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 | |||||
| (A)
NFIB INC |
940707299 | 10 | Yes | 0 | 0 | |
|
Total 1
|
0 | 0 | ||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2016 | (b) 2017 | (c) 2018 | (d) 2019 | (e) 2020 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. | ||||||
| 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 | ||||||
| 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).. | ||||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | ||||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2016 | (b) 2017 | (c) 2018 | (d) 2019 | (e) 2020 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | ||||||
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | ||||||
| 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.).. | ||||||
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10 | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2016 | (b) 2017 | (c) 2018 | (d) 2019 | (e) 2020 | (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) 2016 | (b) 2017 | (c) 2018 | (d) 2019 | (e) 2020 | (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 0.015 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 0.035 | 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 | 1 | |
|
2
Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity |
2 | |
| 3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations | 3 | |
| 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets | 4 | |
| 5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required - provide details in Part VI) | 5 | |
| 6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions | 6 | |
| 7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. | 7 | |
|
8
Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions |
8 | |
| 9 Distributable amount for 2020 from Section C, line 6 | 9 | |
| 10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount | 10 | |
| Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) |
(i) Excess Distributions |
(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2020 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2020 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Distributable amount for 2020 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 2020: | ||||
| a From 2015....... | ||||
| b From 2016....... | ||||
| c From 2017....... | ||||
| d From 2018....... | ||||
| e From 2019....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2020 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2015 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from line 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2020 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2020 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from line 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2020, 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 2020. 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 2021. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a Excess from 2016..... | ||||
| b Excess from 2017..... | ||||
| c Excess from 2018..... | ||||
| d Excess from 2019..... | ||||
| e Excess from 2020..... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| PART I, LINE 12G(VI): | NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER PROVIDES A VOICE FOR SMALL BUSINESS IN THE NATION'S COURTS AND IS A LEGAL RESOURCE FOR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS NATIONWIDE. BY SUPPORTING SMALL BUSINESS IN THE NATION'S COURT AND LEGAL SYSTEM, NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER PROVIDES VALUABLE ASSISTANCE TO THE INDIVIDUALS FOR WHICH NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, INC. IS SERVING. |
| PART IV, LINE 3B: | WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF KPMG, LLP, NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER ANNUALLY COMPLETES A PRO-FORMA SCHEDULE A UTILIZING THE FINANCIAL DATA OF NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, INC. ("NFIB") IN ORDER TO CONFIRM THAT NFIB MEETS THE PUBLIC SUPPORT TEST UNDER IRC SEC. 509(A)(2). IN ADDITION, NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER CONFIRMS WITH NFIB THAT IT MAINTAINS A VALID 501(C)(6) DETERMINATION LETTER. |
| PART IV, LINE 3C: | DURING 2020, NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER DID NOT PROVIDE ANY MONETARY SUPPORT TO NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, INC. THEREFORE, NO STEPS WERE NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT ALL SUPPORT WAS USED FOR SECTION 170(C)(2)(B) PURPOSES. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| VOLUNTEERS | FORM 990, PART I, LINE 6 IN 2020, THE NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER USED THE SERVICES OF TWO PRO BONO ATTORNEYS IN WRITING, REVIEWING, AND/OR EDITING AMICUS BRIEFS FOR THE CENTER. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11B | FORM 990 REVIEW PROCESS FOLLOWING AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF ITS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, A DRAFT OF NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER'S FORM 990 IS PREPARED. THIS FORM 990 IS REVIEWED INTERNALLY BY NFIB'S TAX ACCOUNTANT, CONTROLLER/TREASURER, AND CFO. ANY QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE INITIAL REVIEW ARE ADDRESSED TO ENSURE THE RETURN IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE. ANY NECESSARY CHANGES/CORRECTIONS ARE MADE ON THE FORM 990 AND THE RETURN AGAIN GOES THROUGH NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER'S INTERNAL REVIEW PROCESS. UPON APPROVAL OF THE CFO, THE RETURN IS REVIEWED BY THE CHAIR OF THE FINANCE/AUDIT COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. THE FINAL RETURN IS THEN FILED WITH THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C | COMPLIANCE WITH CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY EVERY BOARD MEMBER AND OFFICER OF NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER IS REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE ANY ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15 | PROCESS OF DETERMINING COMPENSATION FOR OFFICERS THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NFIB IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEWING AND RECOMMENDING THE COMPENSATION FOR THE VP/SECRETARY/PARLIAMENTARIAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, CFO, AND TREASURER. THEIR COMPENSATION IS DETERMINED ANNUALLY BY THE NFIB BOARD OF DIRECTORS. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S COMPENSATION IS REVIEWED AND DETERMIND BY NFIB'S PRESIDENT AND IS BASED ON MARKET NORMS. THE ORGANIZATION'S PHILOSOPHY IS FOR EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TO BE COMPETITIVE WITH THE MARKET IN ORDER TO ATTRACT, RETAIN, AND MOTIVATE QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES. ADDITIONALLY, INCENTIVE PAY IS LINKED TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS AND IS COMPETITIVE AND CONSISTENT WITH MARKET NORMS. PERIODICALLY, THE COMMITTEE ENGAGES THE SERVICES OF OUTSIDE CONSULTING FIRMS TO PROVIDE EXPERT INFORMATION REGARDING INDUSTRY-WIDE COMPENSATION NORMS. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 | DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IT IS NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER'S POLICY TO MAKE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION, UPON REQUEST, EITHER WRITTEN OR IN PERSON, ITS GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY, AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. |
| SUMMARY OF LEGAL CASES FOR 2020 | NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER (SBLC) GONZALES V. SAN GABRIEL TRANSPORTATION (1/6/2020) CA SUPREME COURT THE NFIB SBLC FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ARGUING THAT DYNAMEX DECISION ON INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CLASSIFICATION DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY. |
| COMMONWEALTH V. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORP. | (1/9/2020) PA SUPREME COURT THE NFIB SBLC'S AMICUS ARGUED THAT PENNSYLVANIA CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW ONLY PROHIBITS UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE PRACTICES BY SELLERS, NOT IN ANY COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION, AND DOES NOT GIVE THE AG POWER TO PURSUE ANTITRUST CLAIMS. |
| GOOGLE V. FREEDOM WATCH | (2/6/2020) U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE NFIB SBLC'S AMICUS ARGUED THAT THE DC LAWS PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS ONLY APPLIES TO PHYSICAL PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION AND NOT ONLINE PLATFORMS, NOR DOES THE FIRST AMENDMENT APPLY TO PRIVATE COMPANIES. |
| ANGUS V. TRAUBE | (2/7/2020) GA SUPREME COURT THE NFIB SBLC'S AMICUS ARGUED THAT IF A JURY FINDS MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS AT FAULT IN A TORT SUIT, IT MUST APPORTION LIABILITY BASED ON THE ATTRIBUTABLE FAULT OF EACH INDEPENDENT TORTFEASOR. |
| VIOLET DOCK PORT, INC. V. HEAPHY | (2/10/2020) U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT THE NFIB SBLC'S AMICUS ARGUED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY HAS A COGNIZABLE SECTION 1983 CLAIM IN FEDERAL COURT WHERE A STATE AUTHORITY REFUSES TO PAY A STATE-COURT JUDGMENT AND THE STATE COURT JUDGMENT IS A PROTECTED PROPERTY INTEREST UNDER STATE LAW. |
| HEARTLAND ENERGY CO. V. CO | (2/10/2020) CO SUPREME COURT THE NFIB SBLC'S AMICUS ARGUED THAT THE COLORADO LAW REQUIRES A FAIR DETERMINATION OF WHETHER INVESTOR PARTNERS HAVE ENOUGH EXPERIENCE TO OPERATE THE PARTNERSHIP EFFECTIVELY, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT REQUIRE INDUSTRY SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE. |
| BRANCH V. CREAM O-LAND DAIRY | (2/18/2020) NJ SUPREME COURT THE NFIB SBLC'S AMICUS ARGUED THAT EMPLOYERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO RELY ON GUIDANCE BY LOW-LEVEL NJDOL OFFICIALS ACTING AS THE FINAL DECISION MAKER IN AN INVESTIGATION, WHEN ASSERTING THE GOOD-FAITH DEFENSE FOR FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE OR OVERTIME. |
| GRIFFIN V. ABSOLUTE FIRE CONTROL | (3/17/2020) NC SUPREME COURT THE NFIB SBLC'S AMICUS ARGUED THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS MISAPPLIED THE STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR APPEALS FROM THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION AND IMPERMISSIBLY SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROVING A DISABILITY FROM THE PLAINTIFF TO IMPOSING A BURDEN ON THE DEFENDANT TO DISPROVE THE DISABILITY. |
| COFFMAN V. ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL | (4/13/2020) TN SUPREME COURT THE NFIB SBLC FILED A BRIEF WITH THE COURT ON THE ISSUE OF WHEN EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS MAY OWE A DUTY TO WARN END USERS ABOUT ALLEGED HAZARDS IN ASBESTOS-CONTAINING EXTERNAL INSULATION OR REPLACEMENT GASKETS AND PACKING MADE OR SOLD BY THIRD PARTIES AND AFFIXED TO THE EQUIPMENT POST-SALE. THE AMICUS BRIEF PUSHES BACK AGAINST A PERMISSIVE FORESEEABILITY-BASED TEST THAT FOCUSES ON WHETHER THE LATER INCORPORATION OF AN ASBESTOS PRODUCT WAS "REQUIRED" FOR THE PUMP, VALVE, ETC. TO WORK. |
| SAUNDERS V. HULL PROPERTY GROUP | (4/15/2020) NC SUPREME COURT THE NFIB SBLC'S AMICUS DEFENDED NORTH CAROLINA'S 2011 WORKER'S COMPENSATION REFORM ON WORK ELIGIBILITY. |
| YOVINO V. RIZO | (4/27/2020) U.S. SUPREME COURT (CERT PETITION) THE NFIB SBLC'S AMICUS ARGUED THAT THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERRONEOUSLY HELD CONSIDERATION OF "PRIOR SALARY" WAS IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER THE EQUAL PAY ACT AND COULD NOT BE USED IN THE HIRING PROCESS TO SET SALARIES. |
| ORACLE V. DOL | (5/3/2020) U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE NFIB SBLC JOINED AN AMICUS BRIEF ON THE SIDE OF ORACLE IN A CASE AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CHALLENGING AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT REGIME THE AGENCY HAS CREATED FROM WHOLE CLOTH, WITHOUT ANY AUTHORIZATION FROM CONGRESS. THE CHALLENGED REGULATIONS AUTHORIZE DOL TO SUE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS NOT IN FEDERAL COURT, BUT BEFORE IN-HOUSE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES. |
