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.") .. | 266,841 | 516,152 | 408,172 | 301,289 | 469,175 | 1,961,629 |
| 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 | 266,841 | 516,152 | 408,172 | 301,289 | 469,175 | 1,961,629 |
| 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) .. | 760,519 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 1,201,110 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in)
![]() |
(a) 2017 | (b) 2018 | (c) 2019 | (d) 2020 | (e) 2021 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 266,841 | 516,152 | 408,172 | 301,289 | 469,175 | 1,961,629 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 255 | 338 | 624 | 621 | 678 | 2,516 |
| 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 | 1,964,145 | |||||
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 |
|---|
| 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 4A, DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM SERVICE: - CONTINUED | RECENT AND CURRENT ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS FOR 2021 THROUGH JUNE 2022 DURING 2021, AND CONTINUING INTO 2022, ALF PARTICIPATED AS AMICUS CURIAE IN A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF SUPREME COURT AND OTHER APPELLATE CASES INVOLVING LEGAL ISSUES THAT IMPLICATE ONE OR MORE OF OUR ADVOCACY MISSION AREAS. THESE CASES ARE SUMMARIZED BELOW AND MORE FULLY DISCUSSED IN THE ALF WEBSITE'S AMICUS BRIEFS SECTION, WHICH ALSO PROVIDES EASY ONLINE ACCESS TO OUR AMICUS BRIEF ARCHIVES. IN ADDITION, ALF SUBMITTED COMMENTS TO THE CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT ENDORSING THE COURT'S RECENT PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR OBTAINING THE PARTIES' CONSENT, OR THE COURT'S PERMISSION, TO FILE AN AMICUS BRIEF. DRAWING ON ITS 45 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE FILING HUNDREDS OF SUPREME COURT AMICUS BRIEFS, ALF'S COMMENTS DISCUSS WHY, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, OBTAINING CONSENT SERVES NO USEFUL PURPOSE AND CAN IMPEDE SUBMISSION OF AMICUS BRIEFS THAT PROVIDE HELPFUL LEGAL ARGUMENTS, NON-ADJUDICATORY FACTUAL INFORMATION, OR PERSPECTIVE RELEVANT TO THE LEGAL ISSUES IN A CASE. ALF ALSO SUBMITTED COMMENTS TO THE U.S. JUDICIAL CONFERENCE ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 702. IF ADOPTED, THE AMENDMENTS WOULD CLARIFY AND STRENGTHEN RULE 702'S REQUIREMENTS THAT FOR MEDICAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND OTHER TYPES OF EXPERT TESTIMONY TO BE ADMISSIBLE, IT MUST BE RELIABLE. CONSISTENT WITH SERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST, INCLUDING PROVIDING CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION FOR ATTORNEYS WHO BECOME INVOLVED IN CIVIL APPEALS, ALF EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT & GENERAL COUNSEL LARRY EBNER WAS CALLED UPON BY THE BEVERLY HILLS (CA) BAR ASSOCIATION AND KING COUNTY (WA) BAR ASSOCIATION TO CONDUCT WEBINARS ON PREPARATION AND USE OF AMICUS BRIEFS. LARRY ALSO ORGANIZED AND PARTICIPATED IN A WEBINAR FOR THE DUPAGE (IL) COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION ON WRITTEN ADVOCACY BEFORE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. IN ADDITION, LARRY SERVES AS THE VOLUNTEER VICE CHAIR OF THE DRI CENTER FOR LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY. MISSION: ADVOCATE FOR SOUND SCIENCE IN JUDICIAL AND REGULATORY PROCEEDINGS KEEPING "JUNK SCIENCE" OUT OF COURTROOMS: WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF URGING THE SUPREME COURT TO HEAR AN APPEAL CHALLENGING FEDERAL COURTS' FAILURE TO FULFILL THEIR "GATEKEEPER" DUTY UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 702 TO PREVENT JURIES FROM HEARING "JUNK SCIENCE" TESTIMONY. THIS ONGOING PROBLEM IS ESPECIALLY ACUTE IN MULTIDISTRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY AND TOXIC TORT LITIGATION, WHERE A SINGLE JUDGE'S ADMISSIBILITY RULINGS CAN HAVE NATIONWIDE IMPACT AFFECTING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF INDIVIDUALS' CLAIMS. ALF'S BRIEF EXPLAINS THAT ALLOWING JURIES TO HEAR UNRELIABLE SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY DEPRIVES DEFENDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL, AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND RESULTS IN UNWARRANTED JURY VERDICTS OR SETTLEMENTS. (3M CO. V. AMADOR) FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF FAILURE-TO-WARN PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ASKING THE SUPREME COURT TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER FEDERAL LAW PREEMPTS THOUSANDS OF PENDING, MULTI-DISTRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY SUITS ALLEGING THAT THE MANUFACTURER OF A WIDELY USED HERBICIDE (ROUNDUP) FAILED TO PROVIDE USERS WITH A WARNING THAT THE PRODUCT ALLEGEDLY CAN CAUSE A PARTICULAR TYPE OF CANCER. ALF'S BRIEF ARGUES THAT THESE FAILURE-TO-WARN CLAIMS ARE FEDERALLY PREEMPTED, INCLUDING BECAUSE THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, FOLLOWING CAREFUL SCIENTIFIC REVIEW, HAS DETERMINED THAT PROVIDING THE CANCER WARNING THAT PLAINTIFFS CLAIM WAS REQUIRED BY STATE TORT LAW NOT ONLY IS SCIENTIFICALLY UNWARRANTED, BUT ALSO WOULD BE FALSE AND MISLEADING AND A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW. (MONSANTO CO. V. HARDEMAN) FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF STATE "CONSUMER PROTECTION" FAILURE-TO-WARN SUITS: WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ASKING THE SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER A STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN BRING A CONSUMER PROTECTION ACTION SEEKING ENORMOUS MONETARY PENALTIES FOR THE ALLEGED FAILURE OF THE MANUFACTURER OF JOHNSON'S BABY POWDER TO PROVIDE AN OVARIAN CANCER WARNING. OUR BRIEF EXPLAINS THAT MISSISSIPPI'S CONSUMER PROTECTION SUIT IS PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW BECAUSE THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION HAS DETERMINED THAT SUCH A WARNING IS SCIENTIFICALLY UNWARRANTED. (JOHNSON & JOHNSON V. MISSISSIPPI EX REL. FITCH) CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION: DURING 2020 WE FILED A SUPREME COURT AMICUS BRIEF ARGUING THAT CLIMATE-CHANGE DAMAGES SUITS BROUGHT BY STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AGAINST FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY COMPANIES BELONG, IF ANYWHERE, IN FEDERAL, NOT STATE, COURT. THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED A FAVORABLE, BUT PROCEDURALLY TECHNICAL, RULING IN THE CASE, BP V. BALTIMORE, 141 S. CT. 1532 (2021), HOLDING THAT FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE BROAD JURISDICTION TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SUCH SUITS CAN BE REMOVED FROM STATE TO FEDERAL COURT. IN LIGHT OF THE BP RULING, SEVERAL FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE VISITED (OR REVISITED) THE REMOVABILITY OF THESE SUITS. THUS FAR, ALL HAVE HELD THAT CLIMATE-CHANGE DAMAGES SUITS ARE NOT REMOVABLE. TO SUPPORT THE ENERGY COMPANIES' EFFORT TO PERSUADE THE SUPREME COURT TO ADDRESS THE REMOVABILITY ISSUE, WE FILED ANOTHER AMICUS BRIEF ARGUING THAT CLIMATE-CHANGE DAMAGES SUITS ARE NATIONWIDE, AND INDEED GLOBAL, IN NATURE, AND THUS IMPLICATE UNIQUELY FEDERAL ISSUES THAT MAKE THE SUITS REMOVABLE. BECAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE IS A BORDERLESS, GLOBAL PHENOMENON, LIABILITY FOR THIS ALLEGED TORT OF NATIONWIDE AND WORLDWIDE DIMENSIONS CANNOT BE DIVIDED INTO POTENTIALLY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF LOCAL BITS AND PIECES OF LIABILITY, EACH SUBJECT TO THE VAGARIES OF ONE OF 50 STATES' DIFFERING TORT LAW STANDARDS. NOR CAN THE PLANETARY SCOPE OF THE ENERGY COMPANIES' ALLEGED TORTIOUS CONDUCT FOR ALTERATION OF THE CLIMATE BE CONVERTED INTO A PAROCHIAL DISPUTE MERELY BY POINTING TO THE DAMAGES THAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT (OR A STATE) CLAIMS THAT IT IS OWED FOR THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE. (SUNCOR ENERGY (U.S.A.) INC. V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BOULDER COUNTY) |
| FORM 990, PART III 4A, DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM SERVICE: - CONTINUED | MISSION: ADVOCATE FOR EFFECTIVE EDUCATION, INCLUDING PARENTAL RIGHTS & SCHOOL CHOICE PARENTS' FREEDOM TO CHOOSE SCHOOLS THAT PROVIDE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN A CASE THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED FAVORABLY, WE JOINED AN AMICUS BRIEF ARGUING THAT EXCLUSION OF SCHOOLS FROM A STATE-FUNDED STUDENT AID PROGRAM, BECAUSE PART OF THEIR CURRICULA INCLUDES RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION, VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION. THE CASE DIRECTLY IMPLICATES PARENTS' RIGHTS TO CHOOSE FOR THEIR CHILDREN THE SCHOOLS THAT ARE BEST SUITED FOR THEIR EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND FAMILY VALUES. THE SUPREME COURT AGREED. (CARSON V. MAKIN, __ S. CT. __ (JUNE 21, 2022) ALSO, IN LIGHT OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EDUCATIONAL FIELD, ALF CONTINUES TO UPDATE ITS SERIES OF LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD GUIDEBOOKS FOR CHARTER SCHOOL LEADERS. THE NEXT UPDATED EDITION WILL FOCUS ON NEW YORK CHARTER SCHOOLS. MISSION: ADVOCATE FOR FREE ENTERPRISE STATE-COURT JURISDICTION OVER CORPORATIONS: WE FILED A SUPREME COURT AMICUS BRIEF ARGUING THAT A NON-RESIDENT CORPORATION'S REGISTRATION TO DO BUSINESS IN A STATE SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED CONSENT TO BE SUED IN THAT STATE'S COURTS FOR CLAIMS THAT DO NOT ARISE IN THE STATE. ALF'S BRIEF EXPLAINS THAT ALLOWING A STATE TO ASSERT SUCH EXPANSIVE "GENERAL PERSONAL JURISDICTION" OVER OUT-OF-STATE CORPORATIONS DEPRIVES CORPORATE DEFENDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY PROMOTING PLAINTIFF FORUM SHOPPING AND UNDERMINES INTERSTATE FEDERALISM. (COOPER TIRE & RUBBER CO. V. MCCALL) THE SUPREME COURT HAS AGREED TO REVIEW THE ISSUE, BUT IN A DIFFERENT CASE. ALF WILL BE SUBMITTING AN AMICUS BRIEF AGAIN RAISING THESE POINTS, EMPHASIZING THAT THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD OVERRULE ITS OWN CENTURY-OLD PRECEDENT ON WHICH THE CONSENT-THROUGH-REGISTRATION THEORY IS BASED. (MALLORY V. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.) IMMUNITY FROM COVID-19 LIABILITY SUITS: WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ARGUING THAT COVID-19-RELATED WRONGFUL DEATH AND PERSONAL INJURY SUITS AGAINST HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES, AND MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS UNAVOIDABLY IMPLICATE THE IMMUNITY-FROM-SUIT-AND-LIABILITY PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC READINESS AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ("PREP") ACT. AS A RESULT, ALF'S BRIEF EXPLAINS THAT NO MATTER HOW ARTFULLY THESE SUITS ARE DRAFTED IN AN ATTEMPT TO AVOID FEDERAL LAW, THEY BELONG, IF ANYWHERE, IN FEDERAL COURT. WE ANTICIPATE THAT ONE OR MORE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS RULINGS THAT HAVE HELD TO THE CONTRARY WILL BE APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT, AND WE AGAIN WILL PROVIDE AMICUS SUPPORT ON THIS SIGNIFICANT CIVIL JUSTICE ISSUE. (RIVERA-ZAYAS V. OUR LADY OF CONSOLATION GERIATRIC CARE CENTER) ENFORCEMENT OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS: WE FILED AMICUS BRIEFS URGING THE SUPREME COURT TO HOLD THAT THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT PREEMPTS CALIFORNIA FROM PROHIBITING ENFORCEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS THAT EXPRESSLY WAIVE AN EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO FILE A REPRESENTATIVE ACTION UNDER THE ONEROUS CALIFORNIA PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT ("PAGA"). THE BRIEFS ARGUE THAT THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT'S RULING TO THE CONTRARY CONFLICTS WITH U.S. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT CONCERNING THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT'S PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW. THE COURT HAS GRANTED CERTIORARI AND AGREED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE IN THE VIKING RIVER CASE. (VIKING RIVER CRUISES V. MORIANA & COVERALL NORTH AMERICA V. RIVAS) MISSION: ADVOCATE FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS FEDERAL REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT: IN A CLOSELY WATCHED CASE THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS AGREED TO HEAR, WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN WHAT MAY BECOME A LANDMARK ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CASE INVOLVING THE QUESTION OF WHAT TYPES OF "WETLANDS"INCLUDING PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTYQUALIFY AS "WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THUS ARE SUBJECT TO COSTLY, TIME-CONSUMING, AND OFTEN UNJUSTIFIABLY RESTRICTIVE, CLEAN WATER ACT PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. ALF'S AMICUS BRIEF ARGUES THAT TOO EXPANSIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS WOULD EFFECT AN UNCOMPENSATED "TAKING" OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION'S FIFTH AMENDMENT. (SACKETT V. EPA) USE OF "PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE" IN ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION: WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF SUPPORTING A CERTIORARI PETITION THAT CHALLENGED, ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, A PUGET SOUND SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REQUIRING PROPERTY OWNERS TO SET ASIDE VEGETATION BUFFERS AND CONSERVATION EASEMENTS TO PROTECT THE SHORELINE FROM THE SUPPOSED ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, LANDSCAPING, AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. RATHER THAN ALLOWING THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO PRESENT EXPERT SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY, STATE COURTS UNJUSTIFIABLY RELIED ON THE "PRECUATIONARY PRINCIPLE." ALF'S AMICUS BRIEF EXPLAINS THAT THIS "BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY" APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION IS PREDICATED ON THE LACK OF ADEQUATE SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION. AS A RESULT, PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED FOR RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION THAT IS READILY AVAILABLE. (PRESERVE RESPONSIBLE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT V. CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON) |
| FORM 990, PART III 4A, DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM SERVICE: - CONTINUED | MISSION: ADVOCATE FOR LIMITED & RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT FTC & SEC ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS THE SUPREME COURT HAS AGREED TO HEAR TWO SEPARATE CASES THAT RAISE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME QUESTION: CAN AN SEC OR FTC CIVIL ENFORCEMENT TARGET FILE A DISTRICT COURT ACTION CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HOW THESE INDEPENDENT REGULATORY AGENCIES' IN-HOUSE ADJUDICATORY PROCEEDINGS ARE STRUCTURED? OR TO OBTAIN JUDICIAL REVIEW OF SUCH A STRUCTURAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM, DOES THE ENFORCEMENT TARGET FIRST HAVE TO SUFFER THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING CLAIMED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONALAND LOSE? WE SUBMITTED AMICUS BRIEFS IN BOTH CASES, ARGUING THAT JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. ALF'S FIRST BRIEF EXPLAINS WHY, UNDER SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT, DELAYED JUDICIAL REVIEW OF STRUCTURAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS IN A COURT OF APPEALS FOLLOWING AN ADVERSE FINAL ORDER IN AN FTC ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION CANNOT BE MEANINGFUL. THE BRIEF ALSO EXPLAINS THAT THE FTC'S EXTENSIVE USE OF CONSENT DECREES TO RESOLVE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINTS WITHOUT AN ADJUDICATORY HEARING HEIGHTENS THE NEED FOR EXERCISE OF DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION OVER STRUCTURAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS. (AXON ENTERPRISE V. FTC) OUR SECOND BRIEF FOCUSES ON WHY CLAIMS THAT CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEGITIMACY OF SEC ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY'S COMPETENCE AND EXPERTISE, AND THUS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO AWAIT THE VIRTUALLY INEVITABLE ADVERSE OUTCOME OF AN SEC IN-HOUSE ADJUDICATION BEFORE BEING HEARD BY AN ARTICLE III COURT. (SEC V. COCHRAN) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR "GUIDANCE" IN WAGE & HOUR DISPUTES: WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ASKING THE SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER JUDICIAL DEFERENCE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO A DEPARTMENT OF LABOR INTERNAL, UNAUTHORITATIVE, INTERPRETATION OF AN UNAMBIGUOUS WAGE & HOUR REGULATION THAT IMPLEMENTS AN UNAMBIGUOUS FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT PROVISION. OUR AMICUS BRIEF DISCUSSES RECENT SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE REAFFIRMING THAT DEFERENCE ONLY APPLIES TO AGENCY INTERPRETATIONS OF AMBIGUOUS STATUTES AND REGULATIONS. (AMN SERVICES, LLC V. CLARKE) CALIFORNIA INTERFERENCE WITH LIABILITY INSURERS: WE PARTICIPATED IN A JOINT AMICUS BRIEF CHALLENGING, ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, A CALIFORNIA INSURANCE CODE PROVISION THAT PROHIBITS LIABILITY INSURERS FROM COVERING A CORPORATION'S COST OF DEFENDING AGAINST UNFAIR COMPETITION OR FALSE ADVERTISING CLAIMS BROUGHT BY THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL. THE BRIEF ARGUES THAT CALIFORNIA CANNOT INTERFERE IN THIS MANNER WITH PRIVATE INSURANCE CONTRACTS AND THAT THE CALIFORNIA LAW DEPRIVES INSUREDS OF THE ABILITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. (ADIR INTERNATIONAL LLC V. STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY CO.) MISSION: ADVOCATE FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY FREEDOM OF SPEECH: WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ON BEHALF OF PROMINENT FIRST AMENDMENT LAW PROFESSORS SUPPORTING A CERTIORARI PETITION THAT CHALLENGES THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION "GAG RULE." UNDER THIS POLICY, ANY INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATE DEFENDANT THAT SETTLES AN SEC CIVIL ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT MUST AGREE TO REFRAIN FROM EVER DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS IN SEC'S COMPLAINT, OR CREATING THE IMPRESSION THAT THE ALLEGED CONDUCT DID NOT OCCUR. THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSORS' AMICUS BRIEF ARGUES THAT THIS SEC GAG RULE IS A PRESUMPTIVELY INVALID PRIOR RESTRAINT AND EXERCISE IN CONTENT AND VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION, THAT IT IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITION, AND THAT IT IS PATERNALISTIC AND VIOLATES THE PUBLIC'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO RECEIVE INFORMATION. (SEC V. ROMERIL) FREEDOM OF SPEECH: WE JOINED AMICUS BRIEFS IN THREE SEPARATE APPEALS URGING THE SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONS' USE OF COMPULSORY MEMBER DUES TO FUND POLITICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL SPEECH. THE BRIEFS ARGUE THAT USING MEMBER DUES IN THIS MANNER SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO "EXACTING SCRUTINY" UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT. (MCDONALD V. FIRTH; SCHELL V. DARBY; AND CROW V. OREGON STATE BAR) FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: WE FILED A SUPREME COURT AMICUS BRIEF SUPPORTING A FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO A STATE GOVERNOR'S SELECTIVE EXCLUSION OF MEMBERS OF THE PRESS FROM NEWS BRIEFINGS. ALF'S BRIEF ARGUES THAT ONLINE TECHNOLOGY HAS EXPANDED THE MEANING OF "MEDIA, AND THAT DISCRIMINATING AGAINST REPORTERS BECAUSE OF THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (JOHN J. MACIVER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY V. EVERS) FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: WE PARTICIPATED IN A JOINT AMICUS BRIEF CHALLENGING A CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRING CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS TO DISCLOSE THE IDENTITIES OF SIGNIFICANT DONORS. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED FAVORABLY, HOLDING THAT THE CALIFORNIA LAW WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT VIOLATED THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. (AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION V. BONTA, 141 S. CT. 2373 (2021)) RIGHT TO PRIVACY: WE FILED A PETITION-STAGE AMICUS BRIEF URGING THE SUPREME COURT TO ADDRESS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND AN INDIVIDUAL'S STATE-LAW "RIGHT OF PUBLICITY." THE CASE INVOLVED A VIDEO GAME COMPANY'S UNAUTHORIZED TRANSFORMATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS INTO A VIOLENT VIDEO GAME CHARACTER. (HAMILTON V. SPEIGHT) |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION A, LINE 1A | THE ORGANIZATION HAS AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE COMPRISED OF 12 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE DECISIONS BETWEEN BOARD MEETINGS. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11B | ATLANTIC LEGAL HAS ENGAGED AN OUTSIDE ACCOUNTING FIRM TO PREPARE ITS FORM 990. THE FORM 990, IS PREPARED BY THE OUTSIDE ACCOUNTING FIRM, IS PROVIDED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND EACH DIRECTOR BY ELECTRONIC MAIL PRIOR TO FILING WITH THE IRS. EACH DIRECTOR IS ASKED TO REVIEW THE FORM 990 AND PROVIDE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. THE OFFICERS OF THE FOUNDATION AND THE FOUNDATION'S BOOKKEEPING CONSULTANT ARE IN FREQUENT COMMUNICATION WITH THE FOUNDATION'S OUTSIDE ACCOUNTANTS BY ELECTRONIC MAIL AND TELEPHONE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION, RAISE QUESTIONS AND PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THE FORM 990 PRIOR TO FILING WITH THE IRS. AFTER ALL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, THE FORM 990 IS PREPARED AND SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOUNDATION FOR HIS APPROVAL. IT IS THEN FILED WITH THE IRS. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C | THE FOUNDATION'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY IS SUBMITTED ANNUALLY TO EACH BOARD MEMBER, OFFICER, ADVISOR AND STAFF MEMBER FOR REVIEW AND SIGNATURE WHERE THEY MUST DISCLOSE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ARE DETERMINED AND REVIEWED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR A COMMITTEE DESIGNATED BY THE BOARD. NO BOARD MEMBER IS ALLOWED TO VOTE OR PARTICIPATE IN BOARD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ANY MATTERS INVOLVING THE CONFLICT. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15A | THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WITHOUT PARTICIPATION OF THE PRESIDENT, DETERMINES THE COMPENSATION OF THE PRESIDENT. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CONSIDERS COMPENSATION LEVELS PAID BY SIMILARLY SITUATED ORGANIZATIONS FOR FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE POSITIONS IN THE SAME GEOGRAPHICAL MARKET AND NATIONWIDE. THIS PROCESS WAS LAST UNDERTAKEN IN MARCH 2021 AND WAS DULY DOCUMENTED. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 | THE FOUNDATION MAKES ITS FORM 990 AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 6104 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. THE RETURN IS POSTED ON GUIDESTAR.ORG AND OTHER SIMILAR TYPES OF WEBSITES. IN ADDITION, THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, FORM 990, FORM 1023, AND BY-LAWS ARE ALSO AVAILABLE UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OR BY CALLING THE ORGANIZATION DIRECTLY. |
| PART VII, SECTION A, LINE A: | LAWRENCE EBNER AND NISHANI DEVI NAIDOO'S COMPENSATION IS IN EXCHANGE FOR CONSULTING, LEGAL RESEARCH, AND COMPOSITION SERVICES THEY HAVE PROVIDED TO THE ORGANIZATION, AND THEY ARE NOT COMPENSATED FOR THEIR SERVICES AS OFFICERS. |
| FORM 990, PART XII, LINE 2C: | THE FOUNDATION IS GOVERNED BY A 33 MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 32 OF WHOM ARE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS. THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS SERVE WITHOUT COMPENSATION. THE BOARD ORDINARILY MEETS 3 TIMES A YEAR. BETWEEN BOARD MEETINGS, THE FOUNDATION IS DIRECTED BY AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CONSISTING OF 12 DIRECTORS, 11 OF WHOM ARE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS. THE 11 INDEPENDENT MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ALSO ACT AS THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OVERSIGHT OF THE AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SELECTION OF AN INDEPENDENT OUTSIDE ACCOUNTANT/AUDITOR. THIS PROCESS HAS NOT CHANGED FROM THE PRIOR YEAR. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |