICENSED BARBER INSTRUCTOR, BEFORE SHE CAN TEACH THE NEXT GENERATION OF AFRICAN HAIRBRAIDERS. WHEN THE STATE OF TEXAS BEGAN REGULATING HAIRBRAIDERS IN 2007, IT WEDGED TEXAS' HAIRBRAIDING LICENSE INTO THE STATES BARBERING STATUTE. THIS MEANS THAT ISIS MUST SPEND 2,250 HOURS IN BARBER SCHOOL, PASS FOUR EXAMS, AND SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON TUITION AND A FULLY EQUIPPED BARBER COLLEGE SHE DOESNT NEED, ALL TO TEACH A 35-HOUR HAIRBRAIDING CURRICULUM. SO ISIS TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FIGHT BACK, NOT ONLY FOR HERSELF BUT FOR THE RIGHTS OF BRAIDERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. WAUGH V. NEVADA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY IN NEVADA, ANYONE CAN PRACTICE MAKEUP ARTISTRY, AND ANYONE SHOULD BE FREE TO TEACH IT. BUT THE STATE REQUIRES PEOPLE LIKE OUR CLIENTS, LISSETTE WAUGH AND WENDY ROBIN, WHO WANT TO TEACH THE ART AND ARTISTRY OF MAKEUP APPLICATION TO FIRST OBTAIN A COSMETOLOGY INSTRUCTORS LICENSE, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE RECOGNIZES THAT MAKEUP ARTISTS ARE DIFFERENT FROM COSMETOLOGISTS, WHO FOCUS ON CUTTING AND STYLING HAIR AND CLEANSING AND CARING FOR THE SKIN AND NAILS. THE RULE MEANS THAT LISSETTE AND WENDY WOULD NEED TO SPEND HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS AND AN ADDITIONAL 700 HOURS OF TRAINING IN SUBJECTS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MAKEUP ARTISTRY, A SEVERE INFRINGEMENT ON THEIR RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING. SO THEY TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO CHALLENGE THIS LAW TO PROTECT THIS RIGHT FOR THEMSELVES AND OTHERS ACROSS THE STATE. MEMBRENO V. CITY OF HIALEAH STREET VENDORS ARE A CORE PART OF THE AMERICAN DREAM. WHETHER IT IS SELLING NEWSPAPERS IN NEW YORK CITY OR HOT DOGS IN CHICAGO, VENDING PROVIDES A PERFECT MEANS OF ENTERING THE ECONOMIC MAINSTREAM BECAUSE IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A GREAT DEAL OF FINANCIAL CAPITAL OR FORMAL EDUCATION. IN HIALEAH, FLA., WE REPRESENT SILVIO MEMBRENO, WHO CAME TO THE UNITED STATES FROM NICARAGUA AND HAS SUCCESSFULLY EARNED A LIVING AS A FLOWER VENDOR FOR MORE THAN 15 YEARS. BUT THE CITY HAS TRIED TO PUT SILVIO AND HIS FELLOW VENDORS OUT OF BUSINESS BY ENACTING ANTI-COMPETITIVE REGULATIONS THAT ARBITRARILY PROTECT ONE BUSINESS WHILE HARMING ANOTHER. WE WON THE FIRST ROUND OF THIS LITIGATION, WHEN, IN RESPONSE TO IJS LAWSUIT, THE CITY AMENDED ITS LAW TO REMOVE A REQUIREMENT THAT VENDORS REMAIN 300 FEET FROM COMPETING BRICK-AND-MORTAR STORES. BUT THE FIGHT CONTINUES, AS THE CITY MAINTAINS ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON STANDING STILL AND DISPLAYING MERCHANDISE. MILLER V. CITY OF ATLANTA IJ CLIENTS LARRY MILLER AND STANLEY HAMBRICK OWNED TWO WELL-KNOWN VENDING BUSINESSES OUTSIDE THE ATLANTA BRAVES STADIUM. THEIR BUSINESSES CREATED JOBS, OFFERED INEXPENSIVE SNACKS AND SOUVENIRS TO VISITORS, AND MADE THE SIDEWALKS SAFER BY KEEPING AN EYE OUT FOR FANS WHO NEEDED HELP. BUT IN 2009, THE CITY HANDED OVER ALL PUBLIC-PROPERTY VENDING TO A SINGLE COMPANY THAT WOULD HAVE FORCED LARRY AND STANLEY OUT OF BUSINESS BY REQUIRING THEM TO VEND FROM KIOSKS THAT RENT FOR NEARLY $20,000 A YEAR. WE FILED A LAWSUIT ON THEIR BEHALF IN 2011 TO FIGHT THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL USE OF GOVERNMENT POWER. THE COURT AGREED, HOLDING THAT ATLANTA HAD EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY. IT WAS A GREAT VICTORY FOR LARRY, STANLEY, AND COUNTLESS OTHER VENDORS ACROSS ATLANTA. BUT SEVERAL MONTHS LATER, ATLANTAS MAYOR REFUSED TO RENEW OUR CLIENTS VENDING LICENSES OR LET THEM OPERATE. DESPITE A COURT RULING ORDERING THE MAYOR TO FULFILL HIS LEGAL DUTIES, HE STILL REFUSED TO ACT. IJ EXHAUSTED ALL FURTHER LEGAL AVENUES TO PROMPT THE MAYOR TO ACT, ALL TO NO AVAIL. SO WHILE THIS CASE IS NOW CLOSED, WE WILL CONTINUE TO PRESS FOR THE RIGHTS OF VENDORS IN ATLANTA AND NATIONWIDE. BURKE V. CITY OF CHICAGO IJ REPRESENTS CHICAGO FOOD-TRUCK OWNERS IN THEIR CHALLENGE TO THE CITYS REGULATION THAT MAKES IT ILLEGAL FOR FOOD TRUCKS TO OPERATE WITHIN 200 FEET OF ANY FIXED BUSINESS THAT SELLS FOOD, INCLUDING SUPERMARKETS, CONVENIENCE STORES, AND EVEN GAS STATIONS. THE FINES FOR VIOLATING THE RULE ARE UP TO $2,000 - TEN TIMES HIGHER THAN FOR PARKING IN FRONT OF A FIRE HYDRANT. AS THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE SAID, "THE ORDINANCE DOESNT SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE LUNCH-SEEKING PUBLIC. IT BENEFITS THE BRICK-AND-MORTAR EATERIES, WHOSE OWNERS DONT WANT THE COMPETITION." WE WON THE FIRST ROUND OF THE LAWSUIT WHEN THE JUDGE DENIED THE GOVERNMENTS REQUEST TO DISMISS THE CASE AND NOW CONTINUE WITH DISCOVERY. SPEEDS AUTO SERVICES V. PORTLAND IN PORTLAND, ORE., WE ARE CHALLENGING THE CITYS MINIMUM FARE LAW, WHICH PUNISHES SMALL LIMOUSINE AND SEDAN COMPANIES TO PROTECT THE PROFITS OF THE CITYS TAXICAB COMPANIES. THE LAW IMPOSES A $50 MINIMUM FARE FOR LIMOUSINE AND SEDAN RIDES TO OR FROM PORTLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT; IT IMPOSES A CITY-WIDE MINIMUM FARE REQUIRING LIMOS AND SEDANS TO CHARGE AT LEAST 35 PERCENT MORE THAN WHAT TAXIS WOULD CHARGE FOR SERVICE ON THE SAME ROUTE; AND IT FORCES CONSUMERS TO WAIT A MINIMUM OF ONE HOUR BEFORE A LIMO OR SEDAN CAN PICK THEM UP. ITS NOT SURPRISING THAT PORTLANDS TAXICAB COMPANIES REQUESTED THESE REGULATIONS. WHAT IS SURPRISING IS THAT THE CITY AGREED TO IMPOSE THESE COSTS ON CONSUMERS AND SEDAN ENTREPRENEURS. THIS IS HARDLY A WISE OR CONSTITUTIONAL USE OF GOVERNMENT POWER, SO OUR CLIENTS HAVE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FIGHT BACK. HALSNIK V. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SIMILAR TO THE PORTLAND CASE ABOVE, IN TAMPA WE REPRESENT A SEDAN DRIVER AND HIS CUSTOMERS IN THEIR FIGHT AGAINST THE CITYS LAW THAT FORCES LIMO AND SEDAN DRIVERS TO CHARGE CONSUMERS $50 A RIDE, NO MATTER HOW SHORT THE RIDE IS AND EVEN IF THE DRIVERS WANT TO CHARGE LESS. LARGE LIMO AND TAXI COMPANIES LOVE THIS RULE BECAUSE IT PREVENTS COMPETITION FROM SMALLER TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS LIKE OUR CLIENT, THOMAS HALSNIK, AND IT ALLOWS THEM TO DIVVY UP THE MARKET. THE CITYS JOB IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC, NOT PROTECT TAXICAB AND LARGE LIMOUSINE COMPANIES FROM COMPETITION. CONSUMERS NEED PROTECTION FROM PRICES THAT ARE TOO LOW AS MUCH AS THEY NEED PROTECTION FROM PILLOWS THAT ARE TOO SOFT, AND OUR LAWSUIT WILL HELP ADVANCE THE PRINCIPLE THAT ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM HAS NO PLACE UNDER A CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF LAW. ILLINOIS TRANSPORTATION TRADE ASSN V. CITY OF CHICAGO A NEW CLASS OF SMALL-BUSINESS OWNERS HAS BEEN IMPROVING TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS IN MANY CITIES ACROSS AMERICA BY WORKING WITH TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES LIKE SIDECAR, LYFT, AND UBERX. ARMED WITH LITTLE MORE THAN A SMARTPHONE AND THEIR CAR, THESE ENTREPRENEURS ARE DRIVING INNOVATION IN AN INDUSTRY THATS BEEN DOMINATED BY ENTRENCHED BUSINESSES AND A REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ORIGINALLY DRAFTED IN THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY. IN CHICAGO, TAXICAB CORPORATIONS SEE THESE NEW DRIVERS AS A THREAT TO THEIR BOTTOM LINE, AND THEYVE TAKEN TO COURT TO DEMAND THAT FEDERAL JUDGES FREEZE CHICAGOS TAXI REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE PERMANENT ECONOMIC PROTECTION FOR TAXICAB OWNERS PREFERRED BUSINESS MODEL. IN MARCH 2014, THREE RIDESHARE DRIVERS PARTNERED WITH IJ TO INTERVENE IN THE TAXI CARTELS UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY AND PROVE THAT ENTRENCHED BUSINESSES HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM.