| PAKDEL V. SAN FRANCISCO | (5/18/2020) U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 9TH CIRCUIT THE NFIB SBLC FILED A BRIEF URGING THE COURT TO ADOPT A CONSISTENT STANDARD FOR REVIEWING LEGISLATIVE CONDITIONS REQUIRING DEDICATION OF MONEY (OR OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS) AS A TERM OF A LAND USE PERMIT APPROVAL. |
| AFL-CIO V. OSHA | (5/29/2020) U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NFIB FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)'S CURRENT SAFETY HAZARDS, ARGUING AGAINST THE NEED FOR AN ADDITIONAL COVID-19 EMERGENCY STANDARD ISSUED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. THE BRIEF WAS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE AFL-CIO'S PETITION FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TO ISSUE ADDITIONAL WORKPLACE STANDARDS. |
| IOWA BEVERAGE V. ALCOA, INC. | (6/17/2020) IA SUPREME COURT THE NFIB SBLC FILED A BRIEF ARGUING THAT CLAIMS AGAINST A PREMISE'S OWNER AND INSTALLER OF ASBESTOS PRODUCTS WERE BARRED BY IOWA'S ASBESTOS CODE, WHICH PROVIDES THAT: "A DEFENDANT IN AN ASBESTOS ACTION OR SILICA ACTION SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR EXPOSURES FROM A PRODUCT OR COMPONENT PART MADE OR SOLD BY A THIRD PARTY. |
| SCARNATI V. WOLF | (6/23/2020) PA SUPREME COURT THE NFIB SBLC JOINED AN AMICUS BRIEF THAT CHALLENGED GOVERNOR WOLF'S EMERGENCY DECLARATION. THE BRIEF ARGUED THAT FOLLOWING AN INITIAL EMERGENCY DECLARATION BY THE GOVERNOR, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY WAS AUTHORIZED TO ACT, AND THE GOVERNOR SHOULD END HIS DECLARATION. |
| LENT V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION | (7/20/2020) CA COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION 7 THE NFIB SBLC'S AMICUS BRIEF ARGUED THAT THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION VIOLATED THE PROPERTY OWNERS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS BY FINING THEM $4.185 MILLION FOR BLOCKING PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE BEACH. THE BRIEF ASSERTED THAT THE COMMISSION VIOLATED THE LENT'S FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS AND THE FINE VIOLATES THEIR EIGHTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION FROM EXCESSIVE FINES. |
| CIC SERVICES V. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE | (7/22/2020) U.S. SUPREME COURT THE NFIB SBLC FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF REQUESTING THE COURT CLARIFY THAT THE ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT'S SCOPE IS LIMITED TO ITS TERMS AND THAT IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT PRE-ENFORCEMENT JUDICIAL REVIEW OF TAX RULES. THE CASE PRIMARILY CONCERNS WHETHER THE ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT'S BAR ON LAWSUITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESTRAINING THE ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF TAXES ALSO BARS CHALLENGES TO UNLAWFUL REGULATORY MANDATES ISSUED BY ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES THAT ARE NOT TAXES. |
| THOMPSON V. DEWINE | (7/24/2020) U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT THE NFIB SBLC FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ARGUING THAT OHIO'S ELECTION LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO BALLOT INITIATIVES. THE CASE PRIMARILY CONCERNS WHETHER OHIO'S LEGAL PROCEDURES FOR BALLOT INITIATIVES, WHICH CONTAIN "IN PERSON" COMPONENTS, ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. NFIB ARGUES THAT THE LAWS APPLYING TO BALLOT INITIATIVES ARE NEUTRAL IN THEIR APPLICATION TO ALL OHIOANS AND, THEREFORE, DO NOT VIOLATE ANY PERSON'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. |
| SIERRA CLUB V. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE | (8/3/2020) U.S. SUPREME COURT THE NFIB SBLC FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE SIERRA CLUB AND ARGUED THAT INTER-AGENCY DRAFT DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT BE WITHHELD UNDER EXEMPTION 5 OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. IN MANY CASES, DRAFTS MAY BE THE ONLY WAY TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL REASONING AN AGENCY USED IN DEVELOPING A REGULATION AND OFTEN ARE INSTRUMENTAL IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE REGULATION IS APPROPRIATE. NFIB ARGUED THAT THE COURT SHOULD AFFIRM THE NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION ORDERING DISCLOSURE AND AFFIRM ON THE GROUND THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN DISCLOSURE OUTWEIGHS ANY GOVERNMENTAL SECRECY INTEREST. |
| NIETO V. CLARK'S MARKET, INC. | (8/17/2020) CO SUPREME COURT THE NFIB SBLC FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN A CASE THAT CONCERNS THE COLORADO WAGE CLAIM ACT AND THE PAYMENT OF UNUSED VACATION TIME. NFIB SUPPORTS CLARK'S MARKET, ARGUING THAT THE COLORADO WAGE CLAIM ACT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT EMPLOYERS HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WILL PAY FOR UNUSED VACATION TIME WHEN THE EMPLOYEE LEAVES. |
| DEVEY V. JOHNSON & JOHNSON | (8/17/2020) SC SUPREME COURT THE NFIB SBLC JOINED AN AMICUS BRIEF THAT ARGUED THAT TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING A PERSONAL INJURY CASE TO PROCEED FORWARD AGAINST DEFENDANT J&J WHERE THE PLAINTIFF HAD NO KNOWN EXPOSURES TO ASBESTOS AND A TYPE OF CANCER (PERITONEAL OR "ABDOMINAL" MESOTHELIOMA) THAT TYPICALLY HAS NO KNOWN CAUSE BASED ON THE ASSERTION THAT PLAINTIFF USED JOHNSON'S BABY POWDER. |
| BRIDGE AINA LE'A V. HAWAII LAND USE COMMISSION | (8/21/2020) U.S. SUPREME COURT (CERT PETITION) THE NFIB SBLC JOINED A BRIEF THAT ARGUED THAT IT IS TIME FOR THE COURT TO CONSIDER REVIEWING LUCAS AND PENN CENTRAL AND OFFER CLARIFICATION ON REGULATORY TAKINGS. COURTS AND COMMENTATORS AGREE THAT IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT (SOME SAY IMPOSSIBLE) FOR A PROPERTY OWNER TO RECOVER UNDER CURRENT THEORIES. ALTHOUGH THE SUPREME COURT INSISTS ON REFERRING TO PENN CENTRAL, THE CASE PROVIDES LITTLE GUIDANCE AND NO STABILITY. |
| HEDGES V. PLANNED SECURITY | (8/28/2020) NY SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT NFIB SBLC JOINED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS TO PUSH BACK AGAINST RUNAWAY VERDICTS GENERATED BY PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS WHO ARE SEEKING TO RAISE PAIN AND SUFFERING AWARDS. THIS CASE INVOLVES A MID-FORTIES PLAINTIFF WHO SUSTAINED A SEVERE BRAIN INJURY AFTER SHE WAS STRUCK BY A SHOPPING CART THROWN BY TEENAGERS FROM THE FOURTH STORY OF A MALL PARKING GARAGE. AT TRIAL, HER ATTORNEY ASKED FOR THE OUTSIZED SUM OF $58 MILLION. |
| CEDAR POINT NURSERY V. HASSID | (9/2/2020) U.S. SUPREME COURT (CERT PETITION) THE NFIB SBLC JOINED A COALITION BRIEF THAT SUPPORTED TWO CALIFORNIA GROWERS CHALLENGING THE STATE ALRB UNION ACCESS REGULATION, WHICH REQUIRES GROWERS TO ALLOW UNION ORGANIZERS ACCESS TO THE GROWERS' PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOLICITING SUPPORT FOR THE UNION. THE BRIEF ARGUED THAT THE REGULATION EFFECTIVELY APPROPRIATES AN ACCESS EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF UNION ORGANIZERS, AND THUS IS AN UNCOMPENSATED TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. |
| MORTIMER V. MCCOOL | (9/8/2020) PA SUPREME COURT THE NFIB SBLC FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ARGUING THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW HAS LONG HELD THAT A COURT MAY ONLY "PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL AND HOLD INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS OWNERS PERSONALLY LIABLE IN VERY LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES. |
| PEREZ V. LIVE NATION | (9/8/2020) NY SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT NFIB SBLC JOINED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS TO PUSH BACK AGAINST RUNAWAY VERDICTS GENERATED BY PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS WHO ARE SEEKING TO RAISE PAIN AND SUFFERING AWARDS. |
| RICHARDSON V. 420,771 IN U.S. CURRENCY AND TRAVIS GREEN | (9/9/2020) SC SUPREME COURT THE NFIB SBLC FILED A BRIEF ASKING THE SUPREME COURT TO TAKE A CASE THAT COULD SEVERELY LIMIT THE STATES' ABILITIES TO USE CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE. |
| ALADDIN MANUFACTURING V. WATER WORKS | (9/28/2020) U.S. SUPREME COURT (CERT PETITION) THE NFIB SBLC JOINED AN AMICUS BRIEF THAT URGED THE COURT TO OVERTURN AN ALABAMA SUPREME COURT RULING THAT ADOPTED AN EXPANSIVE "FORESEEABLE EFFECTS" THEORY OF SPECIFIC PERSONAL JURISDICTION, UNDER WHICH A COURT MAY EXERCISE PERSONAL JURISDICTION BASED MERELY ON ALLEGATIONS THAT THE BUSINESS KNEW THAT ITS OUT-OF-STATE CONDUCT COULD HAVE IN-STATE EFFECTS. |
| NICHOLS V. KENTUCKY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION | (9/30/2020) KY SUPREME COURT NFIB SBLC JOINED AN AMICUS BRIEF ARGUING THAT THE COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE COURT OF APPEALS' RULING THAT EMPLOYERS MUST BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AT AN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE HEARING AND THAT AN EMPLOYER'S APPEARANCE WITHOUT COUNSEL CONSTITUTES THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW. |
| MOUNTAIRE FARMS | (10/7/2020) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE NFIB SBLC JOINED A BRIEF THAT ARGUED THE CONTRACT BAR IS UNNECESSARY TO ACHIEVE LABOR RELATIONS STABILITY, AND INSTEAD BELIEVE THAT IN ITS PRESENT FORM THE CONTRACT BAR DOCTRINE SERIOUSLY IMPAIRS EMPLOYEE FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO THE ACT. |
| ERIC V. CITY OF SEATTLE | (9/3/20) U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THE ERISA INDUSTRY COMMITTEE SUED TO STOP A MANDATE TO PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE. THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT AND ERIC APPEALED AND CLAIMED THAT ERISA PREEMPTS THE SEATTLE ORDINANCE. THE NFIB SBLC JOINED A COALITION BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ERIC. |
| SETTELMEYER V. STATE | (9/4/20 & 9/8/20) NV DISTRICT COURT NFIB JOINED A COALITION OF PLAINTIFFS CHALLENGING THE NEVADA LEGISLATURE'S INCREASE IN SPECIFIC REVENUES AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL GIVEN THAT THEY WERE NOT PASSED WITH A 2/3 MAJORITY AS THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES. |
| HUNTRESS V. U.S. | (10/30/2020) U.S. SUPREME COURT (CERT PETITION) THE NFIB SBLC JOINED AN AMICUS BRIEF URGING THE COURT TO RULE AGAINST GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO ABUSED THEIR AUTHORITY BY THREATENING A DEVELOPER WHO REFUSED TO BOW TO THE EPA'S ASSERTED AUTHORITY AND DEMAND FOR MONEY ($2 MILLION IN EXCHANGE FOR THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP). |
| WISCONSIN MANUFACTURERS & COMMERCE V. EVERS | (11/4/2020) WI CIRCUIT COURT THE NFIB SBLC FILED A LETTER BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE WI RULE THAT WOULD PROVIDE THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WITH AUTHORITY TO RELEASE POSITIVE EMPLOYEE TESTS AT BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS. |
| LOGAN INDUSTRIES V. CARGOTECH | (11/20/2020) TX SUPREME COURT THE NFIB SBLC FILED AN AMICUS LETTER THAT URGED THE COURT TO REVIEW A LOWER COURT DECISION THAT CREATED AN EXCEEDINGLY HIGH BAR FOR PROVING BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS IN A BUSINESS CONTEXT. |
| NRF ET AL. V. CAL OSHA | (12/16/2020) CA DISTRICT COURT NFIB JOINED OTHER BUSINESS GROUPS IN CHALLENGING CALIFORNIA OSHA'S PROMULGATION OF EMERGENCY COVID-19 REGULATIONS AS AN APA VIOLATION, EXCEEDING ITS JURISDICTION, AND A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS. |
| REDISH V. ADLER | (12/27/2020) NY SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT NFIB SBLC JOINED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS TO PUSH BACK AGAINST RUNAWAY VERDICTS GENERATED BY PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS WHO ARE SEEKING TO RAISE PAIN AND SUFFERING AWARDS. |
| INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 150 | (12/28/2020) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD NFIB SBLC JOINED AN AMICUS BRIEF ARGUING THAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO ADOPT A STANDARD THAT PROHIBITS EXHIBITION OF INFLATABLE AND DEAD RATS AS A FORM OF SECONDARY BOYCOTT. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |