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) 2020 | (b) 2021 | (c) 2022 | (d) 2023 | (e) 2024 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. | 5,948,844 | 5,796,880 | 6,430,311 | 30,730,984 | 11,437,596 | 60,344,615 |
| 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 | 5,948,844 | 5,796,880 | 6,430,311 | 30,730,984 | 11,437,596 | 60,344,615 |
| 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) .. | 25,776,663 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 34,567,952 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in)
![]() |
(a) 2020 | (b) 2021 | (c) 2022 | (d) 2023 | (e) 2024 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 5,948,844 | 5,796,880 | 6,430,311 | 30,730,984 | 11,437,596 | 60,344,615 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 55,008 | 57,767 | 111,902 | 463,984 | 1,184,139 | 1,872,800 |
| 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.).. | 35,361 | 31,152 | 15,908 | 449,233 | 1,097 | 532,751 |
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10 | 62,750,166 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal
year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2020 | (b) 2021 | (c) 2022 | (d) 2023 | (e) 2024 | (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) 2020 | (b) 2021 | (c) 2022 | (d) 2023 | (e) 2024 | (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 2024 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-2024 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2024 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Distributable amount for 2024 from Section C, line 6 | ||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2024 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI).
See instructions. |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2024: | ||||
| a From 2019....... | ||||
| b From 2020....... | ||||
| c From 2021....... | ||||
| d From 2022....... | ||||
| e From 2023....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2024 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2019 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from line 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2024 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2024 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from line 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2024, 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 2024. 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 2025. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a Excess from 2020..... | ||||
| b Excess from 2021..... | ||||
| c Excess from 2022..... | ||||
| d Excess from 2023..... | ||||
| e Excess from 2024..... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| SCHEDULE A, PART II, LINE 10, EXPLANATION OF OTHER INCOME: | OTHER INCOME - 2020 AMOUNT: $ 361. 2021 AMOUNT: $ 1,152. 2022 AMOUNT: $ 15,908. 2023 AMOUNT: $ 81,519. 2024 AMOUNT: $ 1,097. NON REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT - 2020 AMOUNT: $ 35,000. 2021 AMOUNT: $ 30,000. VACATED FEES - 2023 AMOUNT: $ 367,714. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| FORM 990, PART III: CASE UPDATE | AGUIRRE V. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THE INSTITUTE IS REPRESENTING PARENTS IN CHALLENGING THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S "CURRICULUM NEXUS" REQUIREMENT UNDER THE EMPOWERMENT SCHOLARSHIP ACCOUNT PROGRAM. THIS CASE WILL ENSURE THAT ESA SCHOLARSHIP AWARDS ARE DONE IN A LAWFUL MANNER THAT ENSURES THAT FAMILIES GET THE BENEFITS THE PROGRAM ENTITLES THEM TO. NO MOTION FOR FEES HAS BEEN FILED AT THIS STAGE. ANDERSON V. ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY REQUIRES FACULTY TO COMPLETE A TRAINING CALLED "ASU INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES," WHICH PROMULGATES BLAME OR JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF RACE, IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW - IN OTHER WORDS, INSTRUCTS EMPLOYEES THAT THE UNITED STATES IS A STRUCTURALLY RACIST SOCIETY, IN WHICH MEMBERS OF SOME RACES ARE "PRIVILEGED" DUE TO THEIR RACE. REPRESENING AN ASU PROFESSOR, WE ARE CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF THIS REQUIREMENT IN ORDER TO VINDICATE THE RIGHTS OF STATE EMPLOYEES AND OF TAXPAYERS WHO ARE FORCED TO FUND THIS UNLAWFUL PROGRAM. NO MOTION FOR FEES HAS BEEN FILED AT THIS POINT. ASSOCIATED MINORITY CONTRACTORS OF ARIZONA V. CITY OF PHOENIX PHOENIX AND TUCSON PASSED "PREVAILING WAGE ORDINANCES THAT VIOLATE A STATE LAW EXPRESSLY FORBIDDING MUNICIPALITIES FROM ENACTING PREVAILING WAGE ORDINANCES. WE REPRESENT SEVERAL TRADE GROUPS IN A CHALLENGE TO THESE ILLEGAL ORDINANCES, IN ORDER TO PROTECT TAXPAYERS FROM HIGH LABOR COSTS AND TO ENSURE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OBEY THE LAW. NO FEES WERE AWARDED IN THE TRIAL COURT, AND THEY HAVE NOT YET BEEN SOUGHT ON APPEAL. BARTH V. TOWN OF GILBERT THE TOWN OF GILBERT IS IMPOSING A NEW AND INCREASED TAX ON SERVICES ON SEVERAL TAXING CATEGORIES, INCLUDING HOME-SHARING SERVICES. THESE TAXES VIOLATE THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION, WHICH PROHIBITS CITIES FROM IMPOSING OR RAISING TAXES ON SERVICES. REPRESENTING A PROPERTY OWNER AND THE HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL ARIZONA, WE SUED TO CHALLENGE THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAXES. NO MOTION FOR REES HAS BEEN FILED AT THIS STAGE OF THE LITIGATION. BATES V. STATE OF OREGON WE REPRESENT THE OWNER OF AN OREGON VAPE SHOP WHOSE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED BY STATE RULES PROHIBITING SELLERS FROM TRUTHFULLY LABELING THE VAPING LIQUIDS THEY SELL WITH WORDS SUCH AS "STRAWBERRY OR FROM INCLUDING PICTURES OF STRAWBERRIES ON LABELS. OUR LAWSUIT CONTENDS THAT THIS VIOALTES THE STATE CONSTITUTION'S PROTECTIONS FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH. WE PREVAILEDIN THE OREGON COURT OF APPEALS, BUT THE OREGON SUPREME COURT HAS NOW TAKEN UP THE CASE. THIS LAWSUIT WILL PROTECT FREE EXPRESSION RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. CENTER FOR ARIZONA POLICY, INC. V. STATE OF ARIZONA THIS CASE CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PROPOSITION 211, WHICH DEPRIVES DONORS OF THEIR PRIVACY RIGHTS IF THEY DONATE TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORT OR OPPOSE BALLOT INITIATIVES AT AN ELECTION OR SPEAK ABOUT CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. WE REPRESENT TWO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND TWO ANONYOMOUS DONORS IN CONTENDING THAT THIS RESTRICTION VIOLATES THE STATE CONSTITUTION'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRIVACY CLAUSES. THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AND THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THAT DECISION. THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT HAS NOW ACCEPTED REVIEW. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. CROWE V. OREGON STATE BAR THIS CASE CHALLENGES AN OREGON LAW THAT REQUIRES ATTORNEYS TO JOIN 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 THAT WILL PROTECT BOTH ATTORNEYS AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. THE TRIAL COURT FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE OREGON STATE BAR. THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND IN FAVOR OF OUR CLIENT, DANIEL CROWE. WE HAVE ASKED THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO TAKE THE CASE. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. GOLDWATER INSTITUTE V. CITY OF PHOENIX THIS IS A STATUTORY SPECIAL ACTION CASE AGAINST THE CITY'S REFUSAL TO PRODUCE LABOR NEGOTIATION RECORDS AS THE STATE'S PUBLIC RECORDS LAWS REQUIRE. THIS CASE WILL ENSURE TRANSPARENCY FOR THE PUBLIC, PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF LABOR NEGOTIATIONS. THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS RULED AGAINST THE INSTITUTE, AND WE HAVE NOW FILED A PETITION FOR REVIEW WITH THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. GOLDWATER INSTITUTE V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GOLDWATER SENT A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST TO THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SEEKING DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE BIDEN ADMINITRATION'S DECISION TO IMPOSING A $37.7 MILLION FINE ON GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY. THE DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO PROVIDE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS, CITING VARIOUS EXCEPTIONS TO THE FOIA REQUIREMENT. THIS CASE SEEKS TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF THE DOOCUMENTS TO PROMOTE TRANSARENCY IN GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AND INFORM THE PUBLIC ABOUT HOW SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS WERE MADE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THE TRIAL COURT HAS ORDERED THE DEPARTMENT TO REPROCESS AND RE-RELEASE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS. NO MOTION FOR FEES HAS BEEN FILED AT THIS STAGE. HEDRICK V. CITY OF HOLIDAY ISLAND WE REPRESENT AN ARKANSAS BUSINESS OWNER WHOSE TRASH-HAULING BUSINESS HAS BEEN BLOCKED BY THE CITY UNDER AN AGREEMENT THAT GIVES A MONOPOLY ON GARBAGE REMOVAL TO ANOTHER BUSINESS. WE ARGUE THAT THIS VIOLATES THE ANTI-MONOPOLY CLAUSE OF THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, AND OTHER CLAUSES PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING. THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED THE CITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND WE HAVE APPELAED TO THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. IN RE CHILDREN OF L.K. THIS CASE INVOLVES TWO MINNESOTA CHILDREN BORN WITH SEVERE MEDICAL PROBLEMS DUE TO THEIR MOTHER'S DRUG USE. THEY WERE PLACED WITH A FOSTER FAMILY THAT CARED FOR THEM, BUT A YEAR LATER, WERE TAKEN AWAY UNDER THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT. REPRESENTING THE FOSTER FAMILY, WE ARGUE THAT THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT TREATS CHILDREN AND ADULTS DIFFERENTLY BASED SOLELY ON THEIR BIOLOGICAL ANCESTRY, IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS. THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS REJECTED OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS, AND WE PETITIONED TO THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT, WHERE WE ARE AWAITING A DECISION. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. 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. REPRESENTING SEVERAL CITIZENS, WE ARE CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THAT LAW, ARGUING THAT JUDGES SHOULD STAND FOR RETENTION ON A STATEWIDE BASIS, BECAUSE THEIR DECISIONS ARE BINDING ON ALL ARIZONANS. THIS CASE WILL ADVANCE FAIR AND EQUAL VOTING RIGHTS FOR ALL ARIZONA VOTERS. THE CASE IS PENDING IN THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. LAVIGNE V. GREAT SALT BAY COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD WE REPRESENT A MAINE MOTHER IN THIS CASE AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT WHOSE EMPLOYEES GAVE MS. LAVIGNE'S 13-YEAR-OLD CHILD A CHEST BINDER AND BEGAN A "GENDER TRANSITION" PLAN WHILE KEEPING THAT FACT FROM MS. LAVIGNE. WE CONTEND THAT THE SCHOOL'S ACTIONS VIOLATED MS. LAVIGNE'S FUNDAMENTAL PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT. THE DISTRICT COURT RULED AGAINST MS. LAVIGNE, AND WE APPEALED TO THE FIRST CIRCUIT, WHERE THE CASE IS NOW PENDING. NO MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF FEES HAS BEEN FILED AT THIS STAGE. |
| NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION-RI V. SOLAS | WE REPRESENT A RHODE ISLAND MOTHER WHO SOUGHT INFORMATION VIA THAT STATE'S PUBLIC RECORDS LAWS ABOUT WHAT WAS BEING TAUGHT TO HER CHILD IN PUBLIC SCHOOL CLASSROOMS. AFTER THE PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS WERE FILED, 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. THIS CASE PROMOTES GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY AND ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION BY PREVENTING IMPROPER ATTEMPTS TO DENY PUBLIC RECORDS. 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 THAN OUR CLIENT DID. WE ASSERT THAT THE CITY'S DECISION TO LEASE THIS PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTY AT BELOW-MARKET RATES VIOLATES THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION'S GIFT CLAUSE, WHICH FORBIDS THE CITY FROM GIVING AWAY PUBLIC RESOURES TO PRIVATE PARTIES. THIS CASE SEEKS TO PROTECT TAXPAYERS IN THE GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT PROCESS. THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT RULED IN OUR FAVOR, BUT REMANDED FOR FURHTER PROCEEDINGSON ANOTHER CLAIM, WHICH IS STILL ONGOING IN THE TRIAL COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. OAK CREEK HOSPITALITY V. CITY OF SEDONA THIS CASE CHALLENGES THE LEGALITY OF THE CITY OF SEDONA'S PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF A MOBILE HOME PARK FOR SHORT-TERM AND VACATION RENTALS. ARIZONA STATE LAW FORBIDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM PROHIBITING SHORT-TERM RENTALS (ALTHOUGH IT ALLOWS CITIES TO ENFORCE RULES AGAINST NOISE, TRAFFIC, AND OTHER NUISANCES). TO VINDICATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF MOBILE-HOME OWNERS, AND ENSURE THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OBEY STATE LAW, WE SUED, ARGING THAT THE CITY MAY NOT TREAT AN ENTIRE MOBILE HOME PARK AS A SINGLE UNIT WHEN RESTRICTING THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED THE CITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND THE CASE IS NOW PENDING IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. OGSTON V. ARIZONA DEP'T OF REVENUE IN 2023, THE YUMA COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT ASKED THAT COUNTY'S BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO IMPOSE A TAX TO RAISE FUNDS TO FUND ITS LEGAL BILLS. BUT STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT TAXES OF THIS SORT BE APPROVED BY VOTERS, A REQUIREMENT THE COUNTY DISREGARDED. REPRESENTING TAXPAYERS, WE SUED TO ENJOIN THE TAX, TO DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF VOTERS AND TAXPAYERS. THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED, AND WE APPEALED. THE CASE IS PENDING IN THE COURT OF APPEALS. NO FEES HAVE BEEN SOUGHT SO FAR. PATEL V. CITY OF HOLBROOK WE REPRESENTED A PROPERTY OWNER WHO SOUGHT TO SELL HIS LAND TO A BUYER WHO INTENDED TO CONVERT THE PROPERTY FROM A MOTEL TO A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY. ALTHOUGH THIS WAS ALLOWED UNDER THE PROPERTY'S ZONING, THE CITY CHANGED ITS ZONING ORDINANCE TO EFFECTIVELY FORBID RESIDENTIAL CARE SERVICES, THEREBY REDUCING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. WE SUED, ARGUING THAT THE OWNER WAS ENTITLED TO COMPENSAITON UNDER ARIZONA'S PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECITON ACT. THE CASE WAS MEDIATED AND SUBSEQUENTLY SETTLED. EACH PARTY AGREED TO BEAR ITS OWN ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS. 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 A TECHINIQUE CALLED "GPLET," WEHREBY A PROPERTY OWNER CONVEYS ITS LAND TO THE GOVERNMENT, THEREBY TAKING IT OFF THE TAX ROLLS, THEN LEASES IT BACK FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO OPERATE FOR PROFIT - THEREBY ELIMINATING THE OWNER'S PROPERTY TAX LIABILITY. THIS VIOLATES THE STATE CONSTITIUTION'S PROHIBITIONS ON SUBSIDIES AND CONVEYANCE TO EVADE TAXATION. OUR LAWSUIT SEEKS TO PROTECT TAXPAYERS AND ENSURE THAT PUBLIC RESOURCES ARE USED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES. THE CASE IS NOW PENDING IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. POMEROY V. UTAH STATE BAR THIS CASE CHALLENGES THE MANDATORY BAR ASSOCIATION IN UTAH. REPRESENTING AN ATTORNEY IN CHALLENGING THE REQUIREMENT THAT LAWYERS JOIN AND FUND THAT STATE'S MANDATORY BAR ASSOCIATION, WE ARGUE THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT FORBIDS THE STATE FROM INTRUDING ON ATTORNEY'S FREEDOMS OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION. THE CASE IS NOW PENDING IN THE TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. ROSE V. TOWN OF PAYSON THIS CASE CHALLENGES THE TOWN OF PAYSON'S USE OF AN "EMERGENCY CLAUSE" TO MAKE A $70 MILLION MUNICIPAL BOND MEASURE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY - THEREBY EVADING THE STATE LAW REQUIREMENT THAT SUCH BOND MEASURES BE APPROVED BY VOTERS. REPRESENTING A PAYSON TAXPAYER, WE CONTEND THAT EMERGENCIES MUST BE GENUINE, NOT BASED ON MERE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE TRIAL COURT FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE TOWN AND THE COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED THE CASE AS MOOT. WE ARE PREPARING AN APPEAL TO THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. SCHELL V. GURICH THIS CASE CHALLENGES OKLAHOMA LAWS THAT FORCE LAWYERS TO JOIN AND PAY DUES TO THE STATE'S BAR ASSOCIATION. THE BAR USES THIS MONEY TO LOBBY THE GOVERNMENT AND TAKE POLITICAL POSITIONS ON MATTERS WITH WHICH MEMBERS DO NOT NECESSARILY AGREE. REPRESENTING AN OKLAHOMA LAWYER, WE FILED SUIT ARGUING THAT THIS VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION. THE CASE IS PENDING IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. 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 ORGANIZED COMMITTEE WITH AUTHORITY RELATING TO 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. THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED THE COMMITTEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. THIS CASE SEEKS TO UPHOLD STATE LAW PROTECTIONS THAT REQUIRE PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC MEETINGS WHERE PUBLIC BUSINESS IS CONDUCTED. THE CASE IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. SOLAS V. UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND THIS CASE IS A PUBLIC RECORDS DISPUTE AGAINST THE UNIVERSITY FOR WITHHOLDING "SAFE ZONE" TRAINING MATERIALS OF UNIVERISTY EMPLOYEES. "SAFE ZONE" IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS THAT CONDUCTS TRAINING WORKSHOPS RELATING TO "LGBTQ+ IDENTITITES, GENDER AND SEXUALITY, AND PREJUDICE, ASSUMPTIONS AND PRIVILEGE." WE FILED A COMLAINT WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ARE AWAITING A DECISION. THIS CASE SEEKS TO PROMOTE GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY IN HIGHER EDUCATION AND BEYOND. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. |
| TYCENSKI V. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION | THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ADOPTED GUIDELINES ESTABLISHING THAT SCHOOL PERSONNEL SHOULD NOT NOTIFY PARENTS WHEN THEIR CHILDREN SEEK TO CHANGE THEIR "GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION." THREE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN NEW JERSEY, HOWEVER, ADOPTED POLICIES REQUIRING PARENTAL NOTIFICATION WHEN A SCHOOL RECOGNIZES A STUDENT'S NEW GENDER IDENTITY. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUED TO CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF THESE POLICIES. GOLDWATER SOUGHT TO INTERVENE IN ONE OF THOSE LAWSUITS ON BEHALF OF PARENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NOTIFICATION POLICIES. OUR CLIENT WAS DENIED INTERVENTION BEFORE THE AGENCY, HOWEVER, AND THE CASE WAS REMANDED TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, WHERE IT IS STILL PENDING. NO FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED. UNION LLC V. ARIZONA DEP'T OF AGRICULTURE THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PROMULGATED A RULE REQUIRING THAT ALL EGGS SOLD OR PRODUCED IN THE STATE COME FROM "CAGE-FREE HENS." ON BEHALF OF AN AFFECTED RESTAURANT OWNER, WE SUED, ARGUING THAT THAT THIS RULE GOES BEYOND THE DEPARTMENT'S STATUTORY AUTHORITY, AND VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION'S NON-DELEGATION PRINCIPLE. 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. 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 AND REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR ENFORCEMENT. THE CASE REMAINS PENDING IN THE TRIAL COURT. NO FEES WERE AWARDED. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION A, LINE 2 | PRESIDENT/CEO, VICTOR RICHES AND VP FOR LITIGATION AND GENERAL COUNSEL, JONATHAN RICHES HAVE A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP. KEY EMPLOYEE CHRISTINA SANDEFUR, EXECUTIVE VP, AND TIMOTHY SANDEFUR, VP FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, 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: |