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) 2019 | (b) 2020 | (c) 2021 | (d) 2022 | (e) 2023 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. | 5,504,863 | 5,948,844 | 5,796,880 | 6,430,311 | 30,730,984 | 54,411,882 |
| 2 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf .... | ||||||
| 3 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | ||||||
| 4 | Total. Add lines 1 through 3 | 5,504,863 | 5,948,844 | 5,796,880 | 6,430,311 | 30,730,984 | 54,411,882 |
| 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) .. | 22,717,526 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 31,694,356 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in)
![]() |
(a) 2019 | (b) 2020 | (c) 2021 | (d) 2022 | (e) 2023 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 5,504,863 | 5,948,844 | 5,796,880 | 6,430,311 | 30,730,984 | 54,411,882 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 99,229 | 55,008 | 57,767 | 111,902 | 463,984 | 787,890 |
| 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.).. | 694 | 35,361 | 31,152 | 15,908 | 449,233 | 532,348 |
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10 | 55,732,120 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal
year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2019 | (b) 2020 | (c) 2021 | (d) 2022 | (e) 2023 | (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) 2019 | (b) 2020 | (c) 2021 | (d) 2022 | (e) 2023 | (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 2023 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-2023 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2023 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Distributable amount for 2023 from Section C, line 6 | ||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2023 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI).
See instructions. |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2023: | ||||
| a From 2018....... | ||||
| b From 2019....... | ||||
| c From 2020....... | ||||
| d From 2021....... | ||||
| e From 2022....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2023 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2018 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from line 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2023 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2023 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from line 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2023, 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 2023. 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 2024. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a Excess from 2019..... | ||||
| b Excess from 2020..... | ||||
| c Excess from 2021..... | ||||
| d Excess from 2022..... | ||||
| e Excess from 2023..... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| SCHEDULE A, PART II, LINE 10, EXPLANATION OF OTHER INCOME: | OTHER INCOME - 2019 AMOUNT: $ 694. 2020 AMOUNT: $ 361. 2021 AMOUNT: $ 1,152. 2022 AMOUNT: $ 15,908. 2023 AMOUNT: $ 81,519. NON REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT - 2020 AMOUNT: $ 35,000. 2021 AMOUNT: $ 30,000. VACATED FEES - 2023 AMOUNT: $ 367,714. |
| SCHEDULE A, PART II, SECTION A, LINE 1: | DURING 2023, THE INSTITUTE RECEIVED A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION FROM ONE DONOR THAT APPROXIMATED 80% OF TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| FORM 990, PART III: CASE UPDATE | ADAMS V. DOWNINGTOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT IN PENNSYLVANIA, TARA ADAMS SENT A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST TO THE DOWNINGTOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT ("SCHOOL DISTRICT") ON NOVEMBER 2, 2023, REGARDING HER DAUGHTER AND A SCHOOL CLUB. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DENIED THE REQUEST, CLAIMING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS DO NOT CONSTITUTE RECORDS. WE ARE REPRESENTING MS. ADAMS TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE RECORDS. ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB SUBPOENA THE INSTITUTE IS REPRESENTING AS NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION, THE ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB, THAT RECEIVED A SUBPOENA IN A CASE TO WHICH IT WAS NOT A PARTY. THE BASIS FOR THE SUBPOENA WAS THAT FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB HAD SUPPORTED LEGISLATION AND HAD PETITIONED MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE REGARDING THE LEGISLATION. WE ASSERT THAT THESE COMMUNICATIONS ARE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE, INCLUDING UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 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 TRIAL COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF THE STATE. THE CASE IS CURRENTLY ON APPEAL TO THE OREGON COURT OF APPEALS. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. BORGELT 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. IN THIS CASE, TAXPAYERS ASSERT THAT THIS PRACTICE IS AN UNLAWFUL SUBSIDY TO A PRIVATE ENTITY. THE TRIAL COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF THE CITY AND THE UNION AND AWARDED THE AFA $115,250 IN ATTORNEY FEES. THE APPEAL COURT UPHELD THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING. THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT GRANTED REVIEW. THE COURT UPHELD THE RELEASE TIME PROVISIONS BUT REVERSED THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES. 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 FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE TRIAL COURT, AND WE WERE AWARDED $109,418.04 IN ATTORNEY FEES. CENTER FOR ARIZONA POLICY, INC. V. STATE OF ARIZONA THIS CASE CHALLENGES THE VOTERS' RIGHT TO KNOW ACT (PROP 211), WHICH IMPOSES NEW DONOR DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS ON ORGANIZATIONS THAT ENGAGE IN ISSUE ADVOCACY IN ARIZONA AND DESTROYS THE CONFIDENTIALITY MANY ORGANIZATIONS AND DONORS HAVE TOWARD THESE DONATIONS. PROP 211 CHILLS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH, WITHOUT ANY GUARANTEE THAT DONOR DISCLOSURE WILL ACTUALLY LEAD TO A MORE INFORMED ELECTORATE. WE REPRESENT TWO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND TWO ANONYOMOUS DONORS WHO WISH TO PROTECT DONOR PRIVACY. THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AND THE CASE IS ON APPEAL TO THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. CROWE V. OREGON STATE BAR 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 POLITICAL ADVOCACY AND TO PUBLISH A MAGAZINE THAT MAKES POLITICAL STATEMENTS WITH WHICH MEMBERS DO NOT NECESSARILY AGREE. THE CASE RAISES FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION ISSUES. THE TRIAL COURT FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE OREGON STATE BAR. IT IS ON APPEAL TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. FLAGSTAFF PROPOSITION 208 CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF NUMEROUS FLAGSTAFF PROPERTY OWNERS, WE FILED CLAIMS FOR JUST COMPENSATION UNDER ARIZONA'S PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT AFTER THAT CITY ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE SEVERELY RESTRICTING THE RIGHT TO USE PROPERTY IN THE CITY. THESE CLAIMS RESULTED IN FAVORABLE SETTLEMENT, WITHOUT HAVING TO PURSUE LITIGATION. GILMORE V. GALLEGO THIS CASE IS A CHALLENGE TO RELEASE TIME IN A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF PHOENIX AND A LABOR UNION UNDER THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION'S FREE EXPRESSION, ASSOCIATION, AND RIGHT TO WORK PROVISIONS, AND THE STATE CONSTITUTION'S GIFT CLAUSE. 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, 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 REPRESENT TWO CITY EMPLOYEES AND 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 WERE APPEALED. THE APPEAL COURT AFFIRMED THE GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS BUT VACATED THE FEE AWARD. THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT GRANTED REVIEW AND THE CASE IS PENDING DECISION. HEDRICK V. CITY OF HOLIDAY ISLAND STEVE HENDRICK RUNS A DUMPSTER BUSINESS IN CARROLL COUNTY, ARKANSAS. UNFORTUNATELY, HIS ABILITY TO RUN HIS BUSINESS IN MULTIPLE CITIES/TOWNS IN THE COUNTY HAS BEEN HAMPERED BY GOVERNMENT EXCLUSIVITY AGREEMENTS, EVEN THOUGH HIS BUSINESS IS NOT A TRADITIONAL, PERIODIC TRASH COLLECTION BUSINESS, BUT SERVES UNIQUE TRASH COLLECTION NEEDS, SUCH AS HAULING TRASH FROM A CONSTRUCTION SITE. ON APRIL 4, 2022, THE CITY OF HOLIDAY ISLAND ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRED ALL RESIDENTS TO CONTRACT FOR TRASH PICK-UP WITH CARROLL COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISTRICT (CCSW) AND LATER SENT A LETTER TO MR. HENDRICK DIRECTING HIM TO CEASE ALL BUSINESS WITHIN THE TOWN. WE ARE REPRESENTING MR. HENDRICK IN CHALLENGING THE EXCLUSIVITY ORDINANCE FOR VIOLATING VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION. THE CASE IS PENDING IN THE TRIAL COURT. KNIGHT V. FONTES ARIZONA LAW PROHIBITS VOTERS IN CERTAIN GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FROM VOTING ON THE RETENTION OF JUDGES TO THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS, BASED ON THE JUDGE'S RESIDENCY. THIS CASE CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THAT STATE LAW, SEEKING A DECLARATION THAT JUDGES TO THE COURT OF APPEALS MUST STAND FOR RETENTION ON A STATEWIDE BASIS, BECAUSE THEIR DECISIONS ARE BINDING ON ALL ARIZONANS. WE REPRESENT ARIZONA VOTERS IN THIS CASE, WHICH IS PENDING IN MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT. LAVIGNE V. GREAT SALT BAY COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD WE REPRESENT AMBER LAVIGNE IN A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE ACTIONS AND POLICIES OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT IN MAINE. A SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER GAVE MS. LAVIGNE'S 13-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER A CHEST BINDER AND SECRETLY ADVISED HER ABOUT GENDER TRANSITIONING. THE SOCIAL WORKER ADVISED THE CHILD NOT TO TELL HER PARENTS. MS. LAVIGNE WAS UPSET THAT SHE WAS NOT CONSULTED AND WAS DELIBERATELY KEPT IN THE DARK ABOUT THESE DECISIONS. WE BROUGHT A CHALLENGE ON BEHALF OF MS. LAVIGNE IN FEDERAL COURT ASSERTING THAT THE SCHOOL VIOLATED MS. LAVIGNE'S FUNDAMENTAL PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, AND UNDER THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE. THE DISTRICT COURT RULED AGAINST MS. LAVINGE AND THE CASE IS ON APPEAL TO THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. |
| MENDEZ V. CHICAGO | THE CITY OF CHICAGO ADOPTED A 58-PAGE ORDINANCE LEVYING A $10,000 LICENSING FEE ON RENTAL PLATFORMS LIKE AIRBNB, REQUIRING HOME SHARERS TO OPEN THEIR HOMES TO CITY INSPECTORS "AT ANY TIME AND IN ANY MANNER," MANDATING PROPERTY OWNERS TO HAND OVER ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION THE CITY CONSIDERS "REASONABLY REQUIRE[D]" TO ISSUE A RENTAL LICENSE, AND IMPOSING ON HOMEOWNERS SANITATION STANDARDS LIKE THOSE IMPOSED ON COMMERCIAL KITCHENS (EVEN THOUGH HOME-SHARERS DON'T PREPARE MEALS FOR GUESTS). AFTER THE INSTITUTE (PARTNERING WITH ILLINOIS-BASED LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER) REPRESENTED HOME SHARERS IN A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THESE RULES, THE CITY CHANGED ITS ANTI-PRIVACY RULES IN A VICTORY FOR HOMEOWNERS. THE ILLINOIS COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS ON THE REMAINING COUNTS, AND THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO TAKE THE CASE. NO FEES WERE AWARDED. MARKETWISE INVESTMENTS AND NICHOLS V. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH MIAMI BEACH IS HOME TO SOME OF THE MOST EXCESSIVE 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. THE INSTITUTE REPRESENTED PROPERTY OWNERS WHO FILED SUIT ARGUING THAT THIS VIOLATES THE STATE CONSTITUTION'S PROHIBITION ON EXCESSIVE FINES, AMONG OTHER THINGS. THE COURT OF APPEALS REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT, AND THE CASE IS PENDING. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. INSTITUTE ATTORNEYS WON AN INITIAL VICTORY BUT DO NOT REPRESENT PLAINTIFFS IN THE REMAINING MATTERS. 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 AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATED TO PUBLIC EDUCATION. AFTER FILING PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS, THE STATE'S TEACHER UNION SUED HER TO KEEP HER FROM OBTAINING THE INFORMATION. WE ASSERT THAT 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 THE CITY OF SCOTTSDALE'S DECISION TO LEASE SWIMMING LANES AT A PUBLIC FACILITY TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT SUBMITTED A LOWER BID IN RESPONSE TO A PUBLIC PROCUREMENT FOR USE OF THE POOLS. REPRESENTING NEPTUNE, WE ASSERT THAT THE CITY'S DECISION TO LEASE THIS PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTY AT BELOW MARKET RATES VIOLATES THE GIFT CLAUSE OF THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION, WHICH FORBIDS THE CITY FROM GIVING AWAY PUBLIC RESOURES TO PRIVATE PARTIES, AS WELL AS VARIOUS PROCUREMENT RULES. THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CITY. THE APPEAL COURT AFFIRMED. THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT GRANTED REVIEW AND AFFIRMED ON ONE CLAIM AND REVERSED ON ANOTHER CLAIM. THE CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. OGSTON V. ARIZONA DEP'T OF REVENUE IN 2023, THE YUMA COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT (A SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT) ASKED THE YUMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO IMPOSE A SECONDARY PROPERTY TAX TO RAISE FUNDS TOWARD ITS LEGAL BILLS. THIS TAX INCREASE IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY STATE STATUTE. WE ARE REPRESENTING TAXPAYERS IN MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT TO ENJOIN THE TAX AS UNLAWFUL. THE CASE IS PENDING DECISION. PATEL V. CITY OF HOLBROOK PROPERTY OWNER ANIL PATEL ENTERED INTO A PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH A BUYER WHO INTENDED TO CONVERT THE PROPERTY'S EXISTING MOTEL TO A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY, WHICH WAS ALLOWED UNDER THE PROPERTY'S ZONING. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CITY OF HOLBROOK AMENDED ITS ZONING ORDINANCE TO REMOVE RESIDENTIAL CARE SERVICES AS A PERMITTED USE. AS A RESULT, THE SALE FELL THROUGH, LEAVING MR. PATEL WITHOUT A BUYER FOR THE PROPERTY. WE ARE REPRESENTING MR. PATEL IN A PROPERTY RIGHTS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY. THE CASE IS PENDING IN THE TRIAL COURT. PAULIN V. CITY OF PHOENIX THIS CASE CHALLENGES THE CITY OF PHOENIX'S $8 MILLION SUBSIDY TO A PRIVATE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER OF THE HUBBARD PROJECT THROUGH USE OF THE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY LEASE EXCISE TAX ("GPLET"). THE GPLET IS AN ARRANGEMENT WHERE A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER CONVEYS ITS PROPERTY TO THE GOVERNMENT, THEREBY TAKING IT OFF THE TAX ROLLS. THE GOVERNMENT THEN LEASES THE PROPERTY BACK TO THE DEVELOPER TO OPERATE AS A NORMAL BUSINESS WITHOUT PAYING PROPERTY TAXES ON THE DEVELOPMENT. AT THE END OF THE LEASE, THE GOVERNMENT CONVEYS THE PROPERTY BACK TO THE PRIVATE DEVELOPER. THIS VIOLATES THE STATE CONSTITIUTION'S PROHIBITIONS ON SUBSIDIES AND CONVEYANCE TO EVADE TAXATION. PLAINTIFFS LOST IN THE TRIAL COURT AND THE CASE IS ON APPEAL TO THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS. PAULIN V. GALLEGO THE CITY OF PHOENIX ESTABLISHED A "CLEAN ZONE" IN DOWNTOWN PHOENIX FOR THE 2024 SUPER BOWL EVENTS. IN THE CLEAN ZONE, WHICH COVERS MORE THAN A SQUARE MILE OF DOWNTOWN PHOENIX, BUSINESS OWNERS AND RESIDENTS WERE FORBIDDEN FROM HAVING ANY TEMPORARY SIGNAGE UNTIL AFTER THE SUPER BOWL, UNLESS THE SIGNES WERE PRE-APPROVED FROM TWO PRIVATE ENTITIES, THE NFL AND THE SUPER BOWL HOSTING COMMITTEE. WE REPRESENTED BRAMLEY PAULIN, A LOCAL BUSINESS OWNER, IN A LAWSUIT SEEKING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST THE "CLEAN ZONE" RESOLUTION UNDER VARIOUS STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. WE PREVAILED IN THE TRIAL COURT. NO FEES WERE AWARDED. POMEROY V. UTAH STATE BAR LIKE THE OREGON CASE, THIS LAWSUIT CHALLENGES THE MANDATORY BAR ASSOCIATION IN UTAH. WE REPRESENT AN ATTORNEY 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. RODGERS V. HUCKELBERRY PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA, 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. WE FILED A LAWSUIT BECAUSE THIS AGREEMENT SERVES NO PUBLIC PURPOSE AND FAILS TO PROVIDE COUNTY TAXPAYERS WITH AN ADEQUATE RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT, IT VIOLATES THE GIFT CLAUSE OF THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION, WHICH PROHIBITS GOVERNMENT LOANS AND SUBSIDIES TO PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. THE ARZONA COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE TRIAL COURT AND ISSUED A DECISION IN OUR FAVOR. THE COUNTY DID NOT FILE A PETITION FOR REVIEW WITH THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT. A STIPULATED JUDGMENT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT, AWARDING $73,000 IN FEES TO AND $4,574.33 IN COSTS TO PLAINTIFFS. SANDERS V. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA WE REPRESENT JERMAINE SANDERS IN A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING 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, THE CITY TRANSFERRED THE CAR TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, INSTEAD OF RETURNING IT TO MR. SANDERS. THE CASE IS PROCEEDING IN BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL COURT SIMULTANEOUSLY. THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT DENIED SANDERS' PETITION AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED (RULING IN OUR FAVOR), AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. SARRA L. V. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY WE REPRESENT SARRA L IN CHALLENGING THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY'S PLACEMENT OF HER ON ITS PUBLIC CENTRAL REGISTRY. SARRA WAS CHARGED WITH 2 COUNTS OF CONTRIBUTING TO THE DELINQUENCY OF A MINOR AFTER LETTING HER 7-YEAR-OLD SON AND HIS 5-YEAR-OLD FRIEND PLAY SUPERVISED AT A NEARBY NEIGHBORHOOD PARK WHILE SHE WENT TO THE GROCERY STORE DURING THE PANEDEMIC. THE CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE DISMISSED AFTER SHE COMPLETED A PARENTING CLASS. DCS OPENED ITS OWN INVESTIGATION. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE CHILDREN WERE AT RISK, NOR WERE THEY HARMED. HOWEVER, DCS FOUND PROBALE CAUSE TO BELIEVE AN OFFENSE WAS COMMITED AND PLACED HER NAME ON A PUBLIC CENTRAL REGISTRY, HARMING HER REPUTATION AND HER ABILITY TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT. THE TRIAL COURT RULED IN OUR FAVOR, AND SARRA'S NAME WAS REMOVED FROM THE CENTRAL REGISTRY. $58,300 IN FEES AND $1,660 IN COSTS WERE AWARDED, SPLIT BETWEEN THE INSTITUTE AND ITS LITIGATION PARTNER, THE PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION. |
| 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 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 ASSOCIATION. THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS. THE TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. SOLAS V. SOUTH KINGSTOWN SCHOOL DEPARTMENT ON BEHALF OF RHODE ISLAND MOTHER NICOLE SOLAS, WE REQUESTED AN OFFICIAL ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION REGARDING WHETHER STATE OFFICIALS VIOLATED THE STATE'S OPEN MEETING LAWS WHEN THEY CONVENED MEETINGS OF A COMMITTEE THAT HAS AUTHORITY RELATING TO VARIOUS SCHOOL POLICIES BUT EXCLUDED THE PUBLIC FROM THOSE MEETINGS. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ISSUED AN OPINION FINDING THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE OMA. WE FILED A LAWSUIT, WHICH IS PENDING IN THE TRIAL COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. TYCENSKI V. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ADOPTED GUIDELINES THAT THERE CAN BE "NO AFFIRMATIVE DUTY FOR ANY SCHOOL DISTRICT PERSONNEL TO NOTIFY A STUDENT'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN OF THE STUDENT'S GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION." THREE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN NEW JERSEY HOWEVER HAVE ADOPTED POLICIES THAT REQUIRE PARENTAL NOTIFICATION WHEN A SCHOOL DECIDES TO RECOGNIZE A STUDENT'S NEW GENDER IDENTITY. IN RESPONSE TO THESE POLICIES, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FILED A CIVIL COMPLAINT, ALLEGING THAT THESE POLICIES VIOLATE STATE LAW AND ASKING FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE SCHOOLS' POLICIES. GOLDWATER SOUGHT TO INTERVENE IN ONE OF THOSE LAWSUITS ON BEHALF OF PARENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PARENTAL NOTIFICATION POLICIES. THE CASE WAS REMANDED TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, AND WE WERE DENIED INTERVENTION BEFORE THE AGENCY. UNION LLC V. ARIZONA DEP'T OF AGRICULTURE THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PROMULGATED A RULE (THE "CAGE-FREE EGG RULE") REQUIRING THAT BY 2025, ALL EGGS SOLD OR PRODUCED IN THE STATE MUST COME FROM "CAGE-FREE HENS." WE CHALLENGED THE LEGALITY OF THE RULE ON BEHALF OF AN AFFECTED RESTAURANT OWNER, ASSERTING THAT THE CAGE-FREE EGG RULE IS AN EXERCISE OF UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATED POWER AND EXCEEDS THE DEPARTMENT'S STATUTORY AUTHORITY. THE LAWSUIT IS PENDING IN MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. VANGILDER V. PINAL COUNTY IN NOVEMBER 2017, PINAL COUNTY ADOPTED A "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 INSTITUTE REPRESENTED TAXPAYERS IN A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE TAX UNDER VARIOUS STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS. THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT RULED IN OUR FAVOR. 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 AND APPROVED COMPENSATION FOR OFFICERS AND KEY EMPLOYEES. 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: |