SENSATIONAL SMILES LLC D/B/A SMILE BRIGHT V. DR. JEWEL	MULLEN, ET AL. IN CONNECTICUT, WE ARE REPRESENTING WOULD-BE ENTREPRENEURS WHO WANT TO CAPITALIZE ON THE GROWING POPULARITY OF TEETH WHITENING. TEETH-WHITENING SERVICES INCREASINGLY ARE AVAILABLE AT SPAS, SALONS, AND SHOPPING MALLS AND OFTEN AT A MUCH LOWER COST THAN DENTISTS TYPICALLY CHARGE. BUT THE CONNECTICUT DENTAL COMMISSION RULED THAT IT IS A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY UP TO FIVE YEARS IN JAIL OR $25,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES FOR ANYONE BUT A LICENSED DENTIST TO OFFER TEETH-WHITENING SERVICES, EVEN IF CUSTOMERS APPLY THE PRODUCT TO THEIR OWN TEETH. THERE IS NO HEALTH OR SAFETY REASON FOR THE RULE: ANYONE, EVEN A CHILD, CAN PURCHASE THESE PRODUCTS AND APPLY THEM WITHOUT ANY SPECIAL TRAINING OR INSTRUCTION. IN MARCH 2014, A FEDERAL JUDGE LIMITED THE SCOPE OF THE DENTAL COMMISSIONS' RULING, ALLOWING OUR CLIENTS TO GO BACK TO WORK, THOUGH THEY MAY NOT POSITION LED WHITENING LIGHTS FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS. WESTPHAL V. NORTHCUTT SIMILAR TO THE CONNECTICUT CASE ABOVE, WE ARE CHALLENGING A RECENT AMENDMENT TO ALABAMAS DENTAL PRACTICE ACT THAT HAS MADE IT A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY ONE YEAR IN JAIL AND A $5,000 FINE FOR ANYONE BUT A LICENSED DENTIST TO OFFER TEETH-WHITENING SERVICES. DENTISTS ROUTINELY CHARGE FOUR TIMES AS MUCH (OR EVEN MORE) THAN NON-DENTISTS FOR THESE SERVICES. SO RATHER THAN TRYING TO COMPETE BY LOWERING PRICES OR IMPROVING THEIR SERVICES, THE DENTAL CARTEL HAS TEAMED UP WITH THE GOVERNMENT TO PUT THEIR COMPETITION OUT OF BUSINESS. WE HAVE TEAMED UP WITH TEETH-WHITENING ENTREPRENEURS KEITH WESTPHAL AND JOYCE OSBORN TO VINDICATE THEIR RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING FREE FROM UNREASONABLE REGULATIONS DESIGNED SOLELY TO BENEFIT SPECIAL INTERESTS. ECK V. BATTLE WE ALSO ARE LITIGATING A SIMILAR CASE IN GEORGIA, WHERE ENTREPRENEURS WHO OFFER TEETH-WHITENING SERVICES CAN BE CHARGED WITH A FELONY, IMPRISONED FOR FIVE YEARS, AND FINED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. THEIR CRIME IS THE SAME ONE AS IN THE CASES DESCRIBED ABOVE: SELLING THE EXACT SAME TEETH-WHITENING PRODUCT SOLD IN STORES AND ONLINE. THE FDA REGULATES TEETH-WHITENING PRODUCTS AS COSMETICS, BUT THE GEORGIA DENTAL BOARD, WHICH INCLUDES EIGHT DENTISTS, BANS NON-DENTISTS FROM OFFERING TEETH-WHITENING SERVICES. THATS NOT JUST BAD POLICY, ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND IJ FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT IN APRIL 2014 TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THESE ENTREPRENEURS. BURRIS V. COBB IN ARKANSAS, WE REPRESENT DR. BEN BURRIS, A LICENSED ORTHODONTIST AND FULLY LICENSED DENTIST WHO WANTED TO OFFER LOW-COST DENTAL CLEANINGS TO LOW-INCOME FAMILIES AT A FRACTION OF WHAT OTHER DENTISTS CHARGE FOR THE SAME SERVICE. BUT WITHIN WEEKS OF STARTING THE SERVICE, DR. BEN WAS TOLD BY THE ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS THAT ARKANSAS PROHIBITS LICENSED DENTAL SPECIALISTS LIKE ORTHODONTISTS FROM DOING WORK OUTSIDE THEIR SPECIALTY, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE QUALIFIED TO PRACTICE GENERAL DENTISTRY. THESE KINDS OF RESTRICTIONS ARBITRARILY LIMIT ACCESS TO CARE AND DRIVE UP PRICES FOR CONSUMERS. SO DR. BEN TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FILE A FEDERAL LAWSUIT IN MAY 2014 TO ELIMINATE THIS PROTECTIONIST LAW AND EXPAND ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE DENTAL AND MEDICAL CARE FOR AMERICANS EVERYWHERE. COURTNEY V. GOLTZ IJ CLIENTS JIM AND CLIFF COURTNEY WANT TO BRING ECONOMIC PROSPERITY TO THEIR SMALL COMMUNITY OF STEHEKIN, WASH. BECAUSE STEHEKIN IS ACCESSIBLE ONLY BY BOAT OR PLANE, THE COURTNEY BROTHERS WANT TO PROVIDE CONVENIENT FERRY SERVICE ACROSS LAKE CHELAN SO MORE PEOPLE CAN ENJOY THE NATURAL BEAUTY AND OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES IN THE COMMUNITY THEIR FAMILY HAS CALLED HOME FOR FOUR GENERATIONS. BUT THE STATE OF WASHINGTON REQUIRES JIM AND CLIFF TO OBTAIN THE EXISTING FERRY COMPANYS PERMISSION TO COMPETE OR TO PROVE IN A TRIAL-LIKE HEARING THAT THE EXISTING COMPANY IS NOT PROVIDING "REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE SERVICE AND THAT A NEW SERVICE IS NECESSARY. THE REQUIREMENT IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT ON THE RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING, SO WE CHALLENGED THE LAW IN FEDERAL COURT. IN DECEMBER 2013, THE 9TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED AGAINST US, AND IN JUNE 2014, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO REVIEW THAT DECISION. FORTUNATELY, THE COURTS LEFT OPEN THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE CONSTITUTION COULD PROTECT THE RIGHT TO OPERATE A MORE LIMITED "PRIVATE FERRY, SO THE COURTNEYS ARE PRESSING ON WITH THEIR LAWSUIT. COLON HEALTH CENTERS OF AMERICA, LLC, ET AL. V. HAZEL, ET AL.
IN VIRGINIA, A "CERTIFICATE OF NEED OR "CON PROGRAM MAKES IT ILLEGAL	TO OFFER NEW MEDICAL SERVICES OR PURCHASE CERTAIN TYPES OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A SPECIAL PERMISSION SLIP FROM THE GOVERNMENT. UNDER THE CON PROGRAM, LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS WHO WANT TO PROVIDE NEW SERVICES MUST OFTEN SPEND SEVERAL YEARS AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PROVING TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THAT THERE IS A "NEED FOR THEIR SERVICE. MANY TIMES THE PROCESS FORBIDS NEW SERVICES FROM OPERATING AT ALL, AND THE CON PROGRAM AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN A STATE-GRANTED MONOPOLY FOR POLITICALLY FAVORED BUSINESSES. OUR CLIENTS IN THIS CASE, DR. MARK BAUMEL AND DR. MARK MONTEFERRANTE, HAVE JOINED FORCES WITH IJ TO CHALLENGE THE LAW AND INCREASE VIRGINIANS CHOICES FOR MEDICAL CARE. BECAUSE 35 OTHER STATES HAVE SIMILAR CON REQUIREMENTS, A VICTORY HERE WILL HELP CONSUMERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. IN FY14, WE RECEIVED $706 IN COSTS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. KELLY V. WHITMORE CELESTE KELLY, GRACE GRANATELLI AND STACEY KOLLMAN ARE THREE ARIZONA ENTREPRENEURS WHO DECIDED TO TURN THEIR LOVE OF ANIMALS INTO SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSES. EACH SPENT HUNDREDS OF HOURS LEARNING ABOUT ANIMAL ANATOMY AND DEVELOPING MASSAGE TECHNIQUES TO OBTAIN PRIVATE CERTIFICATIONS IN ANIMAL MASSAGE. BUT THE ARIZONA STATE VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINING BOARD IS THREATENING THEM WITH UP TO SIX MONTHS IN JAIL AND FINES OF $3,500 PER VIOLATION BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT LICENSED VETERINARIANS. MASSAGE THERAPISTS DO NOT NEED A MEDICAL DEGREE TO MASSAGE HUMANS, AND ANIMAL MASSAGE THERAPISTS LIKE OUR CLIENTS SHOULD NOT NEED TO SPEND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON FOUR YEARS OF VET SCHOOL WHERE THEY ARE NOT EVEN REQUIRED TO LEARN MASSAGE. THE VET BOARDS ACTIONS DEMONSTRATE THE OUTRAGEOUS EXTREMES TO WHICH STATE LICENSING BOARDS WILL GO TO PROTECT THEIR OWN FINANCIAL INTERESTS, AND CELESTE, GRACE, AND STACEY HAVE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FIGHT BACK. HINES V. TEXAS STATE BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINERS RON HINES IS A TEXAS VETERINARIAN WHO CAN NO LONGER PRACTICE IN AN OFFICE SETTING DUE TO A PHYSICAL DISABILITY. SO HE TOOK TO THE INTERNET TO PROVIDE ONLINE ADVICE TO PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD TRADITIONAL VETERINARY CARE, THOSE IN REMOTE PARTS OF THE WORLD, AND THOSE WHO HAVE CONFLICTING DIAGNOSES FROM THEIR LOCAL VETS. HIS CLIENTS RAVE ABOUT HIS SERVICE, AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SINGLE COMPLAINT. THE STATE OF TEXAS, HOWEVER, SAYS IT IS A CRIME FOR VETERINARIANS TO GIVE ADVICE OVER THE INTERNET WITHOUT HAVING FIRST PHYSICALLY EXAMINED THE ANIMAL. SO WE FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT ON RONS BEHALF TO DEFEND HIS RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE WITH PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR PETS USING THE INTERNET. THIS CASE RAISES ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS IN FIRST AMENDMENT LAW: WHEN DOES THE GOVERNMENTS POWER TO LICENSE OCCUPATIONS TRUMP FREE SPEECH? THE OUTCOME WILL HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR MEDICINE, LAW, PSYCHOLOGY, AND MANY OTHER OCCUPATIONS THAT OFTEN INVOLVE NOTHING BUT SPEECH IN THE FORM OF ADVICE. COOKSEY V. FUTRELL, ET AL. IJ CLIENT STEVE COOKSEY IS AN INTERNET BLOGGER WHO WAS CENSORED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR OFFERING HIS READERS PERSONAL ADVICE ON DIET AND LIFESTYLE CHOICES. AFTER BEING DIAGNOSED WITH TYPE II DIABETES, STEVE COOKSEY EMBRACED THE LOW-CARB "PALEOLITHIC DIET OF OUR STONE AGE ANCESTORS AND NOTICED THAT IT LED TO A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN HIS HEALTH. HE WANTED TO HELP OTHERS LEAD HEALTHIER LIVES AND STARTED SHARING HIS EXPERIENCES AND LIFESTYLE TIPS THROUGH A DEAR ABBY-STYLE ADVICE COLUMN ON HIS BLOG. BUT THE NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF DIETETICS/NUTRITION QUICKLY FORCED HIM INTO SILENCE. IT CLAIMS THAT STEVES WORK CONSTITUTES THE UNLICENSED, AND THUS CRIMINAL, PRACTICE OF DIETETICS. HOWEVER, UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, CITIZENS LIKE STEVE CANT BE REQUIRED TO GET THE GOVERNMENTS PERMISSION BEFORE OFFERING ORDINARY ADVICE ON HARMLESS THINGS LIKE WHAT FOODS PEOPLE SHOULD BUY AT THE GROCERY STORE. SO WE FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE BOARD ON STEVES BEHALF. ROSEMOND V. CONWAY IN THE SPRING OF 2013, JOHN ROSEMOND - AMERICAS LONGEST RUNNING NEWSPAPER ADVICE COLUMNIST - RECEIVED AN ASTONISHING ORDER FROM THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL: STOP PUBLISHING YOUR ADVICE COLUMN IN THE BLUEGRASS STATE OR FACE FINES AND JAIL. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND KENTUCKYS PSYCHOLOGIST-LICENSING BOARD BELIEVE THAT JOHNS COLUMN, WHICH IS SYNDICATED IN MORE THAN 200 PAPERS NATIONWIDE, CONSTITUTES THE "UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF PSYCHOLOGY IN KENTUCKY WHEN IT APPEARS IN A KENTUCKY NEWSPAPER. KENTUCKYS CRACKDOWN IS PART OF A NATIONAL SURGE IN THE ABUSE OF OCCUPATIONAL-LICENSING LAWS TO CENSOR ADVICE. SO JOHN TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO DEFEND HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS IN COURT. KAGAN V. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS SIMILAR TO THE D.C. CASE ABOVE THAT WE WON IN THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IN NEW ORLEANS WE REPRESENT FOUR TOUR GUIDES WHO ARE CHALLENGING A LOCAL LAW THAT REQUIRES TOUR GUIDES TO GET PERMISSION FROM THE GOVERNMENT BEFORE WORKING OR FACE FINES AND EVEN JAIL TIME. THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF DECIDING WHO IS - AND WHO IS NOT - ALLOWED TO SPEAK ABOUT VARIOUS TOPICS. A VICTORY IN THE CASE WILL HELP PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF COUNTLESS PEOPLE ACROSS THE COUNTRY THAT SPEAK FOR A LIVING - WHETHER THEY SPEAK AS NEWS REPORTERS, STAND-UP COMEDIANS, OR TOUR GUIDES. FEARS V. CITY OF SACRAMENTO FOR YEARS, HUSBAND AND WIFE CARL AND ELIZABETH RELIED ON A SANDWICH BOARD OUTSIDE THEIR COMMERCIAL GYM TO BRING IN CLIENTS. THE GYM IS LOCATED AT A "BLINK-AND-YOULL-MISS-IT BUILDING ON A BUSY STREET; MANY WOULD NOT EVEN KNOW THE GYM IS THERE WITHOUT THE SIGN. BUT IN 2013 THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO THREATENED TO PROSECUTE THE FEARS SIGN WITH FINES SO SEVERE, THEY WOULD DESTROY THEIR BUSINESS. THE RESTRICTION, HOWEVER, DID NOT APPLY TO ALL MESSAGES. FOR INSTANCE, THE FEARS COULD HAVE LEGALLY DISPLAYED THE EXACT SAME SIGN, IN THE EXACT SAME LOCATION, IF IT ADVERTISED REAL ESTATE OR A NON-PROFIT GROUPS EVENT. THE ARBITRARY NATURE OF THE SIGN CODE ISNT JUST BAD PUBLIC POLICY, ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SO THE FEARS TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FIGHT BACK. THREE MONTHS AFTER WE FILED OUR LAWSUIT, THE CITY BACKED DOWN AND AMENDED ITS SIGN CODE TO ALLOW THE FEARS AND OTHER BUSINESSES TO ADVERTISE THEIR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. WE RECEIVED $32,265 IN ATTORNEYS FEES FROM THE CITY FOLLOWING OUR VICTORY. ANDERSON V. COBA IN OREGON, IT WAS PERFECTLY LEGAL FOR SEVENTH-GENERATION FAMILY FARMER CHRISTINE ANDERSON TO SELL HER UNPASTEURIZED OR "RAW MILK AS LONG AS SHE DIDNT TALK ABOUT IT. THAT MEANT THAT CHRISTINE COULDN'T PUT FLYERS ON THE BULLETIN BOARD OF THE LOCAL HEALTH FOOD STORE, PUT PRICE INFORMATION ON HER FARM'S WEBSITE, OR EVEN HAVE A ROADSIDE SIGN AT THE FARM SAYING, "WE'VE GOT RAW MILK." DOING ANY OF THESE THINGS WOULD HAVE SUBJECTED CHRISTINE TO A FINE OF $6,250, CIVIL PENALTIES AS HIGH AS $10,000, AND A YEAR IN JAIL-ALL FOR ADVERTISING HER LAWFUL PRODUCT. SO SHE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FIGHT BACK, AND IN NOVEMBER 2013, WE FILED A FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE IN FEDERAL COURT ON HER BEHALF. SIMILAR TO THE SACRAMENTO CASE ABOVE, JUST A FEW MONTHS AFTER WE FILED THE CASE, THE STATE OF OREGON BACKED DOWN AND AGREED TO STOP ENFORCING ITS BAN ON THE ADVERTISEMENT OF RAW MILK. IT ALSO AGREED TO ASK THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO REPEAL THE LAW. ITS YET ANOTHER IJ VICTORY VINDICATING THE RIGHTS OF SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS TO ADVERTISE THEIR LAWFUL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. NEIGHBORHOOD ENTERPRISES V. CITY OF ST. LOUIS FED UP WITH HIS LOCAL GOVERNMENT ABUSING ITS POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, ST. LOUIS RESIDENT JIM ROOS DECIDED TO FIGHT BACK. HE HAD A LARGE PROTEST MURAL PAINTED ON HIS BUILDING AT 1806 S. 13TH STREET, IN A NEIGHBORHOOD TARGETED FOR REDEVELOPMENT. BUT THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS DIDNT LIKE THE CRITICISM AND INSISTED THAT THE MURAL BE TAKEN DOWN AS A VIOLATION OF LOCAL "SIGN CODES. BUT JIM HAS A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVELY PROTEST GOVERNMENT ABUSE AND BUILD SUPPORT FOR MEANINGFUL REFORM WITHOUT HAVING TO GET GOVERNMENT APPROVAL, SO WE FOUGHT BACK WITH A LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT. WE WON THIS CASE BEFORE THE 8TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN 2011, BUT REMAIN IN DISTRICT COURT ASKING FOR A JUDGMENT DECLARING JIMS RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THE MURAL. CENTRAL RADIO COMPANY V. CITY OF NORFOLK
SIMILAR TO THE ST. LOUIS CASE ABOVE, IJ IS STANDING UP FOR A THRIVING	SMALL BUSINESS IN NORFOLK, VA., THAT IS NOT ONLY AT RISK OF LOSING ITS PROPERTY THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE, BUT ALSO IS BEING CENSORED FOR EXPRESSING AN OPINION THE GOVERNMENT DOESNT LIKE. IN EARLY 2012, THE OWNERS OF CENTRAL RADIO COMPANY HUNG A BANNER ON THEIR BUILDING PROTESTING THE GOVERNMENTS ATTEMPT TO TAKE THEIR PROPERTY THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN. BUT THE CITY TOLD THEM TO TAKE IT DOWN BECAUSE IT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE CITYS SIGN CODE, EVEN THOUGH OTHER BUSINESSES IN THE AREA HAVE SIGNS AS LARGE OR LARGER THAN CENTRAL RADIOS. IJ STEPPED IN TO REPRESENT CENTRAL RADIO IN THEIR FIGHT AGAINST THE CITY, AND WE CURRENTLY ARE ON APPEAL TO THE 4TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. DINA GALASSINI, V. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA BEFORE ELECTION DAY IN 2011, IJ CLIENT DINA GALASSINI OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZ., SENT AN EMAIL TO A GROUP OF FRIENDS INVITING THEM TO JOIN HER IN A PROTEST AGAINST A $44 MILLION ROAD BOND BY MAKING HOMEMADE SIGNS AND JOINING HER ON A STREET CORNER. WITHIN A WEEK OF SENDING HER EMAIL, DINA RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE TOWN CLERK TELLING HER TO "CEASE ANY CAMPAIGN RELATED ACTIVITIES UNTIL SHE HAD REGISTERED WITH THE TOWN AS A "POLITICAL COMMITTEE UNDER ARIZONA LAW. IN ESSENCE, DINA NEEDED THE GOVERNMENTS PERMISSION TO EXPRESS HER OPINION. POLITICAL COMMITTEES MUST, AMONG OTHER THINGS, REGISTER WITH THE GOVERNMENT, APPOINT A CHAIRMAN AND A TREASURER, AND DESIGNATE A BANK ACCOUNT, EVEN IF THEY ARE INFORMAL GRASSROOTS GROUPS LIKE DINAS THAT DONT INTEND TO RAISE OUTSIDE FUNDS. IJ TOOK UP HER CASE AND WON A RULING IN SEPTEMBER 2013 STRIKING DOWN THE LAW. THE JUDGE SAID IN HIS RULING THAT ARIZONAS DEFINITION OF POLITICAL COMMITTEE IS VAGUE, OVERBROAD, AND UNDULY BURDENSOME. JUSTICE V. HOSEMANN SIMILAR TO THE ARIZONA CASE ABOVE, IN MISSISSIPPI, WE REPRESENT FIVE INDIVIDUALS WHO WANTED TO SPEAK OUT IN FAVOR OF INITIATIVE 31, WHICH PROVIDES PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE STATE WITH GREATER PROTECTION FROM EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE. UNDER MISSISSIPPI LAW, ANY TIME TWO OR MORE PEOPLE JOIN TOGETHER TO SPEND MORE THAN $200 ON THINGS LIKE SIGNS, BUTTONS, AND FLYERS TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A BALLOT ISSUE, THEY BECOME A FULLY REGULATED POLITICAL COMMITTEE. THIS MEANS THEY MUST REGISTER WITH THE STATE; APPOINT A DIRECTOR AND TREASURER; FILE MONTHLY, ANNUAL, AND OTHER PERIODIC REPORTS OF THEIR ACTIVITIES; AND KEEP TRACK OF EVERY DOLLAR THAT IS SPENT OR CONTRIBUTED - INCLUDING THE GAS USED TO DRIVE TO A COPY SHOP TO PICK UP FLYERS. LAWS LIKE THIS HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON POLITICAL SPEECH AND VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IJ IS WORKING IN COURT TO UNDERMINE THESE RESTRICTIONS SO CITIZENS CAN EFFECTIVELY SPEAK IN ELECTIONS AND CONTRIBUTE TO A ROBUST MARKET OF IDEAS. WE WON A RULING STRIKING DOWN THE LAW ON THE SAME DAY WE WON THE ARIZONA CASE ABOVE. WORLEY V. ROBERTS OUR CLIENTS ARE A GROUP OF THREE FLORIDA RESIDENTS WHO WANTED TO URGE THE PUBLIC TO VOTE AGAINST PROPOSED AMENDMENT 4 TO THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION. TO DO THIS, THEY WANTED TO RUN A SIMPLE RADIO AD. SIMILAR TO THE ARIZONA AND MISSISSIPPI CASES DESCRIBED ABOVE, UNDER FLORIDA LAW, IF THEY RAISED OR SPENT MORE THAN $500 FOR THEIR EFFORT, THEY WOULD BECOME A "POLITICAL COMMITTEE. THAT MEANS THEY MUST REGISTER WITH THE STATE, APPOINT A TREASURER, ESTABLISH A SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNT, AND REPORT TO THE STATE ALL ACTIVITY, INCLUDING NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF CONTRIBUTORS. IF OUR CLIENTS DONT OBEY THE RULES, OR IF THEY MAKE A MISTAKE, THEY FACE FINES OF UP TO $1,000 OR EVEN A YEAR IN JAIL. WE LOST IN THE TRIAL COURT, AND THAT DECISION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE 11TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. AS A RESULT, GRASSROOTS GROUPS IN FLORIDA CONTINUE TO BE SUBJECT TO SPEECH-SUPPRESSING LAWS THAT HAVE BEEN HELD UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BURDENSOME FOR CORPORATIONS AND UNIONS. FARRIS V. SEABROOK IJ CLIENT AND RETIRED NAVY OFFICER ROBIN FARRIS GOT INVOLVED IN POLITICS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HER LIFE WHEN SHE STARTED ORGANIZING A CAMPAIGN TO RECALL AN ELECTED OFFICIAL AFTER HEARING ABOUT SERIOUS CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT ON HIS PART. BECAUSE RECALL CAMPAIGNS IN WASHINGTON INVOLVE CONSIDERABLE LITIGATION TO ENSURE THAT ELECTED OFFICIALS ARENT RECALLED FOR PURELY POLITICAL REASONS, ROBIN ENLISTED THE SERVICES OF TWO LOCAL ATTORNEYS TO HELP HER NAVIGATE THE STATES RECALL PROCEDURES PRO BONO. BUT THEIR DONATION OF LEGAL SERVICES RAN AFOUL OF WASHINGTONS $800 LIMIT ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO RECALL CAMPAIGNS. LIMITING CONTRIBUTIONS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY HANDICAPS ORDINARY CITIZENS LIKE ROBIN WHO LACK AN ESTABLISHED BASE OF POLITICAL SUPPORT BUT STILL NEED TO RAISE SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO RUN A VIABLE CAMPAIGN AND JUMP THROUGH THE STATES LEGAL HOOPS. IN A DECISION WELL-TIMED FOR ELECTION DAY, THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED IN NOVEMBER 2012 THAT THE STATE OF WASHINGTON HAD UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ENFORCED THE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS AGAINST THE CAMPAIGN, BUT LEFT OPEN THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE LAW CAN BE CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO OTHER GROUPS SEEKING TO RECALL OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS. WE CURRENTLY ARE ON APPEAL TO THE 9TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE V. STATE OF WASHINGTON AFTER WINNING THE FARRIS CASE ABOVE, IJ SOUGHT ATTORNEYS FEES FROM THE WASHINGTON PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION (PDC) UNDER FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES. SINKING TO A NEW LEVEL OF VINDICTIVENESS, THE PDC NOT ONLY CHALLENGED THE FEES IN COURT, BUT ALSO FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST OUR CLIENT, RECALL DALE WASHAM, FOR FAILING TO DISCLOSE IJS REPRESENTATION AS AN IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION TO THE CAMPAIGN. CLASSIFYING OUR SERVICES AS A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION COULD PUT IN SERIOUS JEOPARDY THE ABILITY OF PUBLIC-INTEREST GROUPS LIKE IJ AND THE ACLU TO DEFEND THEIR CLIENTS RIGHTS, SO WE FILED SUIT TO PROTECT THIS IMPORTANT AMERICAN TRADITION. SEATON V. WEINER MINNESOTA LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY AN INDIVIDUAL CAN DONATE TO A CANDIDATE TO $1,000. BUT ONCE A CANDIDATE RAISES $12,500 IN CONTRIBUTIONS BETWEEN $500 AND $1,000, THAT LIMIT IS ARBITRARILY CUT IN HALF. THAT MEANS THAT IF A CANDIDATE FOR STATE HOUSE ACCEPTS CONTRIBUTIONS OF $1,000 FROM 12 DIFFERENT PEOPLE, THE 13TH DONOR, AND EVERYONE AFTER, MAY CONTRIBUTE ONLY $500 OR LESS. CONTRIBUTING TO CANDIDATES FOR POLITICAL OFFICE IS A WELL-RECOGNIZED FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT THAT SHOULD NOT BE DISHED OUT ON A FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVED BASIS. MINNESOTAS SYSTEM VIOLATES THIS RIGHT, SO WE HAVE TEAMED UP WITH TWO POLITICAL DONORS AND TWO CANDIDATES TO CHALLENGE THIS LAW IN FEDERAL COURT.
CASINO REINVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. CHARLES	AND LUCINDA BIRNBAUM ET AL. IJ CLIENT CHARLIE BIRNBAUM IS A CLASSIC AMERICAN STORY. HIS PARENTS - BOTH IMMIGRANTS WHO MET HIDING IN THE FORESTS OF POLAND DURING WORLD WAR II - LEFT HIM MANY THINGS: A LOVE OF THIS COUNTRY, A DEEP PASSION FOR MUSIC, AND A HOME RIGHT NEAR THE BOARDWALK IN ATLANTIC CITY. THAT HOME - HIS PARENTS FOOTHOLD IN THEIR ADOPTED COUNTRY - HAS BEEN A SOURCE OF LOVE, TRAGEDY, AND RENEWAL TO THE BIRNBAUM FAMILY FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS. CHARLIE NOW KEEPS AN APARTMENT AND PIANO STUDIO ON THE GROUND FLOOR; THE TOP TWO FLOORS ARE GIVEN OVER TO LONGTIME TENANTS WHO PAY BELOW-MARKET RENTS; AND THE WHOLE BUILDING IS DEVOTED TO THE MEMORY OF CHARLIES PARENTS. BUT THE CASINO REINVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WANTS TO SEIZE THE PROPERTY USING EMINENT DOMAIN, DESPITE HAVING NO SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR THE PROPERTY. SO CHARLIE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO CHALLENGE THE TAKING AND PRESERVE THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE POLITICALLY AND FINANCIALLY DISENFRANCHISED. COMMUNITY YOUTH ATHLETIC CENTER V. NATIONAL CITY THE COMMUNITY YOUTH ATHLETIC CENTER IS A NON-PROFIT AFTER-SCHOOL FITNESS AND MENTORING PROGRAM IN NATIONAL CITY, CALIF., THAT HELPS HUNDREDS OF LOW-INCOME KIDS STAY OFF THE STREETS, IN SCHOOL, AND ON THE PATH TO LIFE SUCCESS. RATHER THAN ENCOURAGE THE CYACS GOOD WORK ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTED TO APPLY A PHONY "BLIGHT DESIGNATION TO THE CYAC AND NEARLY 700 OTHER PROPERTIES SO IT COULD TRANSFER THEM TO A LUXURY CONDO DEVELOPER. WE DEFEATED THE PLAN IN THE SPRING OF 2011 AND SET IMPORTANT PROPERTY RIGHTS PRECEDENT IN CALIFORNIA IN THE PROCESS. BUT THE CITY APPEALED THE RULING, SENDING US TO THE STATE APPEALS COURT TO DEFEND OUR CLIENTS RIGHT TO THEIR PROPERTY. STATE OF TEXAS V. ONE 2004 CHEVROLET SILVERADO CIVIL FORFEITURE IS A GROWING THREAT TO THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ALL AMERICANS. UNDER CIVIL FORFEITURE, POLICE CAN SEIZE HOMES, CARS, CASH, OR OTHER PROPERTY UPON THE MERE SUSPICION THAT IT HAS BEEN USED OR INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY - NO ARREST OR CONVICTION REQUIRED. IN TEXAS, WE REPRESENT HOUSTON SMALL BUSINESSMAN ZAHER EL-ALI, WHO SOLD A TRUCK TO A MAN WHO PAID HIM ON CREDIT, BUT ALI HELD THE TITLE TO THE VEHICLE UNTIL HE WAS PAID IN FULL. THE PURCHASER WAS FOUND GUILTY IN JULY 2009 OF DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, AND TEXAS POLICE SEIZED THE TRUCK AND FILED THIS CIVIL FORFEITURE ACTION. EVEN THOUGH ALI HAS NEVER BEEN ACCUSED OF BREAKING ANY LAWS, HE IS REQUIRED TO PETITION THE COURT TO GET HIS TRUCK BACK. HE TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO CHALLENGE TEXAS CIVIL FORFEITURE STATUTE AS A VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. THE APPEALS COURT SIDED WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND IN MARCH THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO REVIEW THE DECISION, THOUGH IT DID SIGNAL AN INTEREST IN REVIEWING A FUTURE CASE. THE CASE IS NOW CLOSED. DEHKO V. HOLDER; U.S. V. $35,651.11; AND U.S. V. $33,244.86
FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS, TERRY DEHKO AND HIS DAUGHTER SANDY HAVE	SUCCESSFULLY RUN A GROCERY STORE IN FRASER, MICH. IN JANUARY 2013, WITHOUT WARNING, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT USED CIVIL FORFEITURE TO SEIZE ALL OF THE MONEY FROM THE DEHKOS STORE BANK ACCOUNT (MORE THAN $35,000) EVEN THOUGH THEYVE DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG. FEDERAL AGENTS STRUCK AGAIN IN THE SPRING OF 2013 WHEN THEY SEIZED THE BANK ACCOUNT OF MARK ZANIEWSKIS INDEPENDENTLY OWNED GAS STATION (MORE THAN $70,000). NEITHER THE DEHKOS NOR ZANIEWSKI WERE CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME - THE GOVERNMENT MERELY BELIEVED WITHOUT ANY REAL INVESTIGATION THAT THE DEPOSITS OF THE LAWFULLY EARNED MONEY FROM THEIR LEGITIMATE BUSINESSES WERE SUSPICIOUS. SO TERRY, SANDY, AND MARK TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO FIGHT BACK IN FEDERAL COURT. WHILE WE WERE ABLE TO SECURE THE RETURN OF THE FUNDS TO OUR CLIENTS BANK ACCOUNTS, THE FIGHT CONTINUES WITH A FEDERAL LAWSUIT BROUGHT AGAINST THE IRS ON BEHALF OF TERRY, SANDY, AND MARK SEEKING TO ENSURE THAT PROPERTY OWNERS RECEIVE A PROMPT COURT HEARING WHEN FEDERAL AGENTS SEIZE THEIR PROPERTY THROUGH CIVIL FORFEITURE. WE RECEIVED FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT $27,967 IN ATTORNEYS FEES FOR THE ORIGINAL DEHKO CASE AND $10,471 FOR THE ORIGINAL ZANIEWSKI CASE. UNITED STATES V. 434 MAIN STREET, TEWKSBURY, MASS. IN A DECISION THAT WILL HELP PROPERTY OWNERS NATIONWIDE, A FEDERAL JUDGE LAST YEAR RULED ON BEHALF OF IJ CLIENTS RUSS AND PATRICIA CASWELL IN THEIR FIGHT TO SAVE THE MOTEL THAT HAS BEEN IN THEIR FAMILY FOR TWO GENERATIONS. THE CASWELLS WERENT ACCUSED OF ANY CRIME, BUT THE LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENT TEAMED UP WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO TAKE THE PROPERTY THROUGH CIVIL FORFEITURE BECAUSE A HANDFUL OF GUESTS OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS COMMITTED ILLEGAL ACTS WHILE STAYING AT THE MOTEL. THIS FACT DOESNT DIFFERENTIATE THE PROPERTY FROM ANY OTHER HOTEL OR MOTEL IN THE COUNTRY, BUT AS A SMALL, FAMILY-RUN OUTFIT WITH NO MORTGAGE ON THE PROPERTY, THE CASWELLS WERE AN EASY TARGET FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS LOOKING TO PAD THEIR BUDGETS WITH THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE MOTEL. THE GOVERNMENT DECIDED NOT TO APPEAL THE DECISION. WE RECEIVED $425,000 IN ATTORNEYS FEES AS A RESULT OF OUR VICTORY. DEAN, ET AL. V. CITY OF WINONA IN THIS CASE, WE ARE FIGHTING AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BAN ON THE NUMBER OF HOMEOWNERS WHO MAY RENT OUT THEIR PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF WINONA, MINN. THE CITY AMENDED ITS ZONING LAWS SO THAT ONLY 30 PERCENT OF HOMES IN EACH BLOCK MAY RECEIVE A RENTAL PERMIT, WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR A HOMEOWNER TO RENT HIS OR HER HOME. THAT MEANS IF 30 PERCENT OF ONES NEIGHBORS HAVE ALREADY SECURED RENTAL PERMITS, THE NEXT HOMEOWNER WHO SEEKS A PERMIT WILL BE TURNED AWAY EVEN IF HIS NEIGHBORS WITH PERMITS LIVE IN THEIR HOMES AND DONT RENT THEM OUT. UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THE GOVERNMENT CANT ARBITRARILY RESTRICT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF SOME BUT NOT OTHERS. THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT HAS AGREED TO HEAR THE CASE. A VICTORY WILL SEND A MESSAGE TO CITIES ACROSS MINNESOTA AND NATIONWIDE THAT RENTAL BANS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND CITIES SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE THEM. RICKETTS V. MIAMI SHORES FOR 17 YEARS, HERMINE RICKETTS AND HER HUSBAND TOM CARROLL USED THEIR FRONT YARD IN MIAMI SHORES, FLA., TO GROW FOOD FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL CONSUMPTION. AND FOR 17 YEARS, NOBODY HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT. BUT IN MAY 2013, THE CITY AMENDED ITS ORDINANCE TO MAKE CLEAR THAT FRONT-YARD VEGETABLE GARDENS WERE PROHIBITED. ONLY VEGETABLES ARE EXPLICITLY BANNED - FLAMINGOES, FRUIT TREES, AND GARDEN GNOMES ARE JUST FINE. UNABLE TO BEAR THE HEFTY FINE OF $50 A DAY, HERMINE AND TOM RELUCTANTLY UPROOTED THEIR GARDEN. BUT THEY TEAMED UP WITH IJ TO CHALLENGE MIAMI SHORES SENSELESS BAN IN COURT. THE CASE AIMS TO VINDICATE THE RIGHT OF ALL AMERICANS TO PEACEFULLY USE THEIR OWN PROPERTY TO SUPPORT THEIR OWN FAMILIES AND IS PART OF IJS NATIONAL FOOD FREEDOM INITIATIVE, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO VINDICATE THE RIGHT OF AMERICANS TO PRODUCE, PROCURE, MARKET, AND CONSUME THE FOODS OF THEIR CHOICE. DUNCAN V. NEW HAMPSHIRE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, THE ACLU AND ITS ALLIES ARE CHALLENGING A PROGRAM OFFERING LOCAL BUSINESSES PARTIAL TAX CREDITS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT FUND EDUCATION SCHOLARSHIPS. QUALIFYING PARENTS MAY USE THE SCHOLARSHIPS TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO TUITION-CHARGING PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN NEIGHBORING SCHOOL DISTRICTS, PAY FOR TUITION AT ANY OF THE STATES PRIVATE OR RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS, OR HOME SCHOOL THEIR CHILDREN. IJ REPRESENTS AFFECTED PARENTS AND NONPROFIT SCHOLARSHIP-GRANTING ORGANIZATIONS. OUR OPPONENTS CLAIM THAT THE TAX CREDIT PROGRAM VIOLATES THE STATE CONSTITUTION BY ALLEGEDLY USING MONEY RAISED BY TAXATION TO COMPEL TAXPAYERS TO SUPPORT RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE PROGRAM RELIES ON PRIVATE FUNDS, PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS, AND PRIVATE DECISION MAKERS, IT COMPLIES ENTIRELY WITH THE STATE CONSTITUTION. WE ARGUED THE CASE BEFORE THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT IN APRIL 2014 AND NOW AWAIT A DECISION. LARUE V. COLORADO BOARD OF EDUCATION WE CONTINUE TO STAND UP FOR PARENTS AND CHILDREN IN DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLO. IN 2011, THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD ENACTED A PILOT PROGRAM OFFERING MODEST SCHOLARSHIPS FOR UP TO 500 STUDENTS TO ENABLE THEM TO ATTEND PRIVATE SCHOOLS. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THE ACLU, AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, AND SEVERAL COLORADO ORGANIZATIONS AND TAXPAYERS SUED TO STOP THE PROGRAM. IJ INTERVENED, REPRESENTING FOUR FAMILIES WHO INTEND TO USE THE SCHOLARSHIPS FOR THEIR CHILDREN. THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE PROGRAM, BESIDES ITS HAVING BEEN ENACTED BY A SCHOOL DISTRICT, IS THAT THE DOUGLAS COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE HIGHLY REGARDED, YET THERE IS AN OVERWHELMING INTEREST IN THE PROGRAM. THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD THE PROGRAM, BUT OUR OPPONENTS HAVE APPEALED TO COLORADO SUPREME COURT. THE COURT ANNOUNCED IN MARCH 2014 THAT IT WILL REVIEW THE CASE, AND WE EXPECT ORAL ARGUMENT LATER THIS YEAR. BOYD V. MAGEE ALABAMA PASSED THE ALABAMA ACCOUNTABILITY ACT IN 2013 TO PROVIDE LOW-INCOME FAMILIES WITH GREATER SCHOOL CHOICE. THE ACT OFFERS A LIFELINE TO FAMILIES THAT WOULD LIKE TO ESCAPE FAILING PUBLIC SCHOOLS BUT HAVE LACKED THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO DO SO UNTIL NOW. BUT THE ALABAMA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION AND ITS ALLIES ARE TRYING DESPERATELY TO SEVER THIS LIFELINE, WITH A LAWSUIT ALLEGING THAT THE ACT VIOLATES SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF THE ALABAMA CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING THE STATES TWO RELIGION CLAUSES. IJ INTERVENED IN THIS CASE LAST FALL ON BEHALF OF PARENTS LIKE IJ CLIENT TEQUILA ROGERS, WHO WISHES TO USE THE PROGRAM TO SEND HER SON CHRISTIAN TO A BETTER SCHOOL. THE TRIAL COURT STRUCK DOWN THE PROGRAM IN MAY 2014, BUT ALLOWED THE PROGRAM TO CONTINUE WHILE THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT REVIEWS THE DECISION. HART V. STATE / RICHARDSON V. STATE IN NORTH CAROLINA, WERE DEFENDING THE OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM, WHICH AWARDS UP TO 2,400 PUBLICLY FUNDED SCHOLARSHIPS TO ENABLE QUALIFYING FAMILIES TO TAKE THEIR CHILDREN OUT OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM AND SEND THEM TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL. THE TEACHERS UNIONS AND SCHOOL BOARDS FILED TWO SEPARATE LAWSUITS TO STOP THE PROGRAM ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION PREVENTS THE STATE FROM FUNDING ANY PRIVATE SCHOOL SCHOLARSHIPS. HOWEVER, THE STATE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO USE ITS GENERAL REVENUE FUND TO CREATE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT NORTH CAROLINA LEGISLATORS DID THROUGH THE OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. WE INTERVENED IN THE CASE ON BEHALF OF CYNTHIA PERRY AND OTHER PARENTS WHO WISH TO USE THE PROGRAM TO SAVE THEIR CHILDREN FROM FAILING PUBLIC SCHOOLS. RAYMOND GADDY V. GA. DEPT. OF REVENUE IN MAY 2014, WE INTERVENED IN A LAWSUIT TO DEFEND GEORGIAS LONG-STANDING SCHOLARSHIP TAX-CREDIT PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM PROVIDES SCHOLARSHIPS TO MORE THAN 13,000 STUDENTS, MAKING IT THE FOURTH LARGEST SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM IN THE COUNTRY. OUR OPPONENTS ARE CHALLENGING THE PROGRAM ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT VIOLATES THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS BAN ON PROVIDING PUBLIC SUPPORT TO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS LIMITED TO SUPPORTING ONLY THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. HOWEVER, THEIR CLAIMS LACK MERIT AS 100 PERCENT OF THE PROGRAM FUNDS ARE RAISED FROM PRIVATE DONORS AND GIVEN TO PARENTS TO SPEND AT A SCHOOL OF THEIR CHOICE - REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY CHOOSE A RELIGIOUS OR NON-RELIGIOUS PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR THEIR CHILDREN. GEORGIAS SCHOLARSHIP TAX-CREDIT PROGRAM OFFERS THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN A PATHWAY TO A BETTER EDUCATION TODAY, NOT AT SOME DISTANT POINT IN THE FUTURE, AND WE WILL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ENSURE THAT IT CONTINUES TO SUCCEED. AMICUS
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED CASES, THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE	ALSO FILED AMICUS BRIEFS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES BETWEEN JULY 1, 2013 AND JUNE 30, 2014: CCEC V. BENNETT FAMILY PAC V. FERGUSON GARCIA-MENDOZA V. 2003 CHEVY TAHOE GESSLER V. COMMON CAUSE KALEY V. UNITED STATES IOWA RIGHT TO LIFE, INC. V. TOOKER MCCULLEN V. COAKLEY MINORITY TELEVISION, INC. V. FCC SANCHEZ V. CITY OF AUSTIN SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST V. DRIEHAUS (CERT. PETITION STAGE) SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST V. DRIEHAUS (MERITS STAGE) TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY V. MT. HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC. UTTER EX REL. STATE V. BIAW (PETITION FOR REVIEW STAGE) UTTER EX REL. STATE V. BIAW (MERITS STAGE) WELCH V. BROWN

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Cat. No. 51056K

Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2013

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

1	Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities: TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERICANS.
2	Check this box
3	Number of voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1a) ........	3	11
4	Number of independent voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1b) .....	4	10
5	Total number of individuals employed in calendar year 2013 (Part V, line 2a) ......	5	103
6	Total number of volunteers (estimate if necessary) .............	6	50
7a	Total unrelated business revenue from Part VIII, column (C), line 12 ........	7a	0
b	Net unrelated business taxable income from Form 990-T, line 34 .........	7b	0

		Prior Year	Current Year
8	Contributions and grants (Part VIII, line 1h) .........	18,598,848	23,917,519
9	Program service revenue (Part VIII, line 2g) .........	167,000	514,651
10	Investment income (Part VIII, column (A), lines 3, 4, and 7d ) ....	162,819	181,417
11	Other revenue (Part VIII, column (A), lines 5, 6d, 8c, 9c, 10c, and 11e)	0	0
12	Total revenue—add lines 8 through 11 (must equal Part VIII, column (A), line 12)...................	18,928,667	24,613,587
13	Grants and similar amounts paid (Part IX, column (A), lines 1–3 )...	0	0
14	Benefits paid to or for members (Part IX, column (A), line 4).....	0	0
15	Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits (Part IX, column (A), lines 5–10)	8,652,438	9,545,871
16a	Professional fundraising fees (Part IX, column (A), line 11e).....	4,500	0
b	Total fundraising expenses (Part IX, column (D), line 25) 1,082,044
17	Other expenses (Part IX, column (A), lines 11a–11d, 11f–24e)....	4,155,170	4,542,454
18	Total expenses. Add lines 13–17 (must equal Part IX, column (A), line 25)	12,812,108	14,088,325
19	Revenue less expenses. Subtract line 18 from line 12.......	6,116,559	10,525,262
		Beginning of Current Year	End of Year
20	Total assets (Part X, line 16).............	42,372,492	54,270,467
21	Total liabilities (Part X, line 26).............	650,223	1,025,842
22	Net assets or fund balances. Subtract line 21 from line 20.....	41,722,269	53,244,625

Sign Here

	Signature of officer	Date

	Type or print name and title


4a	(Code: ) (Expenses $ 11,625,757 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ 514,651 )
	TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERICANS THROUGH LITIGATION; EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ABOUT ISSUES VITAL TO LIBERTY THROUGH MEDIA RELATIONS AND OUTREACH EVENTS; TRAIN LAWYERS AND STUDENTS TO PRESERVE CIVIL LIBERTIES.SEE SCHEDULE O FOR A LIST OF CASES IN LITIGATION.

4b	(Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )












4c	(Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )












4d	Other program services (Describe in Schedule O.)
	(Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )
4e	Total program service expenses11,625,757

(A) Name and Title	(B) Average hours per week (list any hours for related organizations below dotted line)		(D) Reportable compensation from the organization (W- 2/1099-MISC)	(E) Reportable compensation from related organizations (W- 2/1099-MISC)	(F) Estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations
(A) Name and Title
(18) CLARK NEILY........................................................................ SENIOR ATTORNEY	40.00 .......................	X	195,605	0	35,241
(19) JEFFREY ROWES........................................................................ SENIOR ATTORNEY	40.00 .......................	X	192,408	0	33,141
(20) ROBERT GALL........................................................................ SENIOR ATTORNEY	40.00 .......................	X	194,639	0	32,803
(21) RICHARD KOMER........................................................................ SENIOR ATTORNEY	40.00 .......................	X	162,588	0	26,925

1b	Sub-Total................
c	Total from continuation sheets to Part VII, Section A....
d	Total (add lines 1b and 1c)............	2,511,345	0	502,872

(A) Name and business address	(B) Description of services	(C) Compensation
APPLIED INTELLIGENCE GROUP5005 N 14TH STREETARLINGTONVA22205	IT CONSULTING	143,635




2 Total number of independent contractors (including but not limited to those listed above) who received more than $100,000 of compensation from the organization 1

				(A) Total revenue	(B) Related or exempt function revenue	(C) Unrelated business revenue	(D) Revenue excluded from tax under sections 512-514
1a	Federated campaigns..1a
b	Membership dues....1b
c	Fundraising events....1c
d	Related organizations...1d
e	Government grants (contributions)1e

f	All other contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts not included above1f		23,917,519

g	Noncash contributions included in lines 1a-1f:$		1,432,963
h	Total. Add lines 1a-1f.......			23,917,519
			Business Code
2a	ATTORNEY FEES		541100	503,954	503,954
b	MISCELLANEOUS		900099	10,697	10,697
c
d
e
f	All other program service revenue .
g	Total. Add lines 2a–2f........			514,651
3	Investment income (including dividends, interest, and other similar amounts).......			173,350			173,350
4	Income from investment of tax-exempt bond proceeds..
5	Royalties...........
		(i) Real	(ii) Personal
6a	Gross rents
b	Less: rental expenses
c	Rental income or (loss)
d	Net rental income or (loss).......
		(i) Securities	(ii) Other
7a	Gross amount from sales of assets other than inventory	2,696,105	85,623
b	Less: cost or other basis and sales expenses	2,684,593	89,068
c	Gain or (loss)	11,512	-3,445
d	Net gain or (loss)..........			8,067			8,067
8a	Gross income from fundraising events (not including $ of contributions reported on line 1c). See Part IV, line 18 ..
	a
b	Less: direct expenses ...b
c	Net income or (loss) from fundraising events..
9a	Gross income from gaming activities. See Part IV, line 19 ...
	a
b	Less: direct expenses ...b
c	Net income or (loss) from gaming activities...
10a	Gross sales of inventory, less returns and allowances .
	a
b	Less: cost of goods sold ..b
c	Net income or (loss) from sales of inventory..
Miscellaneous Revenue			Business Code
11a
b
c
d	All other revenue ....
e	Total. Add lines 11a–11d ......
12	Total revenue. See Instructions......			24,613,587	514,651	0	181,417


				(A) Beginning of year		(B) End of year
1	Cash–non-interest-bearing .............			3,171	1	1,400
2	Savings and temporary cash investments .........			18,599,628	2	24,339,803
3	Pledges and grants receivable, net ...........			5,478,892	3	3,646,257
4	Accounts receivable, net .............			11,649	4	12,097
5	Loans and other receivables from current and former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, and highest compensated employees. Complete Part II of Schedule L ..................
					5
6	Loans and other receivables from other disqualified persons (as defined under section 4958(f)(1)), persons described in section 4958(c)(3)(B), and contributing employers and sponsoring organizations of section 501(c)(9) voluntary employees' beneficiary organizations (see instructions) Complete Part II of Schedule L
					6
7	Notes and loans receivable, net .............				7
8	Inventories for sale or use ..............				8
9	Prepaid expenses and deferred charges ..........			171,212	9	230,055
10a	Land, buildings, and equipment: cost or other basis. Complete Part VI of Schedule D	10a	3,076,574
b	Less: accumulated depreciation .....	10b	2,317,928	814,509	10c	758,646
11	Investments—publicly traded securities ..........			17,246,038	11	20,156,625
12	Investments—other securities. See Part IV, line 11 .....				12	4,960,861
13	Investments—program-related. See Part IV, line 11 .....				13
14	Intangible assets ...............				14
15	Other assets. See Part IV, line 11 ...........			47,393	15	164,723
16	Total assets. Add lines 1 through 15 (must equal line 34)......			42,372,492	16	54,270,467
17	Accounts payable and accrued expenses .........			461,331	17	739,393
18	Grants payable .................				18
19	Deferred revenue ................				19	25,137
20	Tax-exempt bond liabilities .............				20
21	Escrow or custodial account liability. Complete Part IV of Schedule D..				21
22	Loans and other payables to current and former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, highest compensated employees, and disqualified
	persons. Complete Part II of Schedule L..........				22
23	Secured mortgages and notes payable to unrelated third parties ..				23
24	Unsecured notes and loans payable to unrelated third parties ....				24
25	Other liabilities (including federal income tax, payables to related third parties, and other liabilities not included on lines 17-24). Complete Part X of Schedule D....................			188,892	25	261,312
26	Total liabilities. Add lines 17 through 25.........			650,223	26	1,025,842
	Organizations that follow SFAS 117 (ASC 958), check here and complete lines 27 through 29, and lines 33 and 34.
27	Unrestricted net assets ..............			35,891,338	27	49,103,431
28	Temporarily restricted net assets ...........			5,830,931	28	4,141,194
29	Permanently restricted net assets ...........				29
	Organizations that do not follow SFAS 117 (ASC 958), check here and complete lines 30 through 34.
30	Capital stock or trust principal, or current funds ........				30
31	Paid-in or capital surplus, or land, building or equipment fund .....				31
32	Retained earnings, endowment, accumulated income, or other funds				32
33	Total net assets or fund balances ...........			41,722,269	33	53,244,625
34	Total liabilities and net assets/fund balances ........			42,372,492	34	54,270,467

1	Was the organization a U.S. transferor of property to a foreign corporation during the tax year? If "Yes,"the organization may be required to file Form 926, Return by a U.S. Transferor of Property to a Foreign Corporation (see Instructions for Form 926)......................................	Yes	No
2	Did the organization have an interest in a foreign trust during the tax year? If "Yes," the organization may be required to file Form 3520, Annual Return to Report Transactions with Foreign Trusts and Receipt of Certain Foreign Gifts, and/or Form 3520-A, Annual Information Return of Foreign Trust With a U.S. Owner (see Instructions for Forms 3520 and 3520-A).......................................	Yes	No
3	Did the organization have an ownership interest in a foreign corporation during the tax year? If "Yes," the organization may be required to file Form 5471, Information Return of U.S. Persons with Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations. (see Instructions for Form 5471)..............................	Yes	No
4	Was the organization a direct or indirect shareholder of a passive foreign investment company or a qualified electing fund during the tax year? If “Yes,” the organization may be required to file Form 8621, Information Return by a Shareholder of a Passive Foreign Investment Company or Qualified Electing Fund. (see Instructions for Form 8621)...............................................	Yes	No
5	Did the organization have an ownership interest in a foreign partnership during the tax year? If "Yes," the organization may be required to file Form 8865, Return of U.S. Persons with Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships. (see Instructions for Form 8865)....................................	Yes	No
6	Did the organization have any operations in or related to any boycotting countries during the tax year? If "Yes," the organization may be required to file Form 5713, International Boycott Report (see Instructions for Form 5713)................................................	Yes	No