TY 2021 Form 990EZ

(a) Name and title	(b) Average hours per week devoted to position	(c) Reportable compensation (Forms W-2/1099-MISC) (if not paid, enter -0-)	(d) Health benefits, contributions to employee benefit plans, and deferred compensation	(e) Estimated amount of other compensation
MICHAEL ROTHFELD VICE-CHAIRMAN/DIRECTOR	1.00	0	0	0
BAKER A SMITH SECRETARY/TREASURER/DIRECTOR	1.00	0	0	0
GREG MOURAD CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR	1.00	0	0	0

- TIN:

SCHEDULE A
(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Public Charity Status and Public Support

Complete if the organization is a section 501(c)(3) organization or a section 4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust.
right arrow

Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
right arrow

Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2021

Open to Public
Inspection

Name of the organization

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC

Employer identification number

58-1539320

Part I

Reason for Public Charity Status (All organizations must complete this part.) See instructions.

The organization is not a private foundation because it is: (For lines 1 through 12, check only one box.)

A church, convention of churches, or association of churches described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(i).

A school described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii). (Attach Schedule E (Form 990).)

A hospital or a cooperative hospital service organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii).

A medical research organization operated in conjunction with a hospital described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii). Enter the hospital's name, city, and state:

An organization operated for the benefit of a college or university owned or operated by a governmental unit described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iv). (Complete Part II.)

A federal, state, or local government or governmental unit described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(v).

An organization that normally receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or from the general public described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). (Complete Part II.)

A community trust described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). (Complete Part II.)

An agricultural research organization described in 170(b)(1)(A)(ix) operated in conjunction with a land-grant college or university or a non-land grant college of agriculture. See instructions. Enter the name, city, and state of the college or university:

An organization that normally receives: (1) more than 33 1/3% of its support from contributions, membership fees, and gross receipts from activities related to its exempt functions—subject to certain exceptions, and (2) no more than 33 1/3% of its support from gross investment income and unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 tax) from businesses acquired by the organization after June 30, 1975. See section 509(a)(2). (Complete Part III.)

An organization organized and operated exclusively to test for public safety. See section 509(a)(4).

An organization organized and operated exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, or to carry out the purposes of one or more publicly supported organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or section 509(a)(2). See section 509(a)(3). Check the box on lines 12a through 12d that describes the type of supporting organization and complete lines 12e, 12f, and 12g.

Type I. A supporting organization operated, supervised, or controlled by its supported organization(s), typically by giving the supported organization(s) the power to regularly appoint or elect a majority of the directors or trustees of the supporting organization. You must complete Part IV, Sections A and B.

Type II. A supporting organization supervised or controlled in connection with its supported organization(s), by having control or management of the supporting organization vested in the same persons that control or manage the supported organization(s). You must complete Part IV, Sections A and C.

Type III functionally integrated. A supporting organization operated in connection with, and functionally integrated with, its supported organization(s) (see instructions). You must complete Part IV, Sections A, D, and E.

Type III non-functionally integrated. A supporting organization operated in connection with its supported organization(s) that is not functionally integrated. The organization generally must satisfy a distribution requirement and an attentiveness requirement (see instructions). You must complete Part IV, Sections A and D, and Part V.

Check this box if the organization received a written determination from the IRS that it is a Type I, Type II, Type III functionally integrated, or Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organization.

Enter the number of supported organizations ...............................

Provide the following information about the supported organization(s).

(i) Name of supported organization	(ii) EIN	(iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document?		(v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions)	(vi) Amount of other support (see instructions)
(i) Name of supported organization	(ii) EIN	Yes	No	(v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions)	(vi) Amount of other support (see instructions)


Total

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for
Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Cat. No. 11285F

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Page 2

Part II

Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(iv) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 5, 7, or 8 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part III. If the organization failed to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part III.)

Section A. Public Support

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.") ..	13,500	13,500	13,500	13,500	13,500	67,500
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	13,500	13,500	13,500	13,500	13,500	67,500
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) ..						21,150
6	Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4.						46,350

Section B. Total Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2017	(b) 2018	(c) 2019	(d) 2020	(e) 2021	(f) Total
7	Amounts from line 4..	13,500	13,500	13,500	13,500	13,500	67,500
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						67,500

Gross receipts from related activities, etc. (see instructions) ..................

First 5 years. If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a section 501(c)(3) organization, check this box and stop here ........................................ right arrow

Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage

Public support percentage for 2021 (line 6, column (f) divided by line 11, column (f)) .........

68.670 %

Public support percentage for 2020 Schedule A, Part II, line 14 ...............

68.670 %

16a

33 1/3% support test—2021. If the organization did not check the box on line 13, and line 14 is 33 1/3 % or more, check this box
and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ....................... right arrow

33 1/3% support test—2020. If the organization did not check a box on line 13 or 16a, and line 15 is 33 1/3% or more, check this
box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ..................... right arrow

17a

10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2021. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, or 16b, and line 14
is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test, check this box and stop here. Explain
in Part VI how the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported
organization ..................................................... right arrow

10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2020. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, or 17a, and line
15 is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test, check this box and stop here.
Explain in Part VI how the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly
supported organization ................................................ right arrow

Private foundation. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, 17a, or 17b, check this box and see
instructions ..................................................... right arrow

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Page 3

Part III

Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Section 509(a)(2)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 10 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part II. If the organization fails to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part II.)

Section A. Public Support

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.)

Section B. Total Support

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.)..

First 5 years. If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a section 501(c)(3) organization,
check this box and stop here............................................. right arrow

Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage

Public support percentage for 2021 (line 8, column (f) divided by line 13, column (f)) .........

Public support percentage from 2020 Schedule A, Part III, line 15 ...............

Section D. Computation of Investment Income Percentage

Investment income percentage for 2021 (line 10c, column (f) divided by line 13, column (f)) ......

Investment income percentage from 2020 Schedule A, Part III, line 17 .............

19a

331/3% support tests—2021. If the organization did not check the box on line 14, and line 15 is more than 33 1/3%, and line 17 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ....... right arrow

33 1/3% support tests—2020. If the organization did not check a box on line 14 or line 19a, and line 16 is more than 33 1/3% and line 18 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization .... right arrow

Private foundation. If the organization did not check a box on line 14, 19a, or 19b, check this box and see instructions .... right arrow

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Page 4

Part IV

Supporting Organizations

(Complete only if you checked a box on line 12 of Part I. If you checked box 12a, of Part I, complete Sections A and B. If you checked box 12b, of Part I, complete Sections A and C. If you checked box 12c, of Part I, complete Sections A, D, and E. If you checked box12d, of Part I, complete Sections A and D, and complete Part V.)

Section A. All Supporting Organizations

Yes

Are all of the organization’s supported organizations listed by name in the organization’s governing documents?
If "No," describe in Part VI how the supported organizations are designated. If designated by class or purpose,
describe the designation. If historic and continuing relationship, explain.

Did the organization have any supported organization that does not have an IRS determination of status under section 509(a)(1) or (2)? If "Yes," explain in Part VI how the organization determined that the supported organization was described in section 509(a)(1) or (2).

Did the organization have a supported organization described in section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6)? If "Yes," answer lines 3b and 3c below.

Did the organization confirm that each supported organization qualified under section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6) and satisfied the public support tests under section 509(a)(2)? If "Yes," describe in Part VI when and how the organization made the determination.

Did the organization ensure that all support to such organizations was used exclusively for section 170(c)(2)(B) purposes? If "Yes," explain in Part VI what controls the organization put in place to ensure such use.

Was any supported organization not organized in the United States ("foreign supported organization")? If “Yes” and if you checked box 12a or 12b in Part I, answer lines 4b and 4c below.

Did the organization have ultimate control and discretion in deciding whether to make grants to the foreign supported organization? If “Yes,” describe in Part VI how the organization had such control and discretion despite being controlled or supervised by or in connection with its supported organizations.

Did the organization support any foreign supported organization that does not have an IRS determination under sections 501(c)(3) and 509(a)(1) or (2)? If “Yes,” explain in Part VI what controls the organization used to ensure that all support to the foreign supported organization was used exclusively for section 170(c)(2)(B) purposes.

Did the organization add, substitute, or remove any supported organizations during the tax year? If “Yes,” answer lines 5b and 5c below (if applicable). Also, provide detail in Part VI, including (i) the names and EIN numbers of the supported organizations added, substituted, or removed; (ii) the reasons for each such action; (iii) the authority under the organization's organizing document authorizing such action; and (iv) how the action was accomplished (such as by amendment to the organizing document).

Type I or Type II only. Was any added or substituted supported organization part of a class already designated in the organization's organizing document?

Substitutions only. Was the substitution the result of an event beyond the organization's control?

Did the organization provide support (whether in the form of grants or the provision of services or facilities) to anyone other than (i) its supported organizations, (ii) individuals that are part of the charitable class benefited by one or more of its supported organizations, or (iii) other supporting organizations that also support or benefit one or more of the filing organization’s supported organizations? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did the organization provide a grant, loan, compensation, or other similar payment to a substantial contributor (defined in section 4958(c)(3)(C)), a family member of a substantial contributor, or a 35% controlled entity with regard to a substantial contributor? If “Yes,” complete Part I of Schedule L (Form 990) .

Did the organization make a loan to a disqualified person (as defined in section 4958) not described on line 7? If “Yes,” complete Part I of Schedule L (Form 990).

Was the organization controlled directly or indirectly at any time during the tax year by one or more disqualified persons, as defined in section 4946 (other than foundation managers and organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or (2))? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did one or more disqualified persons (as defined on line 9a) hold a controlling interest in any entity in which the supporting organization had an interest? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did a disqualified person (as defined on line 9a) have an ownership interest in, or derive any personal benefit from, assets in which the supporting organization also had an interest? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

10a

Was the organization subject to the excess business holdings rules of section 4943 because of section 4943(f) (regarding certain Type II supporting organizations, and all Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organizations)? If “Yes,” answer line 10b below.

10a

Did the organization have any excess business holdings in the tax year? (Use Schedule C, Form 4720, to determine whether the organization had excess business holdings).

10b

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Page 5

Part IV

Supporting Organizations (continued)

Yes

Has the organization accepted a gift or contribution from any of the following persons?

A person who directly or indirectly controls, either alone or together with persons described on lines 11b and 11c below, the governing body of a supported organization?

11a

A family member of a person described on 11a above?

11b

A 35% controlled entity of a person described on line 11a or 11b above? If “Yes” to 11a, 11b, or 11c, provide detail in Part VI.

11c

Section B. Type I Supporting Organizations

Yes

Did the officers, directors, trustees, or membership of one or more supported organizations have the power to regularly appoint or elect at least a majority of the organization’s directors or trustees at all times during the tax year? If “No,” describe in Part VI how the supported organization(s) effectively operated, supervised, or controlled the organization’s activities. If the organization had more than one supported organization, describe how the powers to appoint and/or remove directors or trustees were allocated among the supported organizations and what conditions or restrictions, if any, applied to such powers during the tax year.

Did the organization operate for the benefit of any supported organization other than the supported organization(s) that operated, supervised, or controlled the supporting organization? If “Yes,” explain in Part VI how providing such benefit carried out the purposes of the supported organization(s) that operated, supervised or controlled the supporting organization.

Section C. Type II Supporting Organizations

Yes

Were a majority of the organization’s directors or trustees during the tax year also a majority of the directors or trustees of each of the organization’s supported organization(s)? If “No,” describe in Part VI how control or management of the supporting organization was vested in the same persons that controlled or managed the supported organization(s).

Section D. All Type III Supporting Organizations

Yes

Did the organization provide to each of its supported organizations, by the last day of the fifth month of the organization’s tax year, (i) a written notice describing the type and amount of support provided during the prior tax year, (ii) a copy of the Form 990 that was most recently filed as of the date of notification, and (iii) copies of the organization’s governing documents in effect on the date of notification, to the extent not previously provided?

Were any of the organization’s officers, directors, or trustees either (i) appointed or elected by the supported organization(s) or (ii) serving on the governing body of a supported organization? If "No," explain in Part VI how the organization maintained a close and continuous working relationship with the supported organization(s).

By reason of the relationship described in line 2 above, did the organization’s supported organizations have a significant voice in the organization’s investment policies and in directing the use of the organization’s income or assets at all times during the tax year? If "Yes," describe in Part VI the role the organization’s supported organizations played in this regard.

Section E. Type III Functionally-Integrated Supporting Organizations

Check the box next to the method that the organization used to satisfy the Integral Part Test during the year (see instructions):

The organization satisfied the Activities Test. Complete line 2 below.

The organization is the parent of each of its supported organizations. Complete line 3 below.

The organization supported a governmental entity. Describe in Part VI how you supported a government entity (see instructions)

Activities Test. Answer lines 2a and 2b below.

Yes

Did substantially all of the organization’s activities during the tax year directly further the exempt purposes of the supported organization(s) to which the organization was responsive? If "Yes," then in Part VI identify those supported organizations and explain how these activities directly furthered their exempt purposes, how the organization was responsive to those supported organizations, and how the organization determined that these activities constituted substantially all of its activities.

Did the activities described on line 2a, above constitute activities that, but for the organization’s involvement, one or more of the organization’s supported organization(s) would have been engaged in? If "Yes," explain in Part VI the reasons for the organization’s position that its supported organization(s) would have engaged in these activities but for the organization’s involvement.

Parent of Supported Organizations. Answer lines 3a and 3b below.

Did the organization have the power to regularly appoint or elect a majority of the officers, directors, or trustees of each of the supported organizations?If "Yes" or "No", provide details in Part VI.

Did the organization exercise a substantial degree of direction over the policies, programs and activities of each of its supported organizations? If "Yes," describe in Part VI. the role played by the organization in this regard.

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Page 6

Part V

Type III Non-Functionally Integrated 509(a)(3) Supporting Organizations

Check here if the organization satisfied the Integral Part Test as a qualifying trust on Nov. 20, 1970 (explain in Part VI). See instructions. All other Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organizations must complete Sections A through E.

	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

Check here if the current year is the organization's first as a non-functionally-integrated Type III supporting organization (see instructions)

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Page 7

Part V

Type III Non-Functionally Integrated 509(a)(3) Supporting Organizations(continued)

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.....

Schedule A (Form 990) (2021)

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Page 8

Part VI

Supplemental Information. Provide the explanations required by Part II, line 10; Part II, line 17a or 17b; Part III, line 12; Part IV, Section A, lines 1, 2, 3b, 3c, 4b, 4c, 5a, 6, 9a, 9b, 9c, 11a, 11b, and 11c; Part IV, Section B, lines 1 and 2; Part IV, Section C, line 1; Part IV, Section D, lines 2 and 3; Part IV, Section E, lines 1c, 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b; Part V, line 1; Part V, Section B, line 1e; Part V Section D, lines 5, 6, and 8; and Part V, Section E, lines 2, 5, and 6. Also complete this part for any additional information. (See instructions).

Facts And Circumstances Test

Return Reference	Explanation

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

SCHEDULE O
(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Supplemental Information to Form 990 or 990-EZ

Complete to provide information for responses to specific questions on
Form 990 or 990-EZ or to provide any additional information.
MediumBullet

Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
MediumBullet

Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2021

Open to Public
Inspection

Name of the organization

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC

Employer identification number

58-1539320

Return Reference	Explanation
FORM 990-EZ, PART I, LINE 16 - OTHER EXPENSES	DESCRIPTION: LITIGATION ACTIVITIES. AMOUNT: 10,024. DESCRIPTION: LEGAL DEFENSE INFORMATION SERVICES AND REPORTS. AMOUNT: 125. DESCRIPTION: MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES. AMOUNT: 2,208. TOTAL TO FORM 990-EZ, LINE 16: 12,357.
PART III, LINE 28	THE FUND SERVED AS AMICUS CURIAE IN EKNES-TUCKER V. UNITED STATES, IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA (C.A. NO. 2:22-CV-184-LCB-SRW) CHALLENGING AN INCREDIBLY OVERBROAD SUBPOENA ISSUED TO A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION, EAGLE FORUM OF ALABAMA (EFA), THAT HAD THE AUDACITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FORMULATION OF LEGISLATION, HEARINGS, AND PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE VULNERABLE CHILD COMPASSION AND PROTECTION ACT, ENACTED BY ALABAMA IN 2022. THE U.S. SUBPOENAED 11 CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS DELVING INTRUSIVELY INTO THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND COMMUNICATIONS OF EFA AS WELL AS MATTERS OF PUBLIC RECORD WHICH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COULD EASILY OBTAIN FROM PUBLIC SOURCES. THE SUBPOENA WOULD HAVE IMPOSED A TREMENDOUS BURDEN ON EFA, ITS SMALL STAFF, AND VOLUNTEERS, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY EXERCISED THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC POLICY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING LEGISLATION, SENDING A MESSAGE TO THEM AND OTHERS WHO WOULD DARE TO SPEAK OUT ABOUT MEDICAL CARE OR TREATMENT OF TRANSGENDER MINORS OR MINORS WITH GENDER DYSPHORIA, IN OPPOSITION TO THE TRANSGENDER MOVEMENT. THIS AMOUNTED TO A WEAPONIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. OUR BRIEF WAS FILED ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2022. FINDING THAT "THE BURDEN OF THE REQUESTED MATERIAL GREATLY OUTWEIGHS ANY SLIGHT RELEVANCE IT MAY HAVE," THE COURT QUASHED THE SUBPOENA IN FULL BY ORDER ENTERED OCTOBER 24, 2022.
PART III, LINE 28	THE FUND SERVED AS AMICUS CURIAE IN CORAL RIDGE MINISTRIES V. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, PETITIONING THE U.S. SUPREME COURT FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. THE CASE CHALLENGED THE SUPREME COURT'S FIRST AMENDMENT DEFAMATION JURISPRUDENCE ESTABLISHED IN NEW YORK TIMES V. SULLIVAN, 276 U.S. 254 (1964), THAT HAS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR A "PUBLIC FIGURE" TO SUCCESSFULLY SUE A DEFAMER. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER IS NOTORIOUS FOR DEFAMING CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATIONS BY LABELING THEM "HATE" GROUPS, AS IT DID TO CORAL RIDGE MINISTRIES IN THIS CASE. AS WE ARGUED, THE SULLIVAN COURT USURPED POWER IT DID NOT HAVE TO CONSTITUTIONALIZE THE COMMON LAW OF DEFAMATION, A DECISION THAT REQUIRES REEXAMINATION. OUR BRIEF WAS FILED ON DECEMBER 30, 2021. THE PETITION WAS DENIED ON JUNE 27, 2022.
PART III, LINE 28	THE FUND IS SERVING AS AMICUS CURIAE IN FEDS FOR MEDICAL FREEDOM V. BIDEN, NO. 22-40043, IN THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, CONCERNING WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAD AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A NATIONWIDE COVID INJECTION MANDATE FOR ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HAD ISSUED A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION ON THE GROUNDS THAT A COVID-19 VACCINE MANDATE WAS NOT AN EMPLOYMENT MATTER AND THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE MANDATE. A PANEL FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT REVERSED ON APRIL 7, 2022, HOLDING THAT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES MUST APPEAL ADVERSE AGENCY EMPLOYMENT DETERMINATIONS TO THE MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, WHOSE DECISIONS MAY BE REVIEWED ONLY IN THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT; THUS, THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. APPELLEES FILED FOR REHEARING EN BANC, WHICH WAS GRANTED. ORAL ARGUMENT WAS HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2022, AND THE PARTIES ARE AWAITING A DECISION.
PART III, LINE 28	THE FUND SERVED AS AMICUS CURIAE IN NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, NOS. 21A244 & 21A247, CONSOLIDATED CASES CHALLENGING OSHA'S REGULATORY ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE A COVID 19 VACCINATION MANDATE ON EVERY EMPLOYER IN THE U.S. WITH 100 OR MORE EMPLOYEES, ON EMERGENCY APPLICATIONS FOR STAY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. OUR BRIEF WAS FILED ON DECEMBER 30, 2021. THE SUPREME COURT HEARD EXPEDITED ORAL ARGUMENT ON JANUARY 7, 2022 AND ON JANUARY 13 STAYED ENFORCEMENT OF THE MANDATE ON GROUNDS THAT OSHA WAS EXCEEDING ITS AUTHORITY TO REGULATE WORKPLACE HAZARDS AND WAS INSTEAD ATTEMPTING TO REGULATE BROAD PUBLIC HEALTH MATTERS, THUS ENDING THE CASE.
PART III, LINE 28	THE FUND SERVED AS AMICUS CURIAE IN HELTZEL V. YOUNGKIN, ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT (NO. 21-1084). THE CASE CHALLENGED A 2021 DECISION OF THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT APPROVING THEN GOVERNOR NORTHAM'S DECISION TO REMOVE AND DESTROY THE ROBERT E. LEE MONUMENT ON MONUMENT AVENUE IN RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, IN VIOLATION OF A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT DATING BACK TO WHEN VIRGINIA TOOK OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND AND MONUMENT. THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S 1889 JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZED THE GOVERNOR TO ACCEPT THE PROPERTY WITH THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT PROVIDING "THE GUARANTEE OF THE STATE THAT IT WILL HOLD SAID STATUE AND PEDESTAL AND GROUND PERPETUALLY SACRED TO THE MONUMENTAL PURPOSE TO WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN DEVOTED." NEITHER NORTHAM NOR THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT FELT ANY DUTY TO BE BOUND BY THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT SET OUT IN THE 1890 DEED. OUR BRIEF, FILED ON MARCH 9, 2022, ARGUED THAT THE MONUMENT WAS A VICTIM OF TODAY'S "CANCEL CULTURE AND THAT THE CASE PRESENTED THE COURT WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW IN ONE IMPORTANT AREA PRESERVING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS FROM ABROGATION BY ARBITRARY STATE GOVERNMENT ACTION. THE PETITION WAS DENIED ON MARCH 23, 2022, ENDING THE CASE.
PART III, LINE 28	THE FUND SERVED AS AMICUS CURIAE IN CAROLYN JEWEL V. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, 856 FED. APPX. 640 (9TH CIR. 2021) PETITIONING THE U.S. SUPREME COURT FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (NO. 21-1017). THE CASE CHALLENGED THE BROAD-REACHING SURVEILLENCE OF AMERICANS IN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF FOURTH AND FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS, JUSTIFIED ON A "STATE SECRETS DOCTRINE." THE NINTH CIRCUIT RULED THAT PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE FAILED TO SHOW PARTICULARIZED INJURY" THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS INTERFERED WITH THEIR COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS RECORDS" (ID. AT 641) AS OPPOSED TO EVERYONE'S COMMUNICATIONS, A STANDING ISSUE. THE DISTRICT COURT HAD DISMISSED THE CASE ON GROUNDS THAT PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING THE CASE AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED. OUR BRIEF AT THE SUPREME COURT ARGUED, INTER ALIA: (1) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS EMPOWER THE "DEEP STATE" TO BE OVERLORDS OF THE PEOPLE, RATHER THAN THEIR SERVANTS; (2) NSA SURVEILLANCE OF FEDERAL AND STATE OFFICIALS, IN ALL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT INCLUDING THE JUDICIARY, CAN STRIKE FEAR INTO THE HEART OF THOSE OFFICIALS WHO HAVE HIDDEN SECRETS, COMPROMISING THEIR INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT; AND (3) THE GOVERNMENT'S RATIONALE FOR TOTAL SURVEILLANCE OF AMERICANS TO PREVENT ALL WRONGDOINGIS A ROLE IT SHOULD NOT HAVE. AS THE DEEP STATE INCREASINGLY IDENTIFIES DOMESTIC TERRORISM AS THE NATION'S PRIMARY THREAT, IT RAMPS UP ITS "PRE-CRIME" POWERS IN VIOLATION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS. THE COURT DENIED THE PETITION ON JUNE 13, 2022, ENDING THE CASE.
PART III, LINE 28	THE FUND SERVED AS AMICUS CURIAE IN MISSOURI V. BIDEN IN SUPPORT OF MISSOURI'S PETITION TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT (NO. 21-1463) FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. THE CASE CHALLENGED A NEW RULE OF THE CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES ("CMS") REQUIRING ALL EMPLOYEES, VOLUNTEERS, AND THIRD-PARTY CONTRACTORS EMPLOYED BY OR WORKING AT CMS-COVERED FACILITIES TO RECEIVE THE COVID-19 "VACCINATION" AS A CONDITION OF THE FACILITY RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDS. THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULE ON NOVEMBER 29, 2021, THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT VACATED THE INJUNCTION AND REMANDED ON APRIL 11, 2022, AND THE PLAINTIFFS FILED THEIR PETITION IN THE SUPREME COURT ON MAY 12. OUR BRIEF WAS FILED ON JUNE 21. THE SUPREME COURT DENIED THE PETITION ON OCTOBER 3, 2022. CONSISTENT WITH THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT'S DECISION, THE CASE WAS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WHERE THE PARTIES ARE NOW LITIGATING THE MERITS OF THE CASE UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT.
PART III, LINE 28	THE FUND IS SERVING AS AMICUS CURIAE IN 303 CREATIVE LLC, ET AL. V. AUBREY ELENIS, ET AL., ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT (NO. 21-476), JOINING IN A BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS FILED ON OCTOBER 28, 2021. AS EXPLAINED IN THE AMICUS BRIEF, "LORIE SMITH IS OWNER OF A SMALL BUSINESS, 303 CREATIVE LLC, WHICH OFFERS WEBSITE DESIGN SERVICES. MS. SMITH WANTS TO EXPAND HER BUSINESS TO DESIGN CUSTOM WEBSITES FOR COUPLES PLANNING WEDDINGS. SHE HAS WRITTEN AND WANTS TO POST A MESSAGE ON HER WEBSITE THAT SAYS THAT SHE WILL WORK ONLY FOR OPPOSITE SEX COUPLES HAVING TRADITIONAL WEDDINGS, AND NOT CREATE SUCH WEBSITES FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES. APPELLANTS FILED SUIT TO ENJOIN COLORADO FROM BRINGING AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION BASED ON ITS MARKETING PLAN VIOLATING COLORADO'S PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS STATUTETHE COLORADO ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT ("CADA"). AS THE PETITION EXPLAINS, CADA BOTH 'REQUIRES HER TO CREATE WEBSITES CELEBRATING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND BANS HER EXPLANATORY STATEMENT' AS TO WHAT TYPE OF WEDDINGS WOULD BE SERVED. SEE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ("PET. CERT.") AT 2. APPELLANTS BROUGHT CLAIMS BASED ON THE FREE SPEECH, FREE PRESS, AND FREE EXERCISE CLAUSES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. IN 2017, THE DISTRICT COURT QUICKLY DISMISSED CLAIMS AGAINST CADA'S 'ACCOMMODATION CLAUSE' WHICH PREVENTS BUSINESSES FROM REFUSING SERVICE, FOR LACK OF STANDING. COLO. REV. STAT. 24-34-601(2)(A). IT ALLOWED CHALLENGES TO THE 'COMMUNICATIONS CLAUSE' WHICH PREVENTS BUSINESSES FROM ANNOUNCING THEY 'DISCRIMINATE' TO PROCEED. SEE ID. THEN, IN 2019, THE DISTRICT COURT RULED AGAINST THE CHALLENGES TO THAT COMMUNICATION CLAUSE. SEE 303 CREATIVE V. ELENIS, 405 F. SUPP. 3D 907 (D. COLO. 2019). ON JULY 26, 2021, A SPLIT PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE RULING OF THE LOWER COURT. 303 CREATIVE V. ELENIS, 6 F.4TH 1160 (10TH CIR. 2021) WITH CHIEF JUDGE TYMKOVICH DISSENTING." PETITIONERS FILED THEIR PETITION ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2021. THE STATE FILED ITS OPPOSITION ON DECEMBER 8, 2021. PETITIONERS FILED THEIR REPLY BRIEF ON DECEMBER 22, 2021. ON FEBRUARY 22, 2022, THE COURT GRANTED THE PETITION BUT LIMITED IT TO WHETHER APPLYING A PUBLIC-ACCOMMODATION LAW TO COMPEL AN ARTIST TO SPEAK OR STAY SILENT VIOLATES THE FREE SPEECH CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. MERITS BRIEFS AND AMICUS BRIEFS ON THE MERITS WERE FILED, INCLUDING OUR AMICUS BRIEF FILED ON JUNE 2, 2022. ORAL ARGUMENT WAS HELD ON DECEMBER 5, 2022, AND WE ARE AWAITING A DECISION.
PART III, LINE 28	THE FUND IS SERVING AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SAN FRANCISCO V. AZAR, CONSOLIDATED CASES IN THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, JOINING IN A BRIEF FILED ON JUNE 22, 2020. THE CASE SEEKS TO UPHOLD REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES TO IMPLEMENT FEDERAL LAWS PROTECTING THE CONSCIENCE RIGHTS OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS WANTING NO PART IN THE PERFORMING OF ABORTIONS OR STERILIZATIONS, AMONG OTHER MEDICAL PROCEDURES, AND TO PROTECT THEM FROM DISCRIMINATION FOR THEIR REFUSAL TO PERFORM THEM. U.S. DISTRICT COURTS IN CALIFORNIA AND THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STRUCK DOWN THE REGULATIONS. ON JUNE 16, 2022, THE COURT OF APPEALS ENTERED AN ORDER STAYING THE CASE PENDING NEW RULEMAKING THAT MAY MOOT THE CASE.
PART III, LINE 28	THE FUND IS ALSO SERVING AS AMICUS CURIAE IN NEW YORK STATE V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, CONSOLIDATED CASES IN THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, JOINING IN A BRIEF FILED ON MAY 26, 2020. THE CASE IS SIMILAR TO SAN FRANCISCO V. AZAR. ON FEBRUARY 5, 2021, THE COURT GRANTED THE MOTION OF THE U.S. TO HOLD THE APPEAL IN ABEYANCE WHILE THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION GETS IT PERSONNEL IN PLACE AT HHS AND RECONSIDERS THE MATTERS AT ISSUE. SINCE APRIL 8, 2022, HHS HAS FILED MONTHLY STATUS REPORTS INDICATING THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN RULEMAKING ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE. ON DECEMBER 8, 2022, UPON STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, THE COURT ENTERED AN ORDER DISMISSING THE CONSOLIDATED CASES WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REINSTATMENT. THE FUTURE OF THESE CASES DEPENDS ON THE RULEMAKING.
PART III, LINE 28	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
PART III, LINE 28	THE FUND SERVED AS AMICUS CURIAE IN AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION V. XAVIER BECERRA IN THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, JOINING IN A BRIEF FILED ON JANUARY 27, 2017. AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION (APF) SUED THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL (AG) IN AN "AS APPLIED" CHALLENGE TO THE REQUIREMENT TO FILE UNREDACTED COPIES OF IRS SCHEDULE B WITH THE AG AS A PRECONDITION TO FUNDRAISING IN THE STATE. THIS WOULD REQUIRE DISCLOSURE OF APF'S MAJOR DONORS' NAMES AND ADDRESSES TO THE CALIFORNIA AG, WHICH APF CONTENDS WOULD VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF ITS DONORS TO SUPPORT IT ANONYMOUSLY. THE DISTRICT COURT AGREED WITH APF AND ENTERED A PERMANENT INJUNCTION PROHIBITING THE AG FROM DEMANDING UNREDACTED SCHEDULE BS FROM APF, LEADING TO THE APPEAL. UNFORTUNATELY, ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2018, THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CALIFORNIA AG. AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION V. BECERRA, 903 F.3D 1000 (2018). ON SEPTEMBER 25TH, AFP FILED A PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC, WHICH AS DENIED ON MARCH 29, 2019 (919 F.3D 1177). APF FILED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ON AUGUST 26, 2019, AND THE FUND JOINED IN AN AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2019. ON JULY 1, 2021, THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN THE SCHEDULE B REQUIREMENT AS FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION V. BONTA, 594 U.S. , 141 S.CT. 2373 (2021), REVERSING THE NINTH CIRCUIT'S PRIOR JUDGMENT (ESSENTIALLY ENDING THIS GOVERNMENTAL INTRUSION INTO DONOR LISTS) AND REMANDING THE CASE TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE SUPREME COURT DECISION. THE NINTH CIRCUIT THEN AFFIRMED THE ORIGINAL DISTRICT COURT DECISION AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE SUPREME COURT DECISION. ON DECEMBER 10, 2021, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED AN AGREED UPON, STIPULATED ORDER MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AS FOLLOWS: "THE STIPULATION IS HEREBY GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS PERMANENTLY ENJOINED FROM REQUIRING ANY REGISTRANT TO FILE WITH THE REGISTRY A PERIODIC WRITTEN REPORT CONTAINING A COPY OF ITS SCHEDULE B TO IRS FORM 990. NO REGISTRANT SHALL BE CONSIDERED DEFICIENT OR DELINQUENT IN ITS REPORTING REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FILE ITS CONFIDENTIAL SCHEDULE B WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REGISTRY." ON AUGUST 2, 2022, HAVING SETTLED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AND PLAINTIFF HAVING RECEIVED PAYMENT, THE PARTIES FILED A JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST THAT THE CASE BE DISMISSED, WHICH THE COURT ENTERED THE SAME DAY, ENDING THE CASE.
PART III, LINE 28	IN 2014, THE FUND FINANCED THE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF PROMINENT D.C. LAWYER AND NONPROFIT EXPERT CHARLES M. WATKINS IN CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE POLITICS V. KAMALA D. HARRIS, THEN ON APPEAL TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (NO. 14-15978). HARRIS WAS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (AG) OF CALIFORNIA. CALIFORNIA REQUIRES CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS TO REGISTER AND FILE REPORTS IN ORDER TO SOLICIT CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE STATE. ONE OF THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS IS IRS FORM 990, WHICH THE CENTER HAS FILED WITH ONE EXCEPTION: IT REDACTED THE NAMES OF ITS DONORS LISTED ON SCHEDULE B, AS ADVISED BY THE IRS, OUT OF CONCERN THAT CALIFORNIA WOULD, EITHER SUA SPONTE OR IN RESPONSE TO A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST, MAKE THE DONORS' IDENTITIES PUBLIC. (SCHEDULE B IDENTIFIES A CHARITY'S LARGEST DONORS. THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE PROTECTS THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF DONOR INFORMATION ON SCHEDULE B AND ALLOWS CHARITIES TO REDACT SUCH INFORMATION WHEN PROVIDING SCHEDULE B IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC REQUESTS.) DONOR IDENTITIES HAVE LONG BEEN PROTECTED OUT OF CONCERN THAT FORCING PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WOULD DRIVE DONORS AWAY AND CHILL THE RIGHT OF DONORS AND ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS TO ASSOCIATE AND PROMOTE CAUSES UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. THIS WAS ARTICULATED BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN THE LANDMARK NAACP V. ALABAMA, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958) ("IT IS HARDLY A NOVEL PERCEPTION THAT COMPELLED DISCLOSURE OF AFFILIATION WITH GROUPS ENGAGED IN ADVOCACY MAY CONSTITUTE . . . A RESTRAINT ON FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION . . . ."). (A RECENT EXAMPLE IS THE FORCED RESIGNATION OF MOZILLA CEO BRENDAN EICH JUST DAYS AFTER HIS APPOINTMENT, IN RESPONSE TO A CAMPAIGN AGAINST HIM FOR SUPPORTING CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 8, WHICH LED TO HIS CONTRIBUTION BEING DISCLOSED ON A CALIFORNIA INITIATIVE CAMPAIGN REPORT. "MOZILLA CEO BRENDAN EICH RESIGNS UNDER FIRE FOR SUPPORTING PROP. 8," LOS ANGELES TIMES, APRIL 3, 2014, AVAILABLE AT HTTP://ARTICLES.LATIMES.COM/2014/APR/03/BUSINESS/LA-FI-TN-MOZILLA-CEO-RE SIGNS-UNDER-FIRE-PROP-8-20 140403, VISITED ON 1/21/20.) AG HARRIS ATTEMPTED TO JUSTIFY HER DEMAND BY CLAIMING THAT HER OFFICE NEEDED THE DONOR INFORMATION TO FERRET OUT INSIDER FINANCIAL ABUSE OF CHARITIES, AMONG OTHER THINGS. WATKINS COUNTERED THAT OTHER PUBLIC INFORMATION ON THE 990, E.G., INFORMATION ABOUT OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AND KEY EMPLOYEES, IS FAR MORE RELEVANT WITH RESPECT TO SUCH ISSUES BECAUSE THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE THE TRUE INSIDERS. DONORS ARE NOT. WHOLESALE GATHERING OF DONOR INFORMATION FROM ORGANIZATIONS NOT SUSPECTED OF ANY WRONGDOING IS NOT THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS FOR ACCOMPLISHING THE AG'S ASSERTED GOALS. IN ADDITION, OTHER STATES DO NOT REQUIRE SCHEDULE B, AND SOME EVEN CAUTION ORGANIZATIONS NOT TO SUBMIT IT, OR IT WILL BECOME PUBLIC UNDER THEIR PUBLIC INFORMATION LAWS. IN SHORT, THE CALIFORNIA AG FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT REQUIRING CHARITIES TO FILE THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THEIR LARGEST DONORS IS THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS OF CARRYING OUT HER DUTIES, AND THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE ANONYMOUSLY SHOULD PREVAIL. THE CENTER SOUGHT A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WHICH WAS DENIED. THE CENTER APPEALED TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, WHICH UPHELD THE DISTRICT COURT DECISION. THE CENTER THEN PETITIONED THE U.S. SUPREME COURT FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. THE FUND SERVED AS AN AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION WITH A BRIEF FILED ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015. THE PETITION WAS DENIED ON NOVEMBER 9, 2015. ON AUGUST 12, 2016, THE CENTER FILED AN AMENDED COMPLAINT SEEKING A DECLARATION THAT THE AG'S DEMAND FOR SCHEDULE B VIOLATES, INTER ALIA, THE FIRST, FOURTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, AND SEEKING THE ENTRY OF A PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THE AG FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS, WHICH WAS FULLY BRIEFED ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2016. MEANWHILE, ON JANUARY 25, 2016, THE FUND JOINED IN COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CHARITABLE TRUSTS SECTION IN RESPONSE TO ITS NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON DONOR CONFIDENTIALITY, REGARDING THE SAME ISSUES BEING LITIGATED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. THE AG'S OFFICE WAS ATTEMPTING TO CREATE A REGULATION JUSTIFYING ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEMANDS FOR SCHEDULE B. ON OCTOBER 31, 2017, THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GRANTED THE AG'S MOTION AND DISMISSED THE CASE (296 F.SUPP. 3D 1219). THE CENTER (NOW NAMED THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH (IFS)) FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNDER THE NAME INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH V. BECERRA (NO. 17-17403). THE FUND SUPPORTED AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF IFS ON MARCH 16, 2018. THE CALIFORNIA AG MOVED FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE, WHICH WAS GRANTED ON OCTOBER 11, 2019 (2019 WL 12469937). IFS FILED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ON DECEMBER 18, 2019. THE CALIFORNIA AG FILED A WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO RESPOND, BUT THE SUPREME COURT ASKED THE AG TO FILE A BRIEF, WHICH THE AG DID ON MAY 1, 2020. IFS FILED ITS REPLY BRIEF ON MAY 15, 2020. ON JULY 2, 2021, THE SUPREME COURT GRANTED THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI, VACATED THE JUDGMENT BELOW, AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN LIGHT OF ITS RECENT AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION DECISION, INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH V. BONTA, 142 S. CT. 46 (MEM.) (2021). IN TURN, THE NINTH CIRCUIT VACATED THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN LIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT'S AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION DECISION. ON APRIL 1, 2022, THE DISTRICT COURT, GRANTING A STIPULATION TO ENTER JUDGMENT AFTER REMAND, ENTERED AN ORDER "THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS PERMANENTLY ENJOINED FROM REQUIRING ANY REGISTRANT TO FILE WITH THE REGISTRY OF CHARITABLE TRUSTS A PERIODIC WRITTEN REPORT CONTAINING A COPY OF ITS SCHEDULE B TO IRS FORM 990. NO REGISTRANT SHALL BE CONSIDERED DEFICIENT OR DELINQUENT IN ITS REPORTING REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FILE ITS CONFIDENTIAL SCHEDULE B WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REGISTRY." FOLLOWING THE PARTIES' SETTLEMENT REGARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AND PRESENTATION OF A STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER, THE COURT ENTERED AN ORDER ON NOVEMBER 7, 2022, DISMISSING AND CLOSING THE CASE.
PART III, LINE 28	THE FUND CONTINUES TO MONITOR DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREAS OF FIRST AMENDMENT, CAMPAIGN FINANCE, AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WITH A VIEW TOWARD PARTICIPATING IN OR SUPPORTING ADDITIONAL LITIGATION WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY ARISES.

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Cat. No. 51056K

Schedule O (Form 990) 2021

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

1	Contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts received ....................	1	13,500
2	Program service revenue including government fees and contracts ................	2
3	Membership dues and assessments .............................	3
4	Investment income ....................................	4
5a	Gross amount from sale of assets other than inventory .......	5a
b	Less: cost or other basis and sales expenses ............	5b
c	Gain or (loss) from sale of assets other than inventory (Subtract line 5b from line 5a) ......	5c
6	Gaming and fundraising events
a	Gross income from gaming (attach Schedule G if greater than $15,000)	6a
b	Gross income from fundraising events (not including $ of contributions from fundraising events reported on line 1) (attach Schedule G if the			sum of such gross income and contributions exceeds $15,000) ..	6b
c	Less: direct expenses from gaming and fundraising events ...	6c
d	Net income or (loss) from gaming and fundraising events (add lines 6a and 6b and subtract line 6c)	6d
7a	Gross sales of inventory, less returns and allowances ......	7a
b	Less: cost of goods sold .............	7b
c	Gross profit or (loss) from sales of inventory (Subtract line 7b from line 7a) .........	7c
8	Other revenue (describe in Schedule O) ....................	8
9	Total revenue. Add lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5c, 6d, 7c, and 8 ..............	9	13,500

Part ⅢStatement of Program Service Accomplishments (see the instructions for Part III) Check if the organization used Schedule O to respond to any question in this Part III . .	Expenses (Required for section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations; optional for others.)
What is the organization's primary exempt purpose? TO PROVIDE CERTAIN LEGAL ASSISTANCE ON VARIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ISSUES.
Describe the organization’s program service accomplishments for each of its three largest program services, as measured by expenses. In a clear and concise manner, describe the services provided, the number of persons benefited, and other relevant information for each program title.
28 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES (Grants $ 0) If this amount includes foreign grants, check here ...			28a	10,024
29 LEGAL DEFENSE INFORMATION SERVICES AND REPORTS (Grants $ 0) If this amount includes foreign grants, check here ...			29a	125
30 (Grants $ ) If this amount includes foreign grants, check here ...			30a
31 Other program services (describe in Schedule O) ................ (Grants $ ) If this amount includes foreign grants, check here...	31a
32 Total program service expenses (add lines 28a through 31a)..........	32	10,149

(a) Name and business address of each independent contractor	(b) Type of service	(c) Compensation
NONE

Sign Here

	Signature of officer	Date

	Type or print name and title

10	Grants and similar amounts paid (list in Schedule O) ................	10
11	Benefits paid to or for members ......................	11
12	Salaries, other compensation, and employee benefits ................	12
13	Professional fees and other payments to independent contractors ............	13
14	Occupancy, rent, utilities, and maintenance ...................	14
15	Printing, publications, postage, and shipping ...................	15
16	Other expenses (describe in Schedule O) ...................	16	12,357
17	Total expenses. Add lines 10 through 16 .................	17	12,357

18	Excess or (deficit) for the year (Subtract line 17 from line 9) ............	18	1,143
19	Net assets or fund balances at beginning of year (from line 27, column (A)) (must agree with
	end-of-year figure reported on prior year’s return) .................	19	71,163
20	Other changes in net assets or fund balances (explain in Schedule O) ...........	20	0
21	Net assets or fund balances at end of year. Combine lines 18 through 20 ..........	21	72,306