Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Go to
www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and 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) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. | 4,318,258 | 6,089,299 | 6,283,551 | 5,131,175 | 5,504,863 | 27,327,146 |
| 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 | 4,318,258 | 6,089,299 | 6,283,551 | 5,131,175 | 5,504,863 | 27,327,146 |
| 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).. | 2,217,908 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 25,109,238 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 4,318,258 | 6,089,299 | 6,283,551 | 5,131,175 | 5,504,863 | 27,327,146 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 61,911 | 40,494 | 103,111 | 107,127 | 99,229 | 411,872 |
| 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.).. | 1,626 | 10,746 | 134 | 694 | 13,200 | |
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10 | 27,752,218 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (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) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (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 2019 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-2019 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2019 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Distributable amount for 2019 from Section C, line 6 | ||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2019 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI). See instructions. |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2019: | ||||
| a From 2014....... | ||||
| b From 2015....... | ||||
| c From 2016....... | ||||
| d From 2017....... | ||||
| e From 2018....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2019 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2014 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2019 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2019 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2019, 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 2019. 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 2020. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a Excess from 2015..... | ||||
| b Excess from 2016..... | ||||
| c Excess from 2017..... | ||||
| d Excess from 2018..... | ||||
| e Excess from 2019..... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| SCHEDULE A, PART II, LINE 10, EXPLANATION OF OTHER INCOME: | OTHER INCOME - 2015 AMOUNT: $ 1,626. 2016 AMOUNT: $ 10,746. 2018 AMOUNT: $ 134. 2019 AMOUNT: $ 694. |
| 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 FEEL 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. STATE OF OREGON WE REPRESENT THE OWNER OF AN OREGON VAPE-SHOP WHOSE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED BY STRINGENT LABELING REQUIREMENTS ON VAPING LIQUIDS THAT PROHIBIT SELLERS FROM ACCURATELY LABELING THE FLAVORED LIQUIDS THEY SELL WITH WORDS SUCH AS "STRAWBERRY OR "FRUIT-FLAVORED, OR FROM INCLUDING PICTURES OF STRAWBERRIES OR FRUIT. WE CONTEND THAT THIS VIOLATES BOTH THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE STATE CONSTITUTION. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING IN TRIAL COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. BOUDREAUX V. LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSN. THIS CASE CHALLENGES A LOUISIANA LAW THAT REQUIRES ALL ATTORNEYS WHO PRACTICE IN THE STATE TO BE MEMBERS OF AND PAY DUES TO THE LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION. THE LSBA USES MEMBERS' MANDATORY DUES TO LOBBY FOR VARIOUS POLICIES, MANY OF WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRACTICE OF LAW, IN VIOLATION OF MEMBERS' FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THE LSBA ALSO LACKS SAFEGUARDS REQUIRED BY EXISTING SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT TO ENSURE THAT MEMBER DUES ARE ONLY USED FOR ACTIVITIES GERMANE TO IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LEGAL SERVICES AND REGULATING THE PRACTICE OF LAW. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING IN THE COURT OF APPEALS. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. 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 THIS CASE CHALLENGES AN OREGON LAW THAT REQUIRES ALL ATTORNEYS WHO PRACTICE IN THE STATE TO BE MEMBERS OF AND PAY DUES TO THE OREGON STATE BAR. THE BAR USES THESE DUES TO ENGAGE IN POLITICS AND TO PUBLISH A MAGAZINE WHICH MAKES POLITICAL STATEMENTS WITH WHICH MEMBERS DO NOT NECESSARILY AGREE. OUR CLIENTS REQUESTED REFUNDS OF DUES SPENT UNLAWFULLY, AND EACH RECEIVED A CHECK FOR $1.15, BUT IT IS NOT APPARENT HOW THE OSB CALCULATED THIS AMOUNT. LATER, WHEN CROWE POSTED AN IMAGE OF HIS CHECK ON TWITTER, HE RECEIVED A CEASE-AND-DESIST LETTER FROM THE OSB'S GENERAL COUNSEL CLAIMING THAT HE WAS EXPOSING THE OSB TO "INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL FRAUD." CROWE BELIEVES THE OSB RETALIATED AGAINST HIM IN OTHER WAYS. THE CASE RAISES FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION ISSUES. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING IN THE COURT OF APPEALS. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. COLORADO UNION OF TAXPAYERS V. DENVER DENVER REQUIRES NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS TO DISCLOSE PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR DONORS TO THE GOVERNMENT WHENEVER THOSE GROUPS COMMUNICATE WITH VOTERS ABOUT MUNICIPAL BALLOT QUESTIONS. THE DENVER ORDINANCE APPLIES TO GROUPS THAT SPEND MORE THAN $500 "SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING ONE OR MORE BALLOT ISSUES OR BALLOT QUESTIONS." WHETHER A DONOR AGREES WITH THE BALLOT ISSUE OR NOT, ANYONE GIVING $50 OR MORE, "INCLUDING IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS," WILL HAVE HIS OR HER NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDED IN A REPORT TO THE CITY. ANYONE GIVING $200 OR MORE WILL ADDITIONALLY HAVE THEIR OCCUPATION AND EMPLOYER HANDED OVER. WE CONTEND THAT THIS VIOLATES THE FREE SPEECH GUARANTEES OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS. WE WILL SOON BE PETITIONING THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT LEGAL INST. V. ABOR WE ARE ASSISTING THE ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT LEGAL INSTITUTE AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THEIR CASE REGARDING DEFICIENCIES IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST. ON DECEMBER 7, 2011, ATI, A NON-PROFIT RESEARCH AND PUBLIC POLICY ORGANIZATION REQUESTED A SERIES OF E-MAILS TO AND FROM PROFESSORS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA AND OTHER UNIVERSITIES REQUESTING INFORMATION PERTAINING TO "CLIMATEGATE." AFTER A SERIES OF UNSUCCESSFUL COMMUNICATIONS, THE PROFESSORS INVOLVED AND UNIVERSITY PERSONNEL REFUSED TO PROVIDE SEVERAL REQUESTED RECORDS, OR ASSERTED PUBLIC RECORDS EXEMPTIONS THAT WERE INAPPLICABLE TO THE RECORDS REQUEST. THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE IS ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL FOR ATI ATTORNEYS IN VIRGINIA IN A SPECIAL ACTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE RECORDS. ATI ATTORNEYS WERE SUCCESSFUL, AND SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES, BUT GOLDWATER INSTITUTE DID NOT SEEK AND WAS NOT AWARDED ATTORNEY FEES. ENGLEHORN V. CITY OF PHOENIX THE CITY OF PHOENIX IS PROVIDING A SUBSTANTIAL TAX SUBSIDY TO THE DEVELOPER OF A 19-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING IN PHOENIX UNDER THE "GOVERNMENT PROPERTY LEASE EXCISE TAX." AS A RESULT OF THE PREFERENTIAL TAX TREATMENT, OTHER TAXPAYERS WILL MAKE UP THE DEFICIENCY. WE ARE CHALLENGING THIS SUBSIDY UNDER PROVISIONS IN THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS STATUTORY LIMITS ON GPLET AND COMPETITIVE-BIDDING REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CITY DID NOT FOLLOW. WE WON THIS CASE WHEN THE TRIAL COURT RULED THAT THE SUBSIDY VIOLATES THE GIFT CLAUSE. THE TRIAL COURT AWARDED PLAINTIFFS $50,000 IN ATTORNEY FEES. FISHER V. COOK THIS STEP-PARENT ADOPTION CASE IS PART OF OUR EQUAL PROTECTION FOR INDIAN CHILDREN PROJECT. IT INVOLVES THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT. WE SOUGHT A COURT ORDER PROHIBITING THE APPLICATION OF ICWA IN STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS. THAT WAS DENIED, NECESSITATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE. NO FEES WERE AWARDED. FLECK V. WETCH THIS CASE CHALLENGED NORTH DAKOTA'S LAW REQUIRING LAWYERS TO JOIN AND PAY DUES TO THE STATE BAR. WE ARGUED THAT THIS VIOLATED OUR CLIENT'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. AFTER THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED JANUS V. AFSCME, WHICH REQUIRED COURTS TO CONSIDER FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION IN SUCH CASES, WE ARGUED THAT THE JANUS PRECEDENT SHOULD APPLY TO THIS CASE. THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DISAGREED, AND THE SUPREME COURT DENIED REVIEW. WE THEREUPON CLOSED THE CASE. NO FEES WERE AWARDED. GANDOLFO V. AZ BOARD OF PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINERS CAROL GANDOLFO IS A LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST IN CALIFORNIA. IN 2007, SHE MOVED TO SEDONA. IN 2010, SHE APPLIED FOR LICENSURE AS A PSYCHOLOGIST IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA. THAT APPLICATION WAS DENIED BECAUSE THE SCHOOL AT WHICH SHE RECEIVED HER DEGREE WAS NOT REGIONALLY ACCREDITED; INSTEAD, IT WAS ACCREDITED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AFTER ARIZONA'S UNIVERSAL RECOGNITION LAW WENT INTO EFFECT, SHE REAPPLIED UNDER THE NEW LAW. DR. GANDOLFO WAS INITIALLY DENIED A LICENSE, BUT AFTER THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE REPRESENTED HER IN ADMINTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD, HER LICENSE WAS AWARDED. THE BOARD SEPARATELY BROUGHT AN ALLEGATION OF "UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE" AGAINST CAROL. THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE IS REPRESENTING CAROL BEFORE THE BOARD ON THAT ISSUE AS WELL. THE MATTER IS STILL PENDING. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. |
| (CONTINUE) | GILMORE V. GALLEGO THIS CASE IS A CHALLENGE TO RELEASE TIME IN A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PHOENIX AND AFSCME UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION'S RIGHT TO WORK PROVISION, AND ARIZONA'S RIGHT TO WORK STATUTES. UNDER RELEASE TIME, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ARE "RELEASED" FROM THE JOBS THEY WERE HIRED TO PERFORM TO WORK EXCLUSIVELY FOR GOVERNMENT UNIONS - WHILE RECEIVING TAXPAYER-FUNDED SALARIES AND BENEFITS. WHILE ON RELEASE TIME, GOVERNMENT WORKERS ARE PAID TO INCREASE UNION MEMBERSHIP, ENGAGE IN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, LOBBY THE GOVERNMENT, FILE GRIEVANCES AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYER, AND NEGOTIATE FOR HIGHER WAGES AND BENEFITS, AMONG OTHER THINGS. RELEASE TIME IS "PART OF TOTAL COMPENSATION" TO ALL EMPLOYEES, WHETHER THEY BELONG TO THE UNION OR NOT. AS SUCH, NON-UNION MEMBERS MUST PROVIDE AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT BEFORE ANY PORTION OF THEIR WAGES ARE DIRECTED TO RELEASE TIME. IN THIS CASE, WE ARE REPRESENTING TWO NON-UNION MEMBERS WHO OBJECT TO HAVING THEIR WAGES GO TO SUPPORT THIS PRACTICE. THE CASE IS PENDING IN TRIAL COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. GI V. US HHS GOLDWATER SUBMITTED A FOIA REQUEST TO THE FDA SEEKING RECORDS REGARDING THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE FDA APPROVED USE OF THE DRUG, ZMAPP, FOR INDIVIDUALS INFECTED WITH THE EBOLA VIRUS. THE FDA DENIED THE REQUEST, CLAIMING THAT THE RECORDS WERE "TRADE SECRETS OR CONFIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INFORMATION NOT COVERED BY FOIA. THE TRIAL COURT ORDERED THE FDA TO PRODUCE A DETAILED LOG OF THE RECORDS IT WITHHELD, AS WELL AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR WITHHOLDING THOSE RECORDS, BUT AFTER IT DID SO, THE FDA AGAIN WITHHELD THE RECORDS, THIS TIME UNDER A NEW LEGAL THEORY, AND THE TRAIL COURT RULED IN ITS FAVOR. WE APPEALED TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND WON A REVERSAL. THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE SETTLED FOR $10,000 IN ATTORNEY FEES FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APPEAL. NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE GOVERNMENT OVER A SETTLEMENT RELATING TO FEES IN THE DISTRICT COURT ARE UNDERWAY AT THIS TIME. HALLFORD V. ADE ARIZONA'S EMPOWERMENT SCHOLARSHIP ACCOUNT (ESA) PROGRAM WAS DESIGNED TO GIVE PARENTS CHOICES FOR EDUCATING THEIR CHILDREN. THE PROGRAM ALLOWS PARTICIPATING FAMILIES - INCLUDING THOSE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS KIDS AND PARENTS LIVING ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS - TO SEND THEIR KIDS TO A SCHOOL THAT BEST FITS THEIR CHILDREN'S NEEDS, USING THE MONEY THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE SPENT ON THEIR EDUCATION AT A GOVERNMENT-RUN SCHOOL. THIS ALLOWS PARENTS TO ENSURE THAT THEIR KIDS RECEIVE THE SPECIALLY TAILORED SERVICES THEY NEED. UNFORTUNATELY, THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S (ADE) MANAGEMENT OF THE PROGRAM POSES A SEVERE OBSTACLE TO FAMILIES WHO SEEK TO PARTICIPATE. ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL ARIZONA FAMILIES, THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE HAS FILED SUIT AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT SEEKING A COURT ORDER BARRING THE DEPARTMENT FROM CONTINUING ITS UNLAWFUL PRACTICES. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING IN TRIAL COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. HOBBS V. PACIFIC GROVE PACIFIC GROVE, A SMALL COASTAL CITY IN MONTEREY COUNTY WHERE HOME-SHARING - RENTING A ROOM OR A PRIVATE HOME FROM A HOMEOWNER - IS ESPECIALLY POPULAR, DECIDED TO LITERALLY RAFFLE OFF THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ITS RESIDENTS VIA A LOTTERY. WINNERS - ONLY 15 PERCENT OF PACIFIC GROVE PROPERTIES PER ZONE - GET TO KEEP CONDUCTING SHORT-TERM RENTALS. BUT DOZENS OF OTHER HOMEOWNERS SUDDENLY AND UNFAIRLY LOST THE RIGHT TO RENT THEIR HOMES TO GENERATE INCOME THAT HELPS THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES. AND BECAUSE THE LOTTERY WAS RANDOM, OWNERS WHO WITH NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS WERE ALLOWED TO KEEP THEIR PERMITS, WHILE RESPONSIBLE HOMEOWNERS WERE NOT. WE CHALLENGED THE CITY'S ACTIONS UNDER THE STATE'S COASTAL ACT AND THE CONSTITUTION'S DUE PROCESS PROVISIONS. THE TRIAL COURT RULED IN OUR FAVOR ON THE COASTAL ACT CLAIM AND ORDERED TRIAL ON THE REMAINING CLAIMS. WE FILED AN APPEAL. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. IN RE CJ JR. C.J. HAS BEEN A FOSTER CHILD OF THE BX'S FOR OVER 2 YEARS. HE WAS BORN IN OHIO AND HAS LIVED THERE HIS ENTIRE LIFE. THE GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, HOWEVER, OBTAINED AN ORDER FROM ITS OWN COURT ORDERING THAT HE BE SENT TO LIVE WITH STRANGERS ON THE COMMUNITY'S RESERVATION IN PHOENIX, SIMPLY BECAUSE HE QUALIFIES AS "INDIAN" UNDER THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT. REPRESENTING THE CHILD'S GUARDIAN AD LITEM, WE SUED, CHALLENGING THE TRANSFER AND OTHER APPLICATIONS OF THE ACT. THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS RULED IN OUR FAVOR AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT, WHERE PROCEEDINGS ARE UNDERWAY. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. MENDEZ V. CHICAGO THE RISE OF THE "SHARING ECONOMY" HAS OPENED NEW DOORS OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY NATIONWIDE. AMONG THE MOST IMPORTANT ARE "HOME-SHARING" SERVICES LIKE AIRBNB, THAT CONNECT TRAVELERS WITH HOMEOWNERS SEEKING TO RENT OUT ROOMS IN THEIR HOMES. BUT MANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS HAVE RESPONDED BY BANNING HOME-SHARING OR IMPOSING RULES THAT UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE RIGHTS OF HOME-SHARERS. CHICAGO IMPOSED A RULE WHERE A NEW 58-PAGE ORDINANCE LEVIES A $10,000 LICENSING FEE ON RENTAL PLATFORMS LIKE AIRBNB AND REQUIRES HOME SHARERS TO OPEN THEIR HOMES TO CITY INSPECTORS "AT ANY TIME AND IN ANY MANNER." ANOTHER PROVISION REQUIRES PROPERTY OWNERS TO HAND OVER ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION THE CITY CONSIDERS "REASONABLY REQUIRE[D]" TO ISSUE THE LICENSE. STILL ANOTHER PROVISION REQUIRES HOMEOWNERS TO COMPLY WITH SANITATION STANDARDS LIKE THOSE IMPOSED ON COMMERCIAL KITCHENS, EVEN THOUGH HOME-SHARERS DON'T PREPARE MEALS FOR GUESTS. WE WERE SUCCESSFUL ON GETTING THE CITY TO CHANGE ITS ANTI-PRIVACY RULES, AND WE ARE CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE REMAINDER OF THE ORDINANCE ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING IN TRIAL COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. NICHOLS V. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH MIAMI BEACH HAS BEEN VIOLATING HOMEOWNERS' PROPERTY RIGHTS BY IMPOSING EXCESSIVE PENALTIES FOR HOME-SHARING. MIAMI BEACH IS HOME TO SOME OF THE MOST EXTREME ANTI-HOME-SHARING RULES IN THE COUNTRY. THE CITY IMPOSES FINES OF UP TO $100,000 PER VIOLATION ON HOME-SHARERS WHO RENT OUTSIDE OF A NARROW ZONE WHERE RENTALS ARE ALLOWED. WE FILED SUIT ARGUING THAT THIS VIOLATES THE STATE CONSTITUTION'S PROHIBITION ON EXCESSIVE FINES. THE TRIAL COURT RULED IN OUR FAVOR, AND COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THAT RULING. PULLIAM V. CITY OF AUSTIN PROPERTY TAXPAYERS IN AUSTIN, TEXAS CHALLENGE THE PRACTICE OF RELEASE TIME BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THE AUSTIN FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION UNDER THE ANTI-SUBSIDY PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. UNDER THE PRACTICE OF RELEASE TIME, FIRST RESPONDERS IN AUSTIN ARE "RELEASED" FROM THEIR JOBS TO EXCLUSIVELY WORK 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. THE TRIAL COURT AWARDED THE AFA $115,250 IN ATTORNEY FEES. RIO GRANDE FOUNDATION V. CITY OF SANTA FE THIS LAWSUIT CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A SANTA FE, NM, ORDINANCE WHICH REQUIRES DISCLOSURE TO THE CITY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT DONORS IF SPENDING MORE THAN $250 TO OPPOSE A MUNICIPAL BALLOT PROPOSITION. WE ARGUE THAT IT VIOLATES THE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT WISH TO SPEAK OUT ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC DEBATE WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO TURN OVER THE PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OF THEIR SUPPORTERS TO THE GOVERNMENT. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. RODGERS V. HUCKELBERRY PIMA COUNTY DEVOTED $15 MILLION OF TAXPAYER MONEY TO FUND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BALLOON LAUNCH PAD AND COMPANY HEADQUARTERS FOR THE PRIVATE BENEFIT OF WORLD VIEW ENTERPRISES, INC. THE COUNTY BUILT THE PROJECT USING ITS PRE-CHOSEN CONTRACTORS RATHER THAN BIDDING OUT THE WORK AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. BECAUSE THIS AGREEMENT SERVES NO PUBLIC PURPOSE AND FAILS TO PROVIDE THE COUNTY WITH AN ADEQUATE RETURN ON ITS INVESTMENT, IT VIOLATES THE GIFT CLAUSE OF THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION, WHICH PROHIBITS GOVERNMENT LOANS AND SUBSIDIES TO PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. SEVERAL ISSUES HAVE BEEN APPEALED, BUT THE GIFT CLAUSE CLAIM IS STILL PENDING IN TRIAL COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. |
| (CONTINUE) | ROZENBLIT V. LYLES TEACHERS UNIONS IN NEW JERSEY, AS ELSEWHERE, HAVE NEGOTIATED SWEETHEART DEALS IN LABOR CONTRACTS THAT ALLOW FOR "RELEASE TIME" BY EDUCATORS TO PERFORM UNION BUSINESS ON THE TAXPAYER DIME WITHOUT ADEQUATE CONTROLS IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT A PUBLIC PURPOSE IS BEING SERVED. 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. WE SUED, ARGUING THAT RELEASE TIME VIOLATES THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION'S GIFT CLAUSE. THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED IN OUR FAVOR ON THE GROUNDS THAT RELEASE TIME PROVISIONS ARE NOT WITHIN THE STATUTORY BARGAINING AUTHORITY OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS. THE CASE HAS NOW BEEN APPEALED TO THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. SCHELL V. GURICH THIS CASE CHALLENGES OKLAHOMA LAWS THAT REQUIRE LAWYERS TO JOIN AND PAY DUES TO THE STATE'S BAR ASSOCIATION. THE OBA USES THIS MONEY TO LOBBY THE GOVERNMENT AND TAKE POLITICAL POSITIONS ON MATTERS WITH WHICH MEMBERS DO NOT NECESSARILY AGREE. THE OBA DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE ADEQUATE PROCEDURES TO ENSURE THAT MEMBER DUES ARE NOT USED FOR NON-GERMANE POLITICAL SPEECH. WE FILED SUIT ARGUING THAT THIS VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS OF SPEECH AND OF ASSOCIATION. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. SCHIRES V. CITY OF PEORIA THE CITY OF PEORIA IS PROVIDING A SUBSIDY TO A PRIVATE UNIVERSITY TO MERELY LOCATE ITS OPERATIONS WITHIN THE CITY. ARIZONA'S CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES TO PRIVATE COMPANIES WITHOUT ADEQUATE BENEFITS OR ASSURANCES FOR TAXPAYERS IN RETURN. THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD, THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN PAY COMPANIES TO LOCATE IN A CITY AS A MEANS OF IMPROVING THE LOCAL ECONOMY. WE HAVE ASKED THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT TO TAKE THE CASE. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. SEATTLE VACATION HOME V. CITY OF SEATTLE SEATTLE IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF HOMEOWNERS TO ALLOW OTHERS 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 MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DETERMINE HOW THE COURT SHOULD DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE REGULATION AND WHETHER IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE RESTRICTION IS RATIONAL AT THAT STAGE. DUE TO LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN A RELATED CASE, WE WERE FORCED TO DISMISS THIS LAWSUIT. NO FEES WERE AWARDED. VANGILDER V. PINAL COUNTY IN NOVEMBER 2017, PINAL COUNTY ADOPTED A NEW "TRANSPORTATION EXCISE TAX" TO PAY FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. BUT THE TAX APPLIED ONLY TO RETAIL SALES OF ITEMS BELOW $10,000. ARIZONA LAW SPECIFIES WHAT MUST BE TAXED AND IN WHAT AMOUNTS WHEN A COUNTY CREATES A TRANSPORTATION EXCISE TAX; THUS THIS TAX IS UNLAWFUL. THE COUNTY LATER ASKED STATE TAX OFFICIALS TO FOLLOW, NOT THE LANGUAGE IN THE ACTUAL BALLOT, BUT THE LANGUAGE IN THE BALLOT PAMPHLET, WHICH APPLIED THE TAX TO THINGS OTHER THAN RETAIL SALES (ALTHOUGH IT STILL INCLUDED THE $10,000 CARVE OUT). WE FILED SUIT CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF THE TAX ON THESE GROUNDS AND ALSO ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE TAX VIOLATES THE STATE CONSTITUTION'S REQUIREMENT OF UNIFORMITY AND ITS PROHIBITION ON SPECIAL LAWS. PLAINTIFFS WON IN THE TRIAL COURT BUT LOST IN THE COURT OF APPEALS. WE HAVE PETITIONED THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. WALTON V. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WE REPRESENTED A FAMILY WHICH HAD BEEN WRONGLY ORDERED TO PAY THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR "MISSPENDING" FUNDS UNDER THE EMPOWERMENT SCHOLARSHIP ACCOUNT PROGRAM. AFTER NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT, A MUTUAL SETTLEMENT WAS ARRANGED. THE DISPUTE WAS NEVER FILED IN COURT. |
| 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 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE INSTITUTE'S WEBSITE. THE ORGANIZATION'S ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, BY-LAWS, AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. |
| FORM 990, PART IX, LINE 11G | CONTRACT LABOR: PROGRAM SERVICE EXPENSES 41,477. MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL EXPENSES 109,373. FUNDRAISING EXPENSES 235,665. TOTAL EXPENSES 386,515. LITIGATION FEES: PROGRAM SERVICE EXPENSES 258,990. MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL EXPENSES 0. FUNDRAISING EXPENSES 0. TOTAL EXPENSES 258,990. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |