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) 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.") .. | 6,089,299 | 6,283,551 | 5,131,175 | 5,504,863 | 5,948,844 | 28,957,732 |
| 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 | 6,089,299 | 6,283,551 | 5,131,175 | 5,504,863 | 5,948,844 | 28,957,732 |
| 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).. | 2,017,141 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 26,940,591 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2016 | (b) 2017 | (c) 2018 | (d) 2019 | (e) 2020 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 6,089,299 | 6,283,551 | 5,131,175 | 5,504,863 | 5,948,844 | 28,957,732 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 40,494 | 103,111 | 107,127 | 99,229 | 55,008 | 404,969 |
| 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.).. | 10,746 | 134 | 694 | 35,361 | 46,935 | |
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10 | 29,409,636 | |||||
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 |
|---|---|
| SCHEDULE A, PART II, LINE 10, EXPLANATION OF OTHER INCOME: | OTHER INCOME - 2016 AMOUNT: $ 10,746. 2018 AMOUNT: $ 134. 2019 AMOUNT: $ 694. 2020 AMOUNT: $ 361. NON REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT - 2020 AMOUNT: $ 35,000. |
| 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 | 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. BORGELT V. CITY OF AUSTIN (FORMERLY 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 GOVERNMENT 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 PAID RELEASE TIME AND BUILD FAVORABLE ANTI-SUBSIDY CASE LAW IN TEXAS. THE CASE IS ON APPEAL. 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. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS V. ONE 2011 INFINITI G37 AS PART OF OUR ASSET FORFEITURE PROJECT, THE INSTITUTE IS REPRESENTING MALINDA HARRIS, WHOSE CAR WAS SEIZED BY STATE POLICE DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE HAS NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH OR CONVICTED OF A CRIME. AFTER LENGTHY NEGOTIATIONS THE STATE AGREED TO RETURN THE CAR AS WELL AS TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN CASH THAT THE STATE HAD UNJUSTIFIABLY SEIZED FROM HER CHILDREN. NO ATTORNEY FEES WERE SOUGHT OR AWARDED. CROWE V. STATE BAR OF OREGON WE REPRESENT SEVERAL ATTORNEYS WHO OBJECT TO STATE LAWS THAT FORCE THEM TO JOIN AND TO SUBSIDIZE THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION WHICH SPENDS THEIR ANNUAL DUES ON LOBBYING AND POLITICAL STATEMENTS WITH WHICH THEY DISAGREE. WE CONTEND THAT THIS VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION. THE NINTH CIRCUIT RULED PARTIALLY IN FAVOR OF OUR CLIENTS, AND PARTIALLY AGAINST THEM, AND WE ARE NOW ASKING THE SUPREME COURT TO TAKE THE CASE. NO FEES HAVE YET BEEN AWARDED. ENGLEHORN V. CITY OF PHOENIX THE CITY OF PHOENIX PROVIDED 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 THIS PREFERENTIAL TAX TREATMENT, OTHER TAXPAYERS WERE FORCED TO MAKE UP THE DEFICIENCY. WE ARE CHALLENGING THIS SUBSIDY UNDER PROVISIONS IN THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS STATUTORY LIMITS ON GPLET 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. FANN V. STATE OF ARIZONA THIS CASE CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ARIZONA BALLOT INITAITIVE THAT IMPOSES A MASSIVE TAX INCREASE ON ARIZONANS WITHOUT OBTAINING THE CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED LEGISALTIVE VOTE, AND MANDATES SPENDING IN WAYS THAT VIOLATE THE STATE CONSTITUTION'S SPENDING LIMITATIONS. REPRESENTING A COALITION OF TAXPAYERS, BUSINESS AND LEGISLATIVE LEADERS, THE INSTITUTE ARGUES THAT THE INITIATIVE VIOLATES SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING, AND NO ATTORNEY FEES HAVE BEEN 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 HAS BEEN A LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST IN CALIFORNIA FOR 20 YEARS. SHE RELOCATED TO ARIZONA SEVERAL YEARS AGO. AFTER HER RELOCATION, ARIZONA PASSED A UNIVERSAL LICENSING RECOGNITION LAW THAT REQUIRES ARIZONA LICENSING AUTHORITIES TO RECOGNIZE OUT-OF-STATE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES. HOWEVER, WHEN SHE APPLIED FOR LICENSURE UNDER THE NEW LAW, DR. GANDOLFO WAS DENIED A LICENSE BASED ON REQUIREMENTS THAT DID NOT EXIST IN THE LAW. 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". THE INSTITUTE REPRESENTEED DR. GANDOLFO BEFORE THE BOARD ON THAT ISSUE AS WELL, AND PREVAILED WHEN THE BOARD WITHDREW THE COMPLAINT. THE CASE WAS CLOSED AND NO FEES WERE SOUGHT OR AWARDED GARCIA V. SCOTTSDALE WE REPRESENTED LUIS GARCIA, WHO HAD $5,300 IN CASH SEIZED FROM HIM BY SCOTTSDALE POLICE OFFICERS UNDER ASSET FOREFITURE, DESPITE HIS NOT BEING CHARGED WITH OR CONVICTED OF A CRIME. WE FILED A DEMAND FOR THE RETURN OF THE CASH. THE CITY RETURNED THE MONEY WITHOUT OUR HAVING TO APPEAR IN COURT. NO FEES WERE SOUGHT OR AWARDED. 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 ARIZONA CONSTITUTION'S FREE EXPRESSION AND ASSOCIATION PROVISIONS AND RIGHT TO WORK LAWS. 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 UNIT 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 NON-UNION MEMBERS WHO OBJECT TO HAVING THEIR WAGES GO TO SUPPORT UNION ACTIVITIES PERFORMED WHILE ON RELEASE TIME. THE CASE IS PENDING IN TRIAL COURT. THOUGH SOUGHT, 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 EXEMPTED FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER THE 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 ON THE CRUCIAL LEGAL QUESTION. THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE SETTLED FOR A TOTAL OF $35,000 IN ATTORNEY FEES FOR LITIGATION AT THE APPELLATE AND TRIAL LEVELS. 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 COURT RULED AGAINST OUR CLIENTS AND ORDERED THEM TO PAY ATTORNEY FEES. HOWEVER, ADE AGREED TO A SETTLMENT IN WHICH IT WAIVED THESE FEES. |
| HOBBS V. PACIFIC GROVE | PACIFIC GROVE, A SMALL COASTAL CITY IN CALIFORNIA 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, WHICH IS STILL PENDING. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. MAXWELL V. VOLUSIA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT TYLER MAXWELL WAS A HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR WHO SHOWED HIS PREFERENCE IN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BY DRIVING TO SCHOOL IN A PICKUP TRUCK WITH A LARGE PLASTER ELEPHANT IN THE BACK PAINTED WITH THE NAME "TRUMP." THE SCHOOL DISTRICT REVOKED HIS PARKING PERMIT AND TOLD HIM HE WAS NOT TO COME TO SCHOOL IF HE REFUSED TO REMOVE THE ELEPHANT FROM HIS TRUCK, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SCHOOL ALLOWED STUDENTS TO EXPRESS OTHER POLITICAL MESSAGES (BY, FOR EXAMPLE, WEARING T SHIRTS OR HAVING BUMPER STICKERS ON THEIR CARS). WE SUED ON MAXWELL'S BEHALF, AND SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL, WHICH WAS GRANTED. THE PARTIES THEN ENTERED A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH THE DISTRICT PAID ATTORNEY FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $32,000. MCBRIDE V. PIMA COUNTY THE PIMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT SEIZED KEVIN MCBRIDE'S JEEP THROUGH CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE AFTER HIS GIRLFRIEND USED IT TO DRIVE TO A PARKING LOT WHERE SHE SOLD LESS THAN TWO OUNCES OF MARIJUANA. AS PART OF OUR ASSET FORFEITURE PROJECT, WE REPRESENTED MCBRIDE - WHO WAS NOT CHARGED WITH OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME - IN FILING A DEMAND FOR THE RETURN OF HIS JEEP. THE DEPARTMENT DEMANDED A PAYMENT OF $1,900 FOR RETURN OF THE JEEP, BUT WHEN THE INSTITUTE REFUSED, IT ABANDONED THAT DEMAND AND RETURNED THE JEEP. 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 REQUIRED" 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. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. NICHOLS V. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH MIAMI BEACH VIOLATED HOMEOWNERS' PROPERTY RIGHTS BY IMPOSING EXCESSIVE PENALTIES FOR HOME-SHARING AND CONTINUES TO VIOLATE PROPERTY RIGHTS BY ALLOWING SOME PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT NOT OTHERS, TO OFFER SHORT-TERM RENTALS. WE SUCCEEDED IN A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO MIAMI BEACH'S EXCESSIVE FINES IN BOTH THE TRIAL COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS. OUR EQUAL PROTECTION CHALLENGE TO THE CITY'S SELECTIVE BAN IS STILL PENDING IN TRIAL COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. POMEROY V. UTAH STATE BAR THIS CASE CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF UTAH STATE LAWS THAT REQUIRE ATTORNEYS TO JOIN AND FUND THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE BAR SPENDS DUES ON POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING LOBBYING, TAKING POSITIONS WITH WHICH MEMBERS MAY NOT AGREE. THIS VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION. THIS CASE IS PENDING IN TRIAL COURT AND NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. 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 PUBLIC POLICY INFORMATION OF THEIR SUPPORTERS TO THE GOVERNMENT. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. MARSZALEK V. ILLINOIS STATE POLICE (FORMERLY BRADLEY V. ILLINOIS STATE POLICE AND ROBINSON V. ILLINOIS STATE POLICE) ILLINOIS REQUIRES PEOPLE WHO WISH TO POSSESS A FIREARM FOR SELF-DEFENSE TO OBTAIN A STATE PERMIT. ALTHOUGH STATE LAW PROMISES THAT PERMIT APPLICATIONS WILL BE REVIEWED WITHIN A NARROW TIMEFRAME, STATE OFFICIALS ROUTINELY IGNORE THIS REQUIREMENT, WITH THE RESULT THAT INDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF TOOLS FOR SELF-DEFENSE ARE TYPICALLY DENIED THAT RIGHT. ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS AND GUN RIGHTS GROUPS, THE INSTITUTE IS SUING THE ILLINOIS STATE POLICE AND ITS OFFICIALS FOR VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM AS WELL AS THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. THE CASE IS PENDING IN THE TRIAL COURT. 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 THE COURT OF APPEALS. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. ROZENBLIT V. LYLES TEACHERS UNIONS IN NEW JERSEY, AS ELSEWHERE, HAVE NEGOTIATED DEALS IN LABOR CONTRACTS THAT ALLOW FOR "RELEASE TIME" BY EDUCATORS TO PERFORM UNION BUSINESS AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE WITHOUT ADEQUATE CONTROLS IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT A PUBLIC PURPOSE IS BEING SERVED. BECAUSE TAXPAYERS RECEIVE LITTLE TO NOTHING IN RETURN, THIS GRANT AND OTHERS LIKE IT REPRESENT A VIOLATION OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION'S GIFT CLAUSE. THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE REPRESENTED TAXPAYERS IN A CASE THAT ARGUED THAT RELEASE TIME VIOLATES THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION'S GIFT CLAUSE. THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED IN OUR CLIENTS' FAVOR ON THE GROUNDS THAT RELEASE TIME PROVISIONS ARE NOT WITHIN THE STATUTORY BARGAINING AUTHORITY OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS. THE STATE SUPREME COURT, HOWEVER, RULED AGAINST OUR CLIENTS. NO FEES WERE AWARDED. SCHELL V. GURICH THIS CASE CHALLENGES OKLAHOMA LAWS THAT REQUIRE LAWYERS TO JOIN AND PAY DUES TO THE OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION. THE OBA USES DUES MONEY TO LOBBY THE GOVERNMENT AND TAKE POLITICAL POSITIONS WITH WHICH MEMBERS DO NOT NECESSARILY AGREE. 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 PROVIDED 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 APPEALED, AND THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT RULED IN OUR CLIENTS' FAVOR AND GRANTED OUR REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES. THE FEES AWARD WAS SETTLED FOR APPROXIMATELY $200,000. SVEDIN 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. |
| 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. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING IN THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. WALTON V. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WE ALSO REPRESENTED THIS 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 EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, 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. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |