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.") .. | 13,565,017 | 15,761,288 | 36,490,336 | 35,171,838 | 32,251,288 | 133,239,767 |
| 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 | 13,565,017 | 15,761,288 | 36,490,336 | 35,171,838 | 32,251,288 | 133,239,767 |
| 5 | The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f) .. | 2,122,113 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 131,117,654 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in)
![]() |
(a) 2019 | (b) 2020 | (c) 2021 | (d) 2022 | (e) 2023 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 13,565,017 | 15,761,288 | 36,490,336 | 35,171,838 | 32,251,288 | 133,239,767 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 275,927 | 238,868 | 494,109 | 818,937 | 1,108,667 | 2,936,508 |
| 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.).. | 2,374 | 7,274 | 5,595 | 521 | 1,292 | 17,056 |
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10 | 136,193,331 | |||||
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: $ 2,374. 2020 AMOUNT: $ 7,274. 2021 AMOUNT: $ 5,595. 2022 AMOUNT: $ 521. 2023 AMOUNT: $ 1,292. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4C | IN ADDITION TO DIRECT LITIGATION, FIRE PARTICIPATES AS AMICUS CURIAE IN STRATEGICALLY CHOSEN CASES TO SUPPORT CRITICAL LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND ADVANCE IMPORTANT PRECEDENT. FINALLY, THE LITIGATION PROJECT WORKS TO POSITION FIRE AS A THOUGHT LEADER IN FIRST AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE BY PUBLISHING OPINION PIECES AND LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP, TEACHING CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION COURSES, AND RECRUITING LIKE-MINDED ATTORNEYS FOR OUR LEGAL NETWORK AND FACULTY LEGAL DEFENSE FUND. BETWEEN JULY 1, 2023 AND JUNE 30, 2024, FIRE WAS IN ACTIVE LITIGATION IN 26 CASES, FURTHERING ITS MISSION. 1. DIEI V. BOYD, ET AL., CASE NO. 23-5771 (6TH CIR.): FIRE REPRESENTS FORMER GRADUATE PHARMACY STUDENT KIMBERLY DIEI IN THIS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AND ITS ADMINISTRATORS. DIEI WAS INVESTIGATED TWICE BY HER PROGRAM'S "PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE" BECAUSE OF ALLEGATIONS THAT HER PERSONAL SOCIAL MEDIA ACTIVITY WAS TOO "CRUDE," "VULGAR, AND "SEXUAL." AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE CASE ON THE PLEADINGS, DIEI APPEALED TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. THIS LAWSUIT FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION BY SEEKING TO (A) PROTECT A STUDENT'S OFF-CAMPUS, EXTRAMURAL, AND ONLINE SPEECH AND (B) ESTABLISH CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS ON A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY'S DISCRETION TO PUNISH EXPRESSION IT SUBJECTIVELY DEEMS "UNPROFESSIONAL." 2. PHILLIPS V. COLLIN COLLEGE, ET AL., CASE NO. 4:22-CV-184 (E.D.TEX.): IN ITS THIRD LAWSUIT AGAINST COLLIN COLLEGE, FIRE REPRESENTED HISTORY PROFESSOR MICHAEL PHILLIPS AFTER THE COLLEGE TERMINATED HIM FOR CRITICIZING THE ADMINISTRATION'S COVID-19 SAFETY MEASURES AND FOR OTHER PROTECTED SPEECH. PHILLIPS SUCCESSFULLY DEFEATED THE COLLEGE'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FORCING THE COLLEGE TO DEFEND ITS ACTIONS AT TRIAL. ULTIMATELY, THE JURY FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE COLLEGE, CONCLUDING THAT, ALTHOUGH PHILLIPS WAS TERMINATED BECAUSE OF SPEECH PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN TERMINATED ANYWAY. THIS LAWSUIT FURTHERED FIRE'S MISSION BY DEFENDING THE RIGHT OF PUBLIC COLLEGE FACULTY TO COMMENT AS PRIVATE CITIZENS ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN WITHOUT RETALIATION AND BY SHOWING ADMINISTRATORS NATIONWIDE THAT FIRE WILL REPRESENT PROFESSORS THROUGH TRIAL TO VINDICATE THEIR RIGHTS. 3. FIRE V. TARLETON STATE UNIVERSITY, CASE NO. 11-23-00232 (COURT OF APPEALS, 15TH CT. APP., TEX.): IN FEBRUARY 2022, FIRE SUED TARLETON STATE UNIVERSITY FOR FAILING TO DISCLOSE PUBLIC RECORDS UNDER THE TEXAS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT. FIRE SOUGHT INFORMATION ABOUT A FORMER PROFESSOR WHO THREATENED TO SUE THE STUDENT NEWSPAPER, TEXAN NEWS SERVICE, FOR DEFAMATION AFTER IT ACCURATELY REPORTED ON ALLEGATIONS OF HIS INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT TOWARD FEMALE STUDENTS. TARLETON PRESSURED THE STUDENT NEWSPAPER TO TAKE DOWN THE ARTICLES OR RISK LOSING FUNDING, THEN TOOK OVER THE PAPER, WHICH PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN EDITORIALLY INDEPENDENT. THE TRIAL COURT ORDERED TARLETON TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS AND AWARDED FIRE ITS COSTS AND FEES. AFTER TARLETON MOVED TO RECONSIDER, THE COURT UPHELD ITS ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE RECORDS BUT REVERSED ITS GRANT OF COSTS AND FEES. THE CASE IS NOW AWAITING A DECISION ON APPEAL. THIS LAWSUIT FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION BY HOLDING PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR VIOLATIONS OF PRESS FREEDOM AND BY VIGOROUSLY PURSUING THE DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS MADE PUBLIC UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL LAW. 4. REGES V. CAUCE, CASE NO. 0:24-CV-03518 (9TH CIR.): FIRE REPRESENTS COMPUTER SCIENCE PROFESSOR STUART REGES, WHO FACES POTENTIAL TERMINATION FOR INCLUDING ON HIS SYLLABUS A SATIRICAL CRITIQUE OF THE "INDIGENOUS LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT" THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON ENCOURAGES FACULTY TO INCLUDE ON THEIR SYLLABI. UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS PUNISHED REGES FOR HIS PROTECTED SPEECH BY CENSORING THE ONLINE VERSION OF HIS SYLLABUS, CREATING A COMPETING SECTION OF HIS CLASS, AND INVESTIGATING HIM FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS UNDER A VAGUE POLICY THAT PROHIBITS "UNACCEPTABLE AND "INAPPROPRIATE" SPEECH. AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED REGES'S CLAIMS IN MAY 2024, FIRE APPEALED TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. THIS LAWSUIT FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION BY STANDING UP FOR FACULTY RIGHTS TO EXPRESS DISSENTING OPINIONS ON CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS AND TO MANAGE THE CONTENTS OF THEIR SYLLABI WITHOUT RETALIATION. 5. FLORES V. BENNETT, CASE NO. 22-01003 (E.D. CA.): FIRE REPRESENTS THE YOUNG AMERICANS FOR FREEDOM STUDENT GROUP AT CLOVIS COMMUNITY COLLEGE IN THIS LAWSUIT, WHICH CHALLENGES THE COLLEGE'S POLICY BANNING FLYERS WITH "INAPPROPRIATE OR OFFENS[IVE] LANGUAGE OR THEMES." CITING THIS POLICY, ADMINISTRATORS REMOVED THE GROUP'S ANTI-COMMUNISM FLYERS FROM THE INDOOR SCHOOL BULLETIN BOARDS AND REJECTED THE GROUP'S FLYERS WITH PRO-LIFE AND OTHER THEMES. IN AUGUST 2023, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UPHELD THE DISTRICT COURT'S INJUNCTION AGAINST THE COLLEGE'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL FLYER POLICY. THIS LAWSUIT FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION BY PROTECTING STUDENTS' RIGHTS TO FREELY EXPRESS THEIR POLITICAL VIEWPOINTS AT PUBLIC COLLEGES. 6. NOVOA V. DIAZ, CASE NO. 22-13994 (11TH CIR.): IN THIS FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO FLORIDA'S STOP WOKE ACT, FIRE REPRESENTS UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA PROFESSOR DR. ADRIANA NOVOA AND STUDENT GROUP USF FIRST AMENDMENT FORUM. THE ACT VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF FACULTY AND STUDENTS BY PROHIBITING "INSTRUCTION" ON EIGHT CONCEPTS RELATED TO "RACE, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, OR SEX." AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT HALTED ENFORCEMENT OF KEY PARTS OF THE "POSITIVELY DYSTOPIAN" ACT, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DENIED FLORIDA'S REQUEST TO STAY THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. ON APPEAL, 11 "FRIEND OF THE COURT" BRIEFS WERE FILED IN SUPPORT OF FIRE'S CLIENTS. THE CASE AWAITS A MERITS RULING BY THE FEDERAL APPEALS COURT, WHICH HEARD ORAL ARGUMENT IN JUNE 2024. THIS LITIGATION FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION BY STOPPING THE GOVERNMENT FROM IMPOSING IDEOLOGICAL HANDCUFFS ON FACULTY'S RIGHTS TO ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND STUDENTS' RIGHTS TO RECEIVE INFORMATION. 7. VILLARREAL V. CITY OF LAREDO, CASE NO. 23-1155 (SCOTUS): FIRE REPRESENTS CITIZEN JOURNALIST PRISCILLA VILLARREAL IN THIS LAWSUIT CHALLENGING HER ARREST FOR ASKING A POLICE OFFICER FOR INFORMATION AS PART OF HER NEWS REPORTING. OFFICIALS RELIED ON A CRIMINAL STATUTEONE THEY HAD NEVER ENFORCED IN THE LAW'S 23-YEAR HISTORYPROHIBITING PEOPLE FROM USING INFORMATION THAT "HAS NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC" TO "OBTAIN A BENEFIT." AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED LAREDO OFFICIALS QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, A PANEL OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT REVERSED. REHEARING THE CASE EN BANC, THE FULL FIFTH CIRCUIT RULED 9-7 THAT THE OFFICERS WERE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, WITH FOUR JUDGES AUTHORING VIGOROUS DISSENTS. FIRE PETITIONED FOR CERTIORARI WITH THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AND GARNERED 13 "FRIEND-OF-THE-COURT" BRIEFS IN SUPPORT, REPRESENTING OVER 40 INDIVIDUALS, CIVIL-LIBERTIES GROUPS, AND MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS. THIS LITIGATION FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION BY CONTRIBUTING TO A WELL-INFORMED PUBLIC, FREE FROM FEAR THAT OFFICIALS WILL ABUSE THE LAWS TO TRY TO SILENCE THEIR CRITICS. 8. BOMBARD V. RIGGEN, CASE NO. 21-CV-176 (VT. SUPER. CT. CIV. DIV.): FIRE REPRESENTS GREGORY BOMBARD, WHO WAS ARRESTED ON TRUMPED-UP CHARGES OF "DISORDERLY CONDUCT" FOR CURSING AT A POLICE OFFICER. AFTER VERMONT STATE TROOPER JAY RIGGEN PULLED HIM OVER IN AN ILLEGAL TRAFFIC STOP, BOMBARD CURSED AT THE TROOPER, GIVING HIM THE MIDDLE FINGER. BOMBARD WAS HANDCUFFED, SEARCHED, THROWN IN THE BACK OF A POLICE CAR, LOCKED IN A BARRACKS HOLDING CELL, AND HAD HIS MUGSHOT DISTRIBUTED TO VERMONT MEDIA OUTLETS. BOMBARD'S CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE DROPPED AFTER A YEAR AND HE DEFEATED A MOTION TO DISMISS IN HIS CIVIL CASE. AFTER ARDUOUS DISCOVERY AND CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE STATE AGREED TO SETTLE IN JUNE 2024, PAYING BOMBARD $175,000 IN COMPENSATION AND ATTORNEYS' FEES. THIS LAWSUIT FURTHERED FIRE'S MISSION BY PROTECTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN OFFENSIVE SPEECHINCLUDING THE MIDDLE FINGER, EVEN WHEN DIRECTED AT GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES. |
| FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4C | 9. HALL-RAYFORD V. CITY OF EASTPOINTE, CASE NO. 2:22-CV-12714 (E.D. MICH): FIRE REPRESENTED FOUR CITIZENS OF EASTPOINTE, MICHIGAN SEEKING A COURT ORDER REQUIRING THE MAYOR AND CITY TO ALLOW PEACEFUL CRITICISM AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. DURING THE PUBLIC-COMMENT PERIOD OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, FORMER MAYOR MONIQUE OWENS REPEATEDLY SHOUTED DOWN THESE CONSTITUENTS AFTER THEY CRITICIZED HER. IN APRIL 2024, THE CITY SETTLED THE LAWSUIT BY: (1) ENTERING INTO A CONSENT DECREE PROHIBITING THE CITY FROM ENFORCING ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BAN ON PUBLIC COMMENTS "DIRECTED AT" AN ELECTED OFFICIAL AND REQUIRING IT TO ALLOW MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO CRITICIZE ITS ELECTED OFFICIALS; (2) PASSING A FORMAL RESOLUTION APOLOGIZING TO THE PLAINTIFFS AND ESTABLISHING SEPT. 6 AS AN ANNUAL "FIRST AMENDMENT DAY" IN EASTPOINTE; AND (3) PAYING EACH PLAINTIFF $17,910 (A NOD TO THE YEAR THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED), PLUS ATTORNEYS' FEES, FOR A TOTAL OF $83,000. THIS LAWSUIT FURTHERED FIRE'S MISSION BY PROTECTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO CRITICIZE LOCAL OFFICIALS, INCLUDING DURING THE PUBLIC-COMMENT PERIOD OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. 10. VOLOKH V. JAMES, CASE NO. 23-356 (2D CIR.): FIRE REPRESENTS EUGENE VOLOKH AND ONLINE PLATFORMS RUMBLE AND LOCALS IN A FEDERAL CHALLENGE TO A NEW YORK LAW TARGETING SO-CALLED "HATE SPEECH" BY REQUIRING ONLINE PLATFORMS TO RESPOND TO OR ADDRESS SPEECH THAT SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, FINDS "HUMILIATING OR "VILIFYING" TOWARD A GROUP BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR OTHER PROTECTED CLASS. AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT HEARD ORAL ARGUMENT IN FEBRUARY 2024. THE CASE NOW IS AWAITING A DECISION ON APPEAL AFTER THE PARTIES SUBMITTED SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. THIS LAWSUIT FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION BY PROTECTING ONLINE SPEECH FROM GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE AND HOLDING THE LINE AGAINST GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF "HATE SPEECH," WHICH IS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 11. O.J. V. CHAPPAQUA CENTER SCHOOL DIST., CASE NO. 7:2024-CV-02830 (S.D.N.Y.): FIRE REPRESENTS A PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT WHO WAS SUSPENDED IN 2022 AFTER HE RECORDED SATIRICAL AND SOPHOMORIC FREESTYLE RAP LYRICS AT A FRIENDS' HOUSE. UNKNOWN TO HIM, HIS FRIEND COMBINED HIS LYRICS WHICH INCLUDED HOMOPHOBIC SLURS WITH ANOTHER TEEN, AND POSTED THE RECORDING ON SOUNDCLOUD. SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, WHO LEARNED OF THE RECORDING THROUGH ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS, DEEMED THE LYRICS TO BE "HATE SPEECH" EVEN THOUGH THE PLAINTIFF IS A MEMBER OF THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY. THIS LAWSUIT FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION TO PROTECT THE RIGHT OF PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES ONLINE, ON THEIR OWN TIME, OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL ESPECIALLY WHERE THEIR ARTISTIC EXPRESSION IS UNRELATED TO AND DOES NOT DISRUPT SCHOOL. 12. D.A. V. TRI COUNTY AREA SCHOOLS, CASE NO. 1:23-423 (W.D. MICH.): FIRE REPRESENTS TWO MIDDLE-SCHOOL STUDENTS IN MICHIGAN IN A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THEIR PUBLIC SCHOOL'S VIEWPOINT-DISCRIMINATORY BAN ON "LET'S GO BRANDON" APPAREL AND ITS DRESS CODE THAT BANS CLOTHING "CALL[ING] UNDUE ATTENTION" TO THE STUDENT. SCHOOL OFFICIALS ORDERED THE STUDENTS TO REMOVE SWEATSHIRTS WITH THE PHRASE "LET'S GO BRANDON," A WELL-KNOWN, NON-PROFANE, ANTI-PRESIDENT BIDEN SLOGAN, WHILE ALLOWING OTHER STUDENTS TO WEAR APPAREL WITH DIFFERENT POLITICAL MESSAGES, INCLUDING GAY-PRIDE-THEMED HOODIES. THIS LITIGATION FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION TO PROTECT STUDENT SPEECH IN K-12, ESPECIALLY CORE POLITICAL SPEECH, AND PREVENT SCHOOLS FROM ENGAGING IN VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION. 13. I.P. V. TULLAHOMA CITY SCHOOLS, CASE NO. 4:23-CV-26 (E.D. TENN.): FIRE REPRESENTS A STUDENT CHALLENGING HIS SUSPENSION FOR IMAGES HE POSTED ON HIS PERSONAL INSTAGRAM MOCKING HIS HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL. ALTHOUGH THE POSTS DID NOT DISRUPT SCHOOL, PRINCIPAL JASON QUICK AND ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL CRUTCHFIELD SLAPPED THE STUDENT WITH A THREE-DAY, OUT-OF-SCHOOL SUSPENSION, RELYING ON THE SCHOOL'S SOCIAL MEDIA POLICIES, INCLUDING ONE PROHIBITING STUDENTS FROM POSTS THAT "EMBARRASS," "DISCREDIT, OR "HUMILIATE" ANOTHER STUDENT OR SCHOOL STAFF. AFTER FIRE MOVED FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO REMOVE THE SUSPENSION FROM THE STUDENT'S RECORD AND TO HALT ENFORCEMENT OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA POLICIES, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT VOLUNTARILY REMOVED THE CHALLENGED POLICIES FROM ITS STUDENT HANDBOOK. THIS CASE FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION BY PROTECTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF GRADE-SCHOOL STUDENTS TO ENGAGE IN ONLINE PARODY AND EXPRESSION, EVEN WHEN CRITICIZING THEIR SCHOOL. 14. SPECTRUM WT V. WENDLER, CASE NO. 23-10994 (5TH CIR.): FIRE REPRESENTS SPECTRUM WT, AN LGBTQ+ STUDENT ORGANIZATION AT WEST TEXAS A&M, ALONG WITH ITS STUDENT LEADERS, BARRETT "BEAR" BRIGHT AND LAUREN "LAUR" STOVALL IN A CHALLENGE TO WEST TEXAS A&M'S PRESIDENT'S CANCELING OF THE GROUP'S DRAG SHOW. PRESIDENT WALTER WENDLER DENOUNCED DRAG AS "SLAPSTICK" INTENDED TO "DENIGRATE AND DEMEAN WOMEN AND DECLARED HE WOULD NOT CONDONE SUCH SPEECH, "EVEN WHEN THE LAW OF THE LAND APPEARS TO REQUIRE IT." AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE STUDENTS' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DISMISSED THE DAMAGES CLAIM AGAINST PRESIDENT WENDLER, THE STUDENTS APPEALED TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, WHICH HEARD ORAL ARGUMENT IN APRIL 2024. THIS LAWSUIT FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION BY DEFENDING STUDENTS' RIGHT TO FREE EXPRESSION ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES. 15. BOREN V. GADWA, NO. 50604-2023 (IDAHO): FIRE IS REPRESENTING GARY GADWA IN THIS APPEAL FROM THE DISMISSAL OF A DEFAMATION SUIT. GADWA VOCALLY OPPOSED A WEALTHY LANDOWNER'S APPLICATION FOR AN AIRSTRIP ON HIS 480-ACRE RANCH IN THE SAWTOOTH NATIONAL RECREATION AREA BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THE AIRSTRIP WAS UNNECESSARY AND WOULD MAR THE AREA'S SCENIC VALUE. ALTHOUGH THE COUNTY GRANTED THE PERMIT, BOREN NEVERTHELESS SUED GADWA AND OTHER IDAHOANS FOR SPEAKING OUT AGAINST HIM. AFTER THE IDAHO TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY DISMISSED BOREN'S LAWSUIT, RECOGNIZING THE THREAT THE DEFAMATION SUIT POSED TO FREE EXPRESSION, BOREN APPEALED TO THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT. THIS CASE FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION BY DEFENDING AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO INTIMIDATE CRITICS INTO SILENCE WITH STRATEGIC LAWSUITS AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. 16. KERSHNAR V. KOLISON, CASE NO. 1:23-CV-525 (W.D.N.Y.): FIRE REPRESENTS TENURED PHILOSOPHY PROFESSOR DR. STEPHEN KERSHNAR IN THIS LAWSUIT AGAINST SUNY FREDONIA. IN FEBRUARY 2022, SUNY FREDONIA'S LEADERSHIP SUSPENDED KERSHNAR FROM TEACHING, BANNED HIM FROM CAMPUS, AND PROHIBITED HIM FROM CONTACTING THE "CAMPUS COMMUNITY" OVER WHAT THE UNIVERSITY CALLED "REPREHENSIBLE" VIEWS SHARED ON TWO PHILOSOPHY PODCASTS ABOUT THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND ETHICAL ARGUMENTS CONCERNING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MINORS AND ADULTS. THIS LAWSUIT FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION BY STOPPING PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES FROM RETALIATING AGAINST PROFESSORS FOR AND IMPOSING PRIOR RESTRAINTS ON SPEECH PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. |
| FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4C | 17. PALSGAARD V. CHRISTIAN, CASE 1:23-CV-01228-SAB (E.D. CAL.): FIRE REPRESENTS SIX TENURED PROFESSORS IN THIS FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE'S DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION, AND ACCESSIBILITY (DEIA) REGULATIONS, WHICH REQUIRE ALL COMMUNITY COLLEGE PROFESSORS TO INCORPORATE THE STATE'S VIEWS ON DEIA INTO THEIR TEACHING. THIS CASE FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION BY PROTECTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF PUBLIC UNIVERSITY FACULTY, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO NOT BE COMPELLED TO SPEAK. 18. DUBASH V. CITY OF HOUSTON, ET AL., CASE 4:23-CV-03556 (S.D. TEX.): FIRE AND THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS'S LAW AND RELIGION CLINIC REPRESENT ANIMAL-RIGHTS ADVOCATES, DARAIUS DUBASH AND FARAZ HARSINI, WHO PEACEFULLY SHOW DOCUMENTARY FOOTAGE OF INDUSTRIAL ANIMAL PRACTICES ON HAND-HELD SCREENS TO PASSERSBY IN DISCOVERY GREEN PARK. THREE TIMES, HOUSTON OFFICIALS AND THE GROUP THAT RUNS THE PUBLIC PARK KICKED DUBASH AND HARSINI OUT OF THE PARK, DESPITE ALLOWING OTHER GROUPS TO DEMONSTRATE IN DISCOVERY GREEN OVER RECENT YEARS. ON THE FOURTH TIME, HOUSTON POLICE HANDCUFFED AND ARRESTED DUBASH BECAUSE THEY AND PARK STAFF FOUND THE DOCUMENTARY FOOTAGE "OFFENSIVE." THIS CASE FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION BY PROTECTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO PEACEFULLY PROTEST AND EXPRESS THEIR POLITICAL OPINIONS IN A PUBLIC PARK. 19. VINSON V. CLARK, ET AL., CASE 2:22-CV-00020-CR (D. VT.): FIRE AND THE ACLU OF VERMONT REPRESENTS ISABEL VINSON IN THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO A VERMONT LAW THAT CRIMINALIZES "DISTURBING THE PEACE BY USE OF TELEPHONE OR OTHER ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION." VINSON WAS CRIMINALLY CITED UNDER THIS LAW FOR HER FACEBOOK COMMENTS OPPOSING A LOCAL BUSINESSMAN'S "ALL LIVES MATTER" POST. VINSON MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ASKING THE COURT TO STOP VERMONT FROM USING THE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY OVERBROAD AND VAGUE LAW TO TARGET PROTECTED ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS. THIS LAWSUIT FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION BY PROTECTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO EXPRESS THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS AND CRITICIZE OTHERS ONLINE. 20. GIBBONS V. PHIPPS, CASE 2:23-CV-00138 (E.D. TENN.): FIRE REPRESENTS JOSHUA GIBBONS IN THIS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF KINGSPORT, ITS OFFICIALS, AND POLICE OFFICERS FOR ARRESTING HIM IN RETALIATION FOR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED EXPRESSION. GIBBONS IS A FREQUENT CRITIC OF THE KINGSPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT, RECORDING POLICE OFFICERS AND EXPOSING THEIR MISCONDUCT ON HIS YOUTUBE CHANNEL. AFTER GIBBONS POSTED A VIDEO SHOWING A POLICE OFFICER SPEEDING IN HIS CRUISER, THE KINGSPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH THE BLESSING OF ITS SENIOR LEADERSHIP SENT EIGHT, HEAVILY ARMED OFFICERS TO ARREST HIM IN A PRE-DAWN RAID IN OCTOBER 2022 FOR ALLEGED SPEEDING, UNLAWFUL USE OF A CELL PHONE WHILE DRIVING, AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT. THIS CASE FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION BY PROTECTING AMERICANS' FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO CRITICIZE PUBLIC OFFICIALS ONLINE. 21. ZOULEK V. HASS, CASE 2:24-CV-00031 (D. UTAH): FIRE IS PARTNERING WITH DAVIS, WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF UTAH'S LATEST SOCIAL MEDIA AGE-VERIFICATION LAW, WHICH TAKES EFFECT OCTOBER 1, 2024. THE UTAH MINOR PROTECTION IN SOCIAL MEDIA ACT REQUIRES EVERY SOCIAL MEDIA USER TO VERIFY THEIR AGE OR ELSE BE RESTRICTED TO A VERSION OF SOCIAL MEDIA THAT ESSENTIALLY MAKES THEM AND THEIR SPEECH INVISIBLE TO ANY USER TO WHOM THEY ARE NOT ALREADY CONNECTED. PLAINTIFFS ARE TEENS WHO USE SOCIAL MEDIA, THEIR PARENTS, ADULTS WHO ESCAPED ABUSIVE HOMES AND USE SOCIAL NETWORKS TO HELP YOUNG PEOPLE IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, AND A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT USES SOCIAL MEDIA TO TEACH TEENS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ADVOCACY. THIS LITIGATION FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION BY FIGHTING AGAINST LAWS THAT SEEK TO REGULATE AND CHILL THE ONLINE SPEECH OF BOTH ADULTS AND MINORS. 22. NETCHOICE V. BONTA, CASE NO. 5:22-CV-08861-BLF (9TH CIR.): FIRE IS PARTNERING WITH DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CALIFORNIA AGE-APPROPRIATE DESIGN CODE ACT. THE LAW REQUIRES EVERY ONLINE PLATFORM TO COMPLETE AND REGULARLY REVIEW A DATA PROTECTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PLATFORM'S CONTENT, ALGORITHMS, AND USE OF MINORS' DATA MIGHT BE "DETRIMENTAL" TO MINORS. IF THE PLATFORM IDENTIFIES ANY RISK OF "MATERIAL DETRIMENT" TO MINORS, IT MUST CREATE A PLAN TO MITIGATE OR ELIMINATE THE RISK BEFORE CHILDREN CAN ACCESS THE PLATFORM. THE LAW ALSO IMPOSES NUMEROUS TRANSPARENCY AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ON PLATFORMS. THIS LITIGATION FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION BY FIGHTING AGAINST LAWS THAT SEEK TO REGULATE AND CHILL THE ONLINE SPEECH OF BOTH ADULTS AND MINORS. 23. GRAY V. CITY OF ALPHARETTA, GA, CASE 1:23-CV-00463-MLB (N.D. GA.): FIRE REPRESENTS JEFF GRAY IN THIS FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING HIS ARREST FOR HOLDING A "GOD BLESS THE HOMELESS VETS" SIGN OUTSIDE ALPHARETTA CITY HALL TO RAISE AWARENESS OF THE PLIGHT OF HOMELESS VETERANS. WITHIN MINUTES OF GRAY ARRIVING AT CITY HALL, LT. ARICK FURR, ORDERED GRAY TO LEAVE BECAUSE "PANHANDLING" WAS ILLEGAL AND HOLDING THE SIGN WAS ITSELF "PANHANDLING." WHEN GRAY REFUSED TO LEAVE AND RECORDED THE ENCOUNTER, LT. FURR DETAINED GRAY AND DEMANDED HIS IDENTIFICATION. GRAY REFUSED AND LT. FURR PLACED GRAY IN HANDCUFFS, SEARCHED HIM, AND TURNED OFF HIS CAMERA. IN JANUARY 2023, FIRE SUED ON GRAY'S BEHALF TO VINDICATE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND END ALPHARETTA'S UNWRITTEN BAN ON "PANHANDLING." THIS CASE FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION BY PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC AREAS, THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN ANONYMOUS EXPRESSION, AND THE RIGHT TO RECORD POLICE OFFICERS. |
| FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4C | 24. GRAY V. HEMMINGER, CASE NO. 4:23-CV-00197 (S.D. GA.): FIRE REPRESENTED JEFF GRAY IN THIS SECOND LAWSUIT CHALLENGING HIS ARREST FOR HOLDING A "GOD BLESS THE HOMELESS VETS" SIGN OUTSIDE CITY HALL IN PORT WENTWORTH, GEORGIA. DESPITE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT GRAY WAS NOT DOING ANYTHING UNLAWFUL, POLICE TOLD GRAY THAT CITY EMPLOYEES COULD EJECT HIM FROM A PUBLIC SIDEWALK BECAUSE IT WAS "CITY PROPERTY." AFTER GRAY DECLINED TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF AND BEGAN FILMING THE ENCOUNTER, POLICE ARRESTED HIM. IN NOVEMBER 2023, PORT WENTWORTH ISSUED A FORMAL APOLOGY TO GRAY, AGREED TO TRAIN ITS OFFICERS ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, AND MADE THREE PAYMENTS OF $1,791 REPRESENTING THE YEAR THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED TO THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR HOMELESS VETERANS, GRAY, AND FIRE. THE CITY ALSO ISSUED A PUBLIC STATEMENT RECOGNIZING THAT THE AREA IN FRONT OF ITS CITY HALL IS A PUBLIC FORUM, HELPING TO ENSURE THAT NOBODY WILL BE BANNED FROM THAT SPACE FOR PROTECTED SPEECH IN THE FUTURE. THIS CASE FURTHERED FIRE'S MISSION BY PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC AREAS, THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN ANONYMOUS EXPRESSION, AND THE RIGHT TO RECORD POLICE OFFICERS. 25. GRAY V. WRIGHT, CASE NO. 5:23-CV-7 (S.D. GA.): FIRE ALSO REPRESENTED JEFF GRAY IN A THIRD LAWSUIT AGAINST OFFICIALS IN BLACKSHEAR, GEORGIA, WHERE THE CHIEF OF POLICE TOLD GRAY THAT A LOCAL ORDINANCE PROHIBITED HIM FROM "DEMONSTRATING" WITH HIS "GOD BLESS HOMELESS VETS" SIGN WITHOUT A PERMIT. WHEN GRAY DECLINED TO LEAVE, THE OFFICER ISSUED HIM A CITATION, WHICH THE CITY LATER DISMISSED. FIRE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT CLINIC AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA SCHOOL OF LAW SUED TO HAVE THE APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IN MAY 2023, THE CITY OF BLACKSHEAR SETTLED THE CASE. THE CITY RESCINDED THE ORDINANCE USED TO CITE GRAY, AGREED TO TRAIN ITS POLICE OFFICERS ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND DONATED $1,791 REPRESENTING THE YEAR THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED TO THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR HOMELESS VETERANS. THIS LAWSUIT FURTHERED FIRE'S MISSION BY PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC AREAS WITHOUT REQUIRING A GOVERNMENT PERMISSION SLIP. 26. ADAMS V. GULLEY, NO. CCH-24-587004 (S.F. SUPER. CT.): FIRE IS DEFENDING PENNSYLVANIA RESIDENT AMY GULLEY AGAINST A CIVIL-HARASSMENT RESTRAINING ORDER AND STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BROUGHT BY A BRITISH EXPAT LIVING IN CALIFORNIA TO SUPPRESS GULLEY'S PUBLIC CRITICISM OF HER EFFORTS TO INTERVENE IN A FAMOUS TRIAL OF A BRITISH NURSE FOUND GUILTY OF COMMITTING INFANTICIDE. FIRE IS CHALLENGING THE CIVIL-HARASSMENT RESTRAINING ORDER AS A PRIOR RESTRAINT. THIS CASE FURTHERS FIRE'S MISSION BY DEFENDING AGAINST SLAPPS AND SEEKING TO CURB THE USE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS TO SILENCE CRITICISM. FROM JULY 1, 2023 TO JUNE 30, 2024, FIRE PARTICIPATED AS AMICUS CURIAE IN THE FOLLOWING 33 CASES: 1. LINDKE V. FREED (SCOTUS MERITS) - 6/30/23 2. CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA (SCOTUS CERT) - 7/3/23 3. HENDERSON V. TEXAS (SCOTUS CERT) - 7/14/23 4. IN RE BROWN (STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA HEARING DEPARTMENT) - 7/28/23 5. TAYLOR V. LEBLANC (5TH CIR.) - 8/8/23 6. O'CONNOR-RATCLIFF V. GARNIER (SCOTUS MERITS) - 8/15/23 7. VIDAL V. ELSTER (SCOTUS MERITS) - 9/12/23 8. DAMIANO V. GRANTS PASS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7 (9TH CIR.) - 9/13/23 9. PETA V. TABAK (D.C. CIR.) - 9/15/23 10. SPEECH FIRST V. SANDS (SCOTUS CERT) - 9/18/23 11. THOMAS V. LEAGLE (C.D. CAL.) - 9/21/23 12. FREE SPEECH COALITION V. COLMENERO (5TH CIR.) - 9/26/23 13. L.M. V. TOWN OF MIDDLEBOROUGH (1ST CIR.) - 10/2/23 14. PARENTS DEFENDING EDUCATION V. OLENTANGY LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION (6TH CIR.) - 10/2/23 15. PORTER V. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV. (SCOTUS CERT) - 11/6/23 16. DERAY MCKESSON V. JOHN DOE (SCOTUS CERT) - 11/6/23 17. TAWWATER V. ROWAN CMTY. COLLEGE (N.J. SUPREME CT.) - 11/17/23 18. BOOK PEOPLE, INC. V. WONG (5TH CIR.) - 11/17/23 19. NETCHOICE V. PAXTON AND MOODY V. NETCHOICE (SCOTUS MERITS) - 12/6/23 20. GONZALEZ V. TREVINO (SCOTUS MERITS) - 12/18/23 21. BATES V. PAKSERESHT (9TH CIR.) - 1/18/24 22. MURTHY V. MISSOURI (SCOTUS MERITS) - 2/9/24 23. NATIONAL RIFLE ASSN. V. VULLO (SCOTUS MERITS) - 1/16/24 24. BURKE V. UNITED STATES (11TH CIR.) - 1/2/2024 25. X CORP. V. BONTA (9TH CIR.) - 2/21/24 26. GILLIAM V. GERREGANO (TENN.) - 3/20/24 27. WOODLANDS PRIDE V. PAXTON (5TH CIR.) - 4/17/24 28. PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE LLC V. ROBBINS (8TH CIR.) - 4/23/24 29. PROJECT VERITAS V. SCHMIDT (9TH CIR.) - 4/23/24 30. ALARIO V. KNUDSEN (9TH CIR.) - 5/6/24 31. FREE SPEECH COALITION V. PAXTON (SCOTUS CERT) - 5/16/24 32. DIAMOND SJ ENTERPRISE V. SAN JOSE (9TH CIR.) - 6/18/24 33. POWELL V. SEC (9TH CIR.) - 6/24/24 FIRE ALSO FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF JOINED BY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS IN FIREBAUGH V. GARLAND, BUT THE D.C. CIRCUIT DECLINED TO ACCEPT THE BRIEF BECAUSE PARTICIPATION BY AT LEAST ONE OF THE AMICI WOULD RESULT IN THE RECUSAL OF A JUDGE WHO HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE CASE. LAUNCHED IN 2021, FIRE'S FACULTY LEGAL DEFENSE FUND (FLDF) VINDICATES THE EXPRESSIVE AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM RIGHTS OF FACULTY AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. FLDF IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE "FIRST RESPONDER" LEGAL HELP AT NO COST TO FACULTY MEMBERS WHOSE NEED IS WITHIN THE PROGRAM'S MANDATE. WHETHER FACULTY FACE PUNISHMENT FROM THEIR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS FOR THEIR INSTRUCTION, SCHOLARSHIP, OR SPEECH ON ISSUES OF PUBLIC CONCERN AS PRIVATE CITIZENS, FIRE'S FLDF STAFF QUICKLY REVIEW CONCERNS AND, WHERE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE, CONNECT FACULTY WITH EXPERIENCED ATTORNEYS NEARBY FOR ASSISTANCE. WHERE THESE REFERRALS ARE MADE, FLDF PAYS THE LAWYERS' FEES FOR INITIAL LEGAL WORK LIKE ADVISING ON POSSIBLE COURSES OF ACTION OR HELPING RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH THE INSTITUTION OR ADMINISTRATORS. SINCE ITS INCEPTION IN 2021, THE FLDF HAS REFERRED 60 CASES TO FLDF ATTORNEYS AND SECURED 37 VICTORIES. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION A, LINE 8B | THERE ARE NO COMMITTEES WITH AUTHORITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNING BODY. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11B | THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING COMPILES ALL THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE FORM 990 WHICH IS PREPARED BY AN INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTING FIRM. MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AND PRESIDENT/CEO, REVIEW THE FORM IN DETAIL. IN ADDITION, A COMPLETE COPY OF THE FORM 990 IS PROVIDED TO ALL BOARD MEMBERS FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO ITS FILING WITH THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C | THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WILL UNDERTAKE A REVIEW OF THE MATTER BY MAKING ALL NECESSARY INQUIRIES DEEMED WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES. AN APPROPRIATE ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSE SHALL BE DETERMINED BY DISINTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. THE ORGANIZATION REVIEWS BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH ALL VENDORS ANNUALLY. CONFLICTS INVOLVING EMPLOYEES ARE RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT. CONFLICTS INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT OR BOARD OF DIRECTORS ARE RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. PROCEEDINGS ARE DOCUMENTED IN A MEMO OR MINUTES AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THERE IS A RECURRING AGENDA ITEM AT THE ANNUAL BOARD MEETING TO ASK FOR ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15A | THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONDUCTS A COMPENSATION STUDY AND USES OTHER COMPARATIVE DATA AS WELL AS AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW TO DETERMINE APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND CEO. THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORTS FINDINGS TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVES THE COMPENSATION PACKAGE. THE DELIBERATION AND FINAL DECISION ARE DOCUMENTED TIMELY AS PART OF THE COMMITTEE AND BOARD MINUTES. THE PROCESS DESCRIBED HERE WAS LAST COMPLETED IN 2023. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 | THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY IS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC UPON REQUEST. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE. THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS ARE NOT MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION. |
| FORM 990, PART XI, LINE 9: | GAIN ON DISPOSAL OF LEASE RELATED ASSET 170,998. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |