Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Go to
www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.
| (i) Name of supported organization | (ii) EIN | (iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 10 above (see instructions)) | (iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document? | (v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions) | (vi) Amount of other support (see instructions) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
|
Total |
||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2014 | (b) 2015 | (c) 2016 | (d) 2017 | (e) 2018 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. | 4,739,590 | 4,318,258 | 6,089,299 | 6,283,551 | 5,131,175 | 26,561,873 |
| 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 | 4,739,590 | 4,318,258 | 6,089,299 | 6,283,551 | 5,131,175 | 26,561,873 |
| 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).. | 2,485,126 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 24,076,747 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2014 | (b) 2015 | (c) 2016 | (d) 2017 | (e) 2018 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 4,739,590 | 4,318,258 | 6,089,299 | 6,283,551 | 5,131,175 | 26,561,873 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 83,838 | 61,911 | 40,494 | 103,111 | 107,127 | 396,481 |
| 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 VI.).. | 12,729 | 1,626 | 10,746 | 134 | 25,235 | |
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10 | 26,983,589 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2014 | (b) 2015 | (c) 2016 | (d) 2017 | (e) 2018 | (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.) | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2014 | (b) 2015 | (c) 2016 | (d) 2017 | (e) 2018 | (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 VI.) .. | ||||||
| 13 | Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.).. | ||||||
| Section A - Adjusted Net Income | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Net short-term capital gain | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Other gross income (see instructions) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Add lines 1 through 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Depreciation and depletion | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Other expenses (see instructions) | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4) | 8 | ||||
| Section B - Minimum Asset Amount | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year): | 1 | ||||
| a | Average monthly value of securities | 1a | ||||
| b | Average monthly cash balances | 1b | ||||
| c | Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets | 1c | ||||
| d | Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c) | 1d | ||||
| e |
Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI): |
|||||
| 2 | Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Subtract line 2 from line 1d | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 1-1/2% of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions). | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3) | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Multiply line 5 by .035 | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6) | 8 | ||||
| Section C - Distributable Amount | Current Year | |||||
| 1 | Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A) | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Enter 85% of line 1 | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Enter greater of line 2 or line 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Income tax imposed in prior year | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| Section D - Distributions | Current Year | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes | ||
|
2
Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity |
||
| 3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations | ||
| 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets | ||
| 5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required) | ||
| 6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions | ||
| 7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. | ||
|
8
Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions |
||
| 9 Distributable amount for 2018 from Section C, line 6 | ||
| 10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount | ||
| Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) |
(i) Excess Distributions |
(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2018 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2018 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
Distributable amount for 2018 from Section C, line 6 |
||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2018 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI). See instructions. |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2018: | ||||
| a From 2013....... | ||||
| b From 2014....... | ||||
| c From 2015....... | ||||
| d From 2016....... | ||||
| e From 2017....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2018 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2013 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2018 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2018 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2018, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2018. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2019. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a Excess from 2014...... | ||||
| b Excess from 2015..... | ||||
| c Excess from 2016..... | ||||
| d Excess from 2017..... | ||||
| e Excess from 2018..... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| SCHEDULE A, PART II, LINE 10, EXPLANATION OF OTHER INCOME: | OTHER INCOME - 2014 AMOUNT: $ 12,729. 2015 AMOUNT: $ 1,626. 2016 AMOUNT: $ 10,746. 2018 AMOUNT: $ 134. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A: CASE UPDATE | 1A AUTO, INC. V. SULLIVAN MASSACHUSETTS LAW PROHIBITS BUSINESSES - BUT NOT UNIONS OR OTHER GROUPS - FROM CONTRIBUTING TO POLITICAL PARTIES, COMMITTEES, OR CANDIDATES. WE FILED A LAWSUIT TO OVERTURN THIS BAN. WE REPRESENT TWO MASSACHUSETTS SMALL BUSINESSES: AN AUTO PARTS RETAILER IN PEPPERELL, 1A AUTO, INC., AND A SMALL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY IN ASHLAND, 126 SELF STORAGE, INC. A VICTORY WOULD LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD IN ELECTIONS AND SAFEGUARD THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF EQUAL PROTECTION, FREE SPEECH, AND FREE ASSOCIATION. THE MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME COURT RULED AGAINST OUR CLIENT, AND WE ASKED THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO TAKE THE CASE. IT DENIED OUR REQUEST ON MAY 20, 2019. NO ATTORNEY FEES WERE AWARDED. BATES V. OREGON OREGON LAW PROHIBITS STORES THAT SELL VAPING EQUIPMENT AND VAPING LIQUIDS FROM TRUTHFULLY ADVERTISING THE FLAVORS OF THEIR VAPING LIQUIDS. THE LAW PROHIBITS THE USE OF CERTAIN WORDS AND SYMBOLS ON LABELS - INCLUDING SUCH WORDS AS "STRAWBERRY OR PICTURES OF STRAWBERRIES. WE FILED SUIT ON BEHALF OF A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER CHALLENGING THESE RESTRICTIONS AS VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE CASE IS NOW IN DISCOVERY IN THE OREGON TRIAL COURT. WE HAVE NOT BEEN AWARDED ATTORNEY FEES, BUT INTEND TO SEEK THEM. CARTER V. WASHBURN UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, CHILDREN OF INDIAN ANCESTRY WHO END UP IN STATE PROTECTIVE CUSTODY ARE TREATED NOT IN ACCORD WITH THEIR BEST INTERESTS, BUT ARE GIVEN SEPARATE, SUBSTANDARD TREATMENT SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE. THIS IS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT (ICWA). OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO ICWA CONTINUES ON MANY FRONTS. THIS CASE IS A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT REPRESENTING ABUSED, NEGLECTED, AND ABANDONED OFF-RESERVATION CHILDREN OF INDIAN ANCESTRY WHO ARE SUBJECT TO THESE SEPARATE, LESS PROTECTIVE RULES. THE CASE WAS DISMISSED BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN MARCH 2017, AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED IN NOVEMBER, 2018. WE ASKED THE SUPREME COURT TO HEAR THE CASE, AND IT DENIED THAT REQUEST ON MAY 28, 2019. NO ATTORNEY FEES WERE AWARDED. CROWE V. OREGON STATE BAR OREGON, LIKE MANY STATES, REQUIRES ATTORNEYS TO JOIN THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION - A TRADE ASSOCIATION - AS A CONDITION OF PRACTICING THEIR PROFESSION. IN ADDITION, THE OREGON STATE BAR SPENDS ANNUAL MANDATORY BAR DUES TO PUBLISH AND DISTRIBUTE POLITICAL VIEWS WITH WHICH MANY ATTORNEYS DISAGREE. REPRESENTING TWO OREGON LAWYERS, WE FILED THIS CASE ARGUING THAT COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP AND THE SPENDING OF ANNUAL DUES ON THE PROPAGATION OF POLITICAL VIEWS WITH WHICH ATTORNEYS DISAGREE VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. THE CASE WAS DISMISSED BY THE FEDERAL TRIAL COURT AND IS NOW ON APPEAL IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT. WE HAVE NOT BEEN AWARDED FEES, BUT INTEND TO SEEK THEM IF WE PREVAIL. CUT V. CITY OF DENVER DENVER REQUIRES 501(C) NON-PROFITS TO DISCLOSE THE IDENTITIES AND OTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR DONORS TO THE GOVERNMENT WHEN THOSE GROUPS COMMUNICATE WITH VOTERS ABOUT MUNICIPAL BALLOT QUESTIONS. THIS VIOLATES THEIR RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION. WE REPRESENT A TAXPAYER ORGANIZATION IN A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THIS RESTRICTION. THE CASE WENT TO TRIAL IN FEBRUARY 2019. THE COURT RULED AGAINST OUR CLIENT, AND WE HAVE APPEALED THE CASE. THAT APPEAL IS PENDING. WE HAVE NOT BEEN AWARDED ATTORNEY FEES (BUT HAVE SOUGHT THEM IN THE COMPLAINT). DE LA HAYE V. UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA THE UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA REMOVED A COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER FROM ITS TEAM AND RESCINDED HIS ATHLETICS SCHOLARSHIP BECAUSE HE EXERCISED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH BY POSTING VIDEOS TO HIS PERSONAL SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS. THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE FILED THIS LAWSUIT ARGUING THAT THE UNIVERSITY VIOLATED HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. THE CASE WAS RESOLVED BY A FAVORABLE, NON-MONETARY SETTLEMENT IN NOVEMBER 2018. NO ATTORNEY FEES WERE AWARDED. ENGELHORN V. CITY OF PHOENIX THIS CASE CHALLENGES THE LEGALITY OF AN ARIZONA LEGAL TRICK CALLED GOVERNMENT PROPERTY LEASE EXCISE TAX (GPLET), UNDER WHICH DEVELOPERS CAN TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY TO THE GOVERNMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR A TAX EXEMPTION. REPRESENTING A SMALL BUSINESS THAT IS SUBJECT TO UNEQUAL TAXES AS A RESULT, WE ARE CHALLENGING THIS SUBSIDY UNDER SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. THE CASE IS PENDING IN THE TRIAL COURT. WE HAVE NOT BEEN AWARDED ATTORNEY FEES (BUT DID REQUEST THEM). FLECK V. WETCH ATTORNEY ARNOLD FLECK STRONGLY SUPPORTED A BALLOT INITIATIVE ON THE NORTH DAKOTA BALLOT, AND DONATED MONEY TO THE CAMPAIGN, ONLY TO LEARN IN THE WEEKS LEADING UP TO THE VOTE THAT - THROUGH DUES PAID TO MAINTAIN HIS MANDATORY BAR MEMBERSHIP - THE STATE BAR OF NORTH DAKOTA HAD CONTRIBUTED $50,000 TO A PAC OPPOSING THE MEASURE. REPRESENTING FLECK, WE FILED SUIT TO CHALLENGE THE REQUIREMENT THAT FLECK JOIN AND FUND THE BAR ASSOCIATION TO PRACTICE LAW, AS WELL AS THE BAR'S FAILURE TO PROTECT MEMBERS AGAINST HAVING THEIR MONEY USED TO SUBSIDIZE POSITIONS WITH WHICH THEY DISAGREE. WE WON A SIGNIFICANT VICTORY WHEN THE NORTH DAKOTA BAR AGREED TO REVISE ITS DUES POLICY TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION, SENDING AN IMPORTANT SIGNAL THAT STATES CANNOT FORCE PEOPLE TO SUPPORT SPEECH THEY DISAGREE WITH IN ORDER TO PRACTICE THEIR CHOSEN PROFESSIONS. AS PART OF THIS SETTLEMENT, THE INSTITUTE WAS AWARDED ATTORNEY FEES OF $25,000. THE COURT RULED AGAINST US ON OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS, HOWEVER. AFTER THE U.S. SUPREME COURT REVERSED THAT, THE CASE WAS REARGUED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS. GOLDWATER INSTITUTE V. HHS IN AUGUST 2014, THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE SUBMITTED A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST TO THE FDA SEEKING RECORDS REGARDING THE INTERNAL APPROVAL PROCESS TO MAKE THE UNAPPROVED ZMAPP AVAILABLE TO TWO AMERICAN DOCTORS INFECTED WITH THE EBOLA VIRUS. FOR 18 MONTHS, THE FDA DENIED THE REQUEST CLAIMING THAT THE RECORDS MET THE FOIA EXEMPTION FOR "TRADE SECRETS." THAT ARGUMENT WAS REJECTED BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, AND THANKS TO OUR LITIGATION THE FDA HAS NOW DISCLOSED SOME OF THE RECORDS AT ISSUE. BUT LITIGATION OVER THE REMAINING RECORDS CONTINUES, AS THE DISTRICT COURT RULED AGAINST US AND THE CASE IS NOW ON APPEAL. NO ATTORNEY FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED YET, BUT WERE REQUESTED IN THE INITIAL PLEADINGS. HOBBS V. PACIFIC GROVE THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA, SOUGHT TO LIMIT AND LATER TO ELIMINATE THE RIGHT OF HOMEOWNERS TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO STAY IN THEIR HOMES FOR MONEY. FIRST, IT ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE LIMITING THE NUMBER OF PERMITS FOR HOME-SHARING, AND SUBJECTED THOSE WHO HELD PERMITS TO A RANDOM LOTTERY TO DETERMINE WHICH PERMIT HOLDERS WOULD BE BARRED FROM HAVING THEIR PERMITS RENEWED. THEN IT ADOPTED MEASURE M, A PROHIBITION ON HOME-SHARING IN THE AREA OF THE CITY NOT WITHIN THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE. ON BEHALF OF TWO FAMILIES, WE SUED THE CITY ARGUING THAT THE FIRST ORDINANCE VIOLATED THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT AND THAT BOTH VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW. IN JUNE 2019, THE TRIAL COURT RULED IN OUR FAVOR ON THE COASTAL ACT CLAIM AND AGAINST US ON THE DUE PROCESS CLAIM. WE WERE NOT AWARDED ATTORNEY FEES, BUT INTEND TO SEEK THEM. IN RE C.J., JR. IN THIS ICWA CASE, WE REPRESENT THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF AN OHIO CHILD OF NATIVE AMERICAN ANCESTRY. ALTHOUGH THE CHILD HAS LIVED HIS WHOLE LIFE IN OHIO, WITH AN OHIO FOSTER FAMILY, THE GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY OBTAINED AN ORDER FROM ITS OWN TRIBAL COURT (WITHOUT ANY OF THE PERSONS INVOLVED BEING PRESENT IN THAT COURT) DEMANDING THAT THE CHILD BE SENT TO LIVE ON THE GILA RIVER RESERVATION WITH INDIVIDUALS HE HAS NEVER EVEN MET. WE ARGUED THAT THE TRIBAL COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION AND THAT THE CASE SHOULD REMAIN IN OHIO COURTS. THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED IN OUR FAVOR IN MARCH 2018. THE CASE RETURNED TO TRIAL COURT, WHICH RULED AGAINST OUR CLIENT, AND WE APPEALED AGAIN. THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT APPEAL PREMATURE IN MAY 2019. THE CASE IS NOW PENDING IN THE TRIAL COURT AGAIN. NO FEES HAVE BEEN SOUGHT OR AWARDED. IN RE JPC IN THIS ICWA CASE, WE REPRESENTED A TRIBAL MEMBER MOTHER IN ARIZONA, WE PETITIONED THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW THIS CASE DENYING THE MOTHER'S REQUEST TO TERMINATE THE RIGHTS OF HER CHILD'S ABUSIVE, INCARCERATED BIRTH FATHER SO THAT HER NEW HUSBAND COULD ADOPT HIM. THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT REJECTED THAT REQUEST. NO ATTORNEY FEES WERE AT ISSUE. THIS CASE IS NOW COMPLETED. |
| (CONTINUE) | MENDEZ V. CITY OF CHICAGO WE REPRESENT - AS CO-COUNSEL WITH THE LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER IN ILLINOIS - SEVERAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY CHICAGO'S ANTI-HOME-SHARING ORDINANCE, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS REQUIRES PROPERTY OWNERS TO SUBMIT TO SEARCHES OF THEIR PROPERTY AT ANY TIME, AND IN ANY MANNER, WITHOUT A WARRANT. AS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF OUR LAWSUIT (AND OUR SEEKING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION), THE CITY AMENDED PART OF ITS ORDINANCE TO REMOVE ONE OBJECTIONABLE PROVISION. THE REST OF OUR CASE IS PROCEEDING, HOWEVER. THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED IN PART THE CITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE, AND THE TRIAL COURT LITIGATION CONTINUES ON THE REMAINING CLAIM. WE SEEK ATTORNEY FEES, BUT NONE HAVE BEEN AWARDED. NICHOLS V. MIAMI BEACH THIS CASE CHALLENGES MIAMI BEACH'S PROHIBITION ON HOME-SHARING, WHICH CONFLICTS WITH A STATE LAW THAT PROTECTS THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY OWNERS TO ALLOW GUESTS TO STAY IN THEIR HOMES. THE PROHIBITION ALSO IMPOSES EXCESSIVE FINES ON VIOLATORS. THE CASE IS PENDING NOW IN THE TRIAL COURT. WE HAVE NOT BEEN AWARDED ANY FEES, BUT INTEND TO SEEK THEM IF WE PREVAIL. PULLIAM V. CITY OF AUSTIN TWO PROPERTY TAX PAYERS IN AUSTIN, TEXAS CHALLENGE THE PRACTICE OF "RELEASE TIME" UNDER THE ANTI-SUBSIDY PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. "RELEASE TIME" SPENDS TAXPAYER MONEY TO PAY EMPLOYEES WHO WORK EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE UNION. THIS PRACTICE IS AN UNLAWFUL SUBSIDY TO A PRIVATE ENTITY. THE PRIMARY GOAL OF THIS LITIGATION IS TO ELIMINATE RELEASE TIME AND BUILD FAVORABLE ANTI-SUBSIDY CASE LAW IN TEXAS THAT CAN BE USED TO ADDRESS ABUSE OF TAXPAYER FUNDS AND OTHER FORMS OF GOVERNMENT CRONYISM. AFTER COMPLICATED LITIGATION, SOME DEFENDANTS WERE DISMISSED FROM THE CASE, AND THE INSTITUTE WAS ORDERED TO PAY ATTORNEY FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $115,000 AS WELL AS SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000. WE ARE PLANNING AN APPEAL OF THAT ORDER BECAUSE IT MISCONSTRUES THE LAW AND WILL HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON TAXPAYERS WHO WANT TO DEFEND THEIR RIGHTS IN COURT. THE CASE WILL MEANWHILE PROCEED TO LITIGATION. WE ARE SEEKING ATTORNEY FEES BUT NONE HAVE BEEN AWARDED YET. RODGERS V. HUCKELBERRY AS PART OF OUR GIFT CLAUSE LITIGATION PROJECT, THIS LAWSUIT CHALLENGES THE LEGALITY OF A DECISION BY PIMA COUNTY TO SPEND $15 MILLION OF TAXPAYER MONEY TO FUND CONSTRUCTION OF A BALLOON LAUNCH PAD AND COMPANY HEADQUARTERS FOR THE PRIVATE BENEFIT OF WORLD VIEW ENTERPRISES, INC., A PRIVATE COMPANY ENGAGED IN NEAR-SPACE TOURISM. WE CONTEND THAT, BECAUSE THIS SERVES NO PUBLIC PURPOSE AND FAILS TO PROVIDE THE COUNTY WITH AN ADEQUATE RETURN ON ITS INVESTMENT, IT VIOLATES THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION, WHICH PROHIBITS SUBSIDIES TO PRIVATE BUSINESSES. ALSO, BECAUSE THE COUNTY FAILED TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, OR THE LEASING OF THE LAND, THE DEAL IS ALSO ILLEGAL UNDER STATE STATUTES. WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN ONE STAGE OF THE CASE, BUT THAT WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL. IN A SECOND STAGE OF THE CASE, THE TRIAL COURT RULED AGAINST US; THAT IS NOW ON APPEAL. THE THIRD AND FINAL STAGE OF THE CASE IS PROCEEDING IN TRIAL COURT. WE ARE SEEKING ATTORNEY FEES, BUT NONE HAVE YET BEEN AWARDED. ROZENBLIT V. LYLES AS PART OF OUR RELEASE TIME LITIGATION, THIS CASE CHALLENGES THE LEGALITY OF JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY, TEACHERS UNION CONTRACTS, WHICH ALLOW FOR "RELEASE TIME" BY EDUCATORS TO PERFORM UNION BUSINESS ON THE TAXPAYER DIME WITHOUT THE REQUIRED LEGAL CONTROLS IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT A PUBLIC PURPOSE IS BEING SERVED. THE CASE INVOLVES SOME $1.2 MILLION IN RELEASE TIME OVER A 5-YEAR PERIOD, ALL PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS. BECAUSE THE TAXPAYERS RECEIVE LITTLE TO NOTHING IN RETURN, THIS GRANT AND OTHERS LIKE IT REPRESENT A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION'S GIFT CLAUSE. THIS CASE WOULD ALLOW GOLDWATER INSTITUTE TO EXPORT VICTORIES ACHIEVED UNDER ARIZONA'S GIFT CLAUSE BY HELPING TO DEVELOP NEW JERSEY'S GIFT CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE AS THE SAME APPLIES TO UNION "RELEASE TIME." THE TRIAL COURT RULED AGAINST US. THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED. WE ARE SEEKING ATTORNEY FEES, BUT NONE HAVE BEEN AWARDED YET. RENTERIA V. SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS THIS ICWA CASE INVOLVES THREE CHILDREN WHO WERE ORPHANED WHEN THEIR PARENTS WERE KILLED IN A CAR ACCIDENT. TRIBAL OFFICIALS DEMANDED THAT THE CHILDREN BE TURNED OVER TO RELATIVES WHO ARE MEMBERS OF A TRIBE AND LIVE ON TRIBAL LANDS WHERE THE CHILDREN HAVE NEVER LIVED. THE CALIFORNIA TRIAL COURT RULED THAT ICWA APPLIES TO THE CASE, EVEN THOUGH IT DOES NOT INVOLVE THE REMOVAL OF CHILDREN FROM INDIAN PARENTS, AND WE FILED A PETITION ASKING THE SUPREME COURT TO TAKE THE CASE. THAT WAS REJECTED. WE DID NOT SEEK ATTORNEY FEES. THE CASE SETTLED FAVORABLY IN 2018. RIO GRANDE FOUNDATION V. CITY OF SANTA FE THIS LAWSUIT CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO ORDINANCE WHICH REQUIRES NONPROFIT GROUPS TO DISCLOSE THE NAMES AND IDENTITIES OF THEIR SUPPORTERS TO THE CITY IF THE NONPROFIT SPENDS MORE THAN $250 TO OPPOSE A MUNICIPAL BALLOT PROPOSITION. BECAUSE THE RIO GRANDE FOUNDATION POSTED A VIDEO (MADE BY ANOTHER PARTY) ON THEIR FACEBOOK PAGE, THE CITY CONTENDS THAT THE FOUNDATION IS REQUIRED TO TURN OVER THE IDENTITIES OF ALL OF ITS SUPPORTERS TO THE GOVERNMENT. WE CONTEND THAT THIS VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE CASE IS PENDING IN FEDERAL TRIAL COURT. WE ARE SEEKING FEES BUT HAVE NOT YET BEEN AWARDED ANY. SCHIRES V. CITY OF PEORIA AS PART OF OUR GIFT CLAUSE PROJECT, WE BROUGHT THIS CASE TO CHALLENGE THE CITY OF PEORIA'S GIVEAWAY OF MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO A PRIVATE BUSINESS, WHICH PROMISES NOTHING IN RETURN EXCEPT TO DO WHAT IT WOULD HAVE DONE EVEN IF IT HADN'T RECEIVED A SUBSIDY: OPERATE. ARIZONA'S CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES TO PRIVATE COMPANIES WITHOUT ADEQUATE BENEFITS OR ASSURANCES FOR ALL TAXPAYERS IN RETURN. THE TRIAL COURT RULED AGAINST US AND OUR APPEAL IS PENDING. ATTORNEY FEES ARE REQUESTED IN THE COMPLAINT, BUT WE WERE NOT AWARDED ANY. SEATTLE VACATION HOME V. CITY OF SEATTLE SEATTLE IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF HOMEOWNERS TO ALLOW GUESTS TO STAY IN THEIR HOMES FOR MONEY. ON BEHALF OF A SEATTLE PROPERTY OWNER, WE FILED SUIT CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE RESTRICTIONS. THE PARTIES HAVE MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DETERMINE HOW THE COURT SHOULD DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE REGULATION, AND WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME FOR THE COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE RESTRICTION IS RATIONAL. WE ARE AWAITING A DECISION IN THE TRIAL COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED, BUT WE EXPECT TO SEEK THEM IF WE PREVAIL. STANLEY V. BOARD OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH THE ARIZONA BOARD OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH BARRED ANNETTE STANLEY FROM PRACTICING HER TRADE AS A LICENSED THERAPIST, EVEN THOUGH SHE HAD A LICENSE FROM KANSAS, FROM WHENCE SHE RECENTLY MOVED. ALTHOUGH FULLY QUALIFIED UNDER KANSAS LAW, ARIZONA LAW WOULD NOT ALLOW HER LICENSE TO TRANSFER BECAUSE ARIZONA REQUIRES THAT THERAPISTS HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF HOURS OF SUPERVISED PRACTICE BEFORE THEY MAY QUALIFY FOR AN ARIZONA LICENSE. ALTHOUGH MS. STANLEY HAD THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF HOURS, MANY OF THESE HOURS WERE COMPLETED WHILE WORKING FOR A CLINIC IN WHICH SHE HELD AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST, AND THE BOARD'S REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT THE SUPERVISED HOURS BE FOR A CLINIC IN WHICH THE PERSON HAS NO OWNERSHIP INTEREST. WE REPRESENTED MS. STANLEY IN CHALLENGING THIS REQUIREMENT ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT VIOLATES STATE LAW - WHICH BARS AGENCIES FROM ENFORCING LICENSING REQUIREMENTS THAT DO NOT PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. WE REPRESENTED MS. STANLEY AT AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND PREVAILED THERE SO THAT LITIGATION IN COURT WAS NOT NECESSARY. WE WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ATTORNEY FEES. VANGILDER V. PINAL COUNTY THIS CASE CHALLENGES THE LEGALITY OF A TAX ENACTED BY PINAL COUNTY IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW, WHICH REQUIRES THAT TAXES OF THIS SORT BE APPLIED IN A SPECIFIC MANNER. THE COUNTY APPLIED IT IN A DIFFERENT MANNER INSTEAD - WHICH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ADMITS IS ILLEGAL. WE FILED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND THE ARIZONA TAX COURT RULED IN OUR FAVOR. WE SOUGHT ATTORNEY FEES, BUT THAT WAS DENIED. THE CASE IS NOW ON APPEAL. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION A, LINE 2 | PRESIDENT/CEO, VICTOR RICHES AND DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL LITIGATION AND GENERAL COUNSEL, JONATHAN RICHES HAVE A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP. KEY EMPLOYEE, TIMOTHY SANDEFUR AND EVP, CHRISTINA SANDEFUR HAVE A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION A, LINE 6 | THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ARE ALSO MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION A, LINE 7A | NEW DIRECTORS ARE ELECTED BY THE REMAINING BOARD OF DIRECTORS. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11B | AN OUTSIDE ACCOUNTING FIRM PREPARES THE FORM 990 AND IT IS REVIEWED BY THE CEO, CFO, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, AND GENERAL COUNSEL PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR REVIEW. THE MANAGEMENT TEAM ADDRESSES ANY ISSUES RAISED BY THE BOARD BEFORE THE RETURN IS FILED WITH THE IRS. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C | IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTUAL OR POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AN INTERESTED PERSON MUST DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE FINANCIAL INTEREST AND BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTS TO THE DIRECTORS AND MEMBERS OF COMMITTEES WITH GOVERNING BOARD DELEGATED POWERS CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION OR ARRANGEMENT. ANY DIRECTOR, PRINCIPAL OFFICER, OR MEMBER OF A COMMITTEE WITH GOVERNING BOARD DELEGATED POWERS, WHO HAS A DIRECT OR INDIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST IS AN INTERESTED PERSON. AFTER DISCLOSURE OF THE FINANCIAL INTEREST AND ALL MATERIAL FACTS, AND AFTER ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE INTERESTED PERSON, HE/SHE SHALL LEAVE THE GOVERNING BOARD OR COMMITTEE MEETING WHILE THE DETERMINATION OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS DISCUSSED AND VOTED UPON. THE REMAINING BOARD OR COMMITTEE MEMBERS SHALL DISCUSS IF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS. THE ORGANIZATION'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY REQUIRES ANNUAL DISCLOSURE FROM ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS. A STATEMENT IS FILED BY EACH BOARD MEMBER REQUIRING THE DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS AND TO STATE THE RESOLUTION OF THAT CONFLICT, IF ANY. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15 | THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REVIEWED COMPENSATION FOR OFFICERS AND KEY EMPLOYEES BASED ON A REVIEW OF SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS (USING FORM 990). ALL COMPENSATION DECISIONS ARE DOCUMENTED IN THE MINUTES. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 | THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC UPON REQUEST. THE ORGANIZATION'S ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, BY-LAWS, AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |