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) 2017 | (b) 2018 | (c) 2019 | (d) 2020 | (e) 2021 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. | 6,283,551 | 5,131,175 | 5,504,863 | 5,948,844 | 5,796,880 | 28,665,313 |
| 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 | 6,283,551 | 5,131,175 | 5,504,863 | 5,948,844 | 5,796,880 | 28,665,313 |
| 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) .. | 1,711,630 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 26,953,683 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in)
![]() |
(a) 2017 | (b) 2018 | (c) 2019 | (d) 2020 | (e) 2021 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 6,283,551 | 5,131,175 | 5,504,863 | 5,948,844 | 5,796,880 | 28,665,313 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 103,111 | 107,127 | 99,229 | 55,008 | 57,767 | 422,242 |
| 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.).. | 134 | 694 | 35,361 | 31,152 | 67,341 | |
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10 | 29,154,896 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2017 | (b) 2018 | (c) 2019 | (d) 2020 | (e) 2021 | (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) 2017 | (b) 2018 | (c) 2019 | (d) 2020 | (e) 2021 | (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 on 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 2021 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-2021 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2021 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Distributable amount for 2021 from Section C, line 6 | ||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2021 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI). See instructions. |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2021: | ||||
| a From 2016....... | ||||
| b From 2017....... | ||||
| c From 2018....... | ||||
| d From 2019....... | ||||
| e From 2020....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2021 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2016 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from line 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2021 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2021 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from line 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2021, 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 2021. 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 2022. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a Excess from 2017..... | ||||
| b Excess from 2018..... | ||||
| c Excess from 2019..... | ||||
| d Excess from 2020..... | ||||
| e Excess from 2021..... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| SCHEDULE A, PART II, LINE 10, EXPLANATION OF OTHER INCOME: | OTHER INCOME - 2018 AMOUNT: $ 134. 2019 AMOUNT: $ 694. 2020 AMOUNT: $ 361. 2021 AMOUNT: $ 1,152. NON REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT - 2020 AMOUNT: $ 35,000. 2021 AMOUNT: $ 30,000. |
| 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. 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. CROWE V. STATE BAR OF OREGON 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 TRIAL COURT. NO FEES HAVE 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. FAIRFAX SCHOOL BOARD V. TISLER WHEN TWO VIRGINIA MOTHERS, CALLIE OETTINGER AND DEBRA TISLER, REQUESTED PUBLIC RECORDS FROM THEIR LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, TO SHOW THAT THE DISTRICT WAS SPENDING TOO MUCH ON ITS LEGAL REPRESENTATION, THE SCHOOL BOARD COMPLIED, AND PROVIDED THE INFORMATION. OETTINGER PUBLISHED SOME OF THE INFORMATION ON A WEBSITE, WHEREUPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT CHANGED ITS MIND, AND INSISTED THAT SHE REMOVE THE INFORMATION AND RETURN THE DOCUMENTS (AN IMPOSSIBILITY, BECAUSE THE DOCUMENTS WERE ELECTRONIC AND COULD NOT BE "RETURNED.") WHEN THEY REFUSED, THE SCHOOL BOARD SUED THEM. WE REPRESENTED THEM AND SOUGHT DISMISSAL OF THE CASE AS A VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE TRIAL COURT AGREED DISMISSED THE CASE. NO FEES WERE AWARDED AND NO APPEAL WAS FILED. THE CASE IS NOW CLOSED. FANN V. STATE OF ARIZONA ARIZONA VOTERS ADOPTED PROPOSITION 208, IMPOSING A PUNITIVE NEW TAX ON ARIZONANS AND DIRECTING THAT THE REVENUES BE SPENT ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS, IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION'S LIMITATIONS ON GOVERNMENT SPENDING. REPRESENTING TAXPAYERS AND LEGISLATORS, WE FILED SUIT CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE INITIATIVE. THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS. THE TRIAL COURT LATER RULED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS ON REMAND. PLAINTIFFS HAVE REQUESTED ATTORNEY FEES, BUT NONE HAVE YET BEEN AWARDED, AS THAT MATTER REMAINS PENDING. FLAGSTAFF PROPOSITION 208 CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF NUMEROUS FLAGSTAFF PROPERTY OWNERS, WE FILED CLAIMS FOR JUST COMPENSATION AFTER THAT CITY ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE SEVERELY RESTRICTING THE RIGHT TO USE PROPERTY IN THE CITY. MANY OF THESE CLAIMS HAVE RESULTED IN FAVORABLE SETTLEMENT. OTHERS REMAIN PENDING. NO LITIGAITON HAS BEEN FILED. GANDOLFO V. AZ BOARD OF PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINERS CAROL GANDOLFO IS A LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST FROM CALIFORNIA. IN 2007, SHE MOVED TO ARIZONA. IN 2020, SHE APPLIED FOR LICENSURE AS A PSYCHOLOGIST UNDER A NEW STATE LAW ENTITLING ANYONE WITH A LICENSE FROM ANOTHER STATE TO AN EQUIVALENT LICENSE IN ARIZONA. 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 REPRESENTED HER BEFORE THE BOARD ON THAT ISSUE AS WELL. THE BOARD DROPPED THE ALLEGATION AND THE MATTER IS NOW CLOSED. NO FEES WERE AWARDED. GARCIA V. SCOTTSDALE IN THIS ASSET FORFEITURE CASE WE REPRESNTED LUIS GARCIA IN CHALLENGING THE SEIZURE OF $5,400 IN CASH FROM HIM AFTER HIS SON WAS ARRESTED FOR ALLEGEDLY SELLING DRUGS. GARCIA, WHO WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH A CRIME, HAD COLLECTED THE MONEY AS PART OF HIS WORK RUNNING YOUTH SOCCER TOURNAMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO. AS A RESULT OF OUR REPRESENTATION, THE POLICE RETURNED THE FUNDS. NO FEES WERE AWARDED. GREGG V. DEA WE REPRESENT QUINTANA GREGG IN CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF THE FORFEITRE OF HER 2019 DODGE CHALLENGER, WHICH HER ESTRANGED EX-BOYFRIEND WAS DRIVING WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED ON DRUG CHARGES. FEDERAL OFFICIALS HAVE NOT BROUGHT CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST GREGG, WHO WAS UNAWARE OF AND UNINVOLVED WITH ANY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. THE CASE REMAINS PENDING IN TRIAL COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. HALSTEAD BEAD V. LEWIS WE REPRESENT A BUSINESS OWNER IN LOUISIANA IN CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THAT STATE'S BURDENSOME AND CONFUSING PARISH-BY-PARISH SALES TAX LAW. WE CONTEND THAT THE RECORD-KEEPING AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IS SO COMPLICATED THAT IT BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF EXISTING SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT. THE CASE IS PENDING IN TRIAL COURT AND NO FEES HAVE BEEN 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, ASSOCIATION, AND RIGHT TO WORK PROVISIONS, AS WELL AS 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 TRIAL COURT ENTERED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS AND AWARDED DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS. THE JUDGMENT AND ATTORNEY FEE AWARD ARE CURRENTLY ON APPEAL. 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. ATTORNEY FEES WERE AWARDED, BUT THE PARTIES STIPULATED TO A DISMISSAL IN WHICH DEFENDANTS WAIVED THEIR CLAIM FOR FEES. |
| FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A: CASE UPDATE (CONTINUED) | 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 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. AND BECAUSE THE LOTTERY WAS RANDOM, OWNERS WHO HAD PRIOR COMPLAINTS AGAINST THEM 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. THE CASE IS PENDING IN THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. INVEST IN ARIZONA V. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE IN THIS CASE, INVEST IN ARIZONA SUED TO CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF TAX LEGISLATION ADOPTED IN RESPONSE TO PROPOSITION 208, CONTENDING THAT THE LAW WAS IN CONFLICT WITH PROPOSITION 208 AND THEREFORE VIOLATED THE STATE CONSTITUTION. WE REPRESENTED THE ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB AND MOVED TO INTERVENE IN THE CASE. THE MATTER WAS STAYED, HOWEVER, PENDING OUTCOME OF THE FANN V. ARIZONA CASE (SEE ABOVE). WHEN THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS IN THAT CASE, AND FOUND PROPOSITION 208 UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE CASE BECAME MOOT. INVEST IN ARIZONA MOVED TO DISMISS, BUT THE CASE REMAINS PENDING. MARSZALEK V. ILLINOIS STATE POLICE THIS CASE CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ILLINOIS' DILATORY AND COMPLICATED APPLICATION REQUIREMENT FOR POSSESSING A FIREARM. IN VIOLATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND STATE LAW, THE STATE HAS DELAYED PROCESSING AND APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR FIREARMS POSSESSION TO SUCH A DEGREE AS TO EFFECTIVELY DENY PEOPLE THEIR RIGHT TO POSSESS A GUN. THE CASE REMAINS IN TRIAL COURT. 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 THE ILLINOIS COURT OF APPEALS. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. MARKETWISE INVESTMENTS AND 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 COURT OF APPEALS REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT, AND THE CASE IS PENDING. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION-RI V. SOLAS WE REPRESENT NICOLE SOLAS, A MOTHER IN RHODE ISLAND WHO SOUGHT INFORMATION VIA THAT STATE'S PUBLIC RECORDS LAWS, ABOUT WHAT WAS BEING TAUGHT TO HER CHILD IN PUBLIC SCHOOL CLASSROOMS. WHEN SHE FILED HER REQUEST, THE STATE'S TEACHER UNION SUED HER, ARGUING THAT THE RELEASE OF THE INFORMATION WOULD VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF ITS MEMBERS, EVEN THOUGH STATE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW THE UNION TO FILE SUCH A LAWSUIT. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING IN TRIAL COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. NEPTUNE SWIMMING FOUNDATION V. SCOTTSDALE THIS CASE CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A CITY'S DECISION TO LEASE SWIMMING LANES AT A PUBLIC FACILITY TO A COMPETITOR OF NEPTUNE'S, EVEN THOUGH NEPTUNE'S BID WAS SUPERIOR. REPRESENTING NEPTUNE, WE CONTEND THAT THE CITY'S DECISION TO LEASE THIS PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTY AT CUT-RATE PRICES VIOLATES THE GIFT CLAUSE OF THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION, WHICH FORBIDS THE CITY FROM GIVING AWAY PUBLIC RESOURES TO PRIVATE PARTIES. THE CASE IS PENDING IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. PARHAM V. ARIZONA WE REPRESNTED MARIA PARHAM IN CHALLENGING THE FORFEITURE OF HER PROPERTY BY THE STATE IN A MATTER INVOLVING HER HUSBAND'S CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS SEPARATE PROPERTY, NOT MARITAL PROPERTY, AND SHE HAD NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH WRONGDOING. WE ARGUED THAT THE SEIZURE OF HER PERSONAL PROPERTY WAS ILLEGAL, AND THE CASE ENDED IN A STIPULATED JUDGMENT IN HER FAVOR. NO FEES WERE AWARDED. POMEROY V. UTAH STATE BAR AS WITH OUR OTHER CASES CHALLENGING MANDATORY BAR ASSOCIATIONS, WE REPRESENT AN ATTORNEY IN UTAH IN CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THAT STATE'S MANDATORY BAR ASSOCIATION AND THE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THE CASE IS PENDING IN TRIAL COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. 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, ASSOCIATION MEMBERS 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 RULED IN FAVOR OF THE CITY AND THE UNION AND AWARDED THE AFA $115,250 IN ATTORNEY FEES. THE CASE IS ON APPEAL. REYES V. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION WE REPRESENT ANTONIO REYES, WHO ALONG WITH HIS DAUGHTER LEASED A HONDA CIVIC. HIS DAUGHTER DROVE IT TO BISBEE ARIZONA TO MEET A FRIEND. WHILE THERE, SOME ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS GOT INTO THE CAR, AND CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL SEIZED IT, ALTHOUGH THEY NEVER ARRESTED OR CHARGED REYES'S DAUGHTER OR REYES. WE ARE SEEKING RETURN OF THE CAR. THE CASE IS PENDING, AND NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. RIO GRANDE FOUNDATION V. CITY OF SANTA FE THIS LAWSUIT CHALLENGED 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 COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED THE CASE, AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DENIED REVIEW. THE CASE IS THEREFORE CLOSED. NO FEES WERE 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. THE CASE IS PENDING IN THE ARZONA COURT OF APPEALS. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. 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 WAS APPEALED TO THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT, WHICH ISSUED AN ADVERSE RULING. NO FEES WERE AWARDED. THE CASE IS NOW CLOSED. |
| FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A: CASE UPDATE (CONTINUED) | SANDERS V. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA WE REPRESENT JERMAINE SANDERS IN CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF THE CITY OF MOORESVILLE'S SEIZURE OF HIS CAR. ALTHOUGH A STATE COURT RULED THAT THE CITY VIOLATED THE LAW WHEN IT SEIZED THE CAR, AND ORDERED THEM TO RETURN IT, THE CITY VIOLATED THAT ORDER AND TRANSFERRED THE CAR TO THE POSSESSION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, INSTEAD. THE CASE IS PROCEEDING IN BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL COURT SIMULTANEOUSLY. 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 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. THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS AND AWARDED PLAINTIFFS FEES AND COSTS. THE CASE IS NOW CLOSED. SHARPE V. STATE OF TEXAS IN THIS ASSET FORFEITURE CASE, WE REPRESENTED DURELLE SHARPE AFTER POLICE SEIZED HIS FORD MUSTANG. HIS SON USED THE CAR WITHOUT PERMISSION TO ENGAGE IN STREET RACING AND WAS ARRESTED. POLICE SOUGHT TO CONFISCATE THE CAR, BUT WE CHALLENGED THE LEGALITY OF THAT SEIZURE. THE CASE ENDED IN A FAVORABLE STIPULATED JUDGMENT. 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. THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS. NO FEES WERE AWARDED. WARD V. CITY OF STOCKTON WE REPRESENT VERA WARD IN CHALLENGING THE CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA'S SEIZURE OF CASH THAT THEY WERE USING TO PURCHASE PURE-BRED DOGS FOR THEIR DOG-BREEDING BUSINESS. THE POLICE NEVER BROUGHT CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST WARD. THE CITY RETURNED THE MONEY. THE MATTER WAS DISMISSED. NO FEES WERE AWARDED. |
| 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 CONTEMPORANEOUSLY 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: |