In America, the government doesn’t get to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Yet states and cities throughout the country block new business to protect established interests. That’s when IJ steps in. Awa Diagne has been braiding hair for 30 years, but when she tried to open a braiding salon in an Atlanta suburb, the town told her it would provide too much competition. So, Awa and IJ are fighting back. Today we talk with IJ attorneys Renee Flaherty and Will Aronin about how IJ is protecting the right to make a living. LINKS: Become a Monthly Donor: https://ij.org/support/give-now/?recurring=1&monthlyother=5&utm_campaign=Monthly+Podcast+Ad&utm_medium=Advertising&utm_source=YouTube Audio (RSS) version of the show: https://ij.org/podcast/beyond-the-brief/ Case page: https://ij.org/case/south-fulton-protectionist-zoning/ Georgia Lactation: https://ij.org/case/georgia-lactation-consultants/ Report Abuse: https://ij.org/report-abuse/ About Beyond the Brief: Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Beyond the Brief explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do.

In America, the government doesn’t get to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Businesses compete, and the consumer ultimately decides which services or products they want. The idea that anyone can open a storefront and demonstrate their value to the community is part of the American Dream. But in South Fulton, Georgia, that dream has been upended by government officials who denied Awa Diagne a business license because she would be competing with more politically favored shops. That’s why Awa has teamed up with the Institute for Justice and filed suit against the city for its zoning abuse. https://ij.org/case/south-fulton-protectionist-zoning/ Awa epitomizes the American Dream. Originally from Senegal, Awa immigrated here more than 30 years ago and is an American citizen. She worked in downtown Atlanta as an African hair braider for decades and raised a family of six children. In 2021, Awa moved to South Fulton with her family so they could attend a great local school. Awa planned to keep working out of her Atlanta shop, but tragedy struck. The day after they moved into their new home, Awa’s husband Bathie went to the hospital with COVID-19. He never came home. Without her husband for help, Awa could no longer run her Atlanta store, but she still needed to work. She found the perfect place—a storefront in a busy shopping center right between her home and her kids’ school. Awa worked with the city on the paperwork and signed a lease. Between rent, the security deposit, and building out her shop, Awa spent nearly $20,000. But then came time for the City Council to vote for her license. To her shock, when the City Council met it was not concerned with how to welcome a new business, but instead focused on protecting other businesses from competition. Their language was anything but subtle. One member said that it was “not fair” that an existing salon would “have to compete” with Awa. The Council even said that Awa should forget the thousands of dollars she invested, start over, and find a new location where she wouldn’t be “competing with anyone.” The Council rejected her permit—not because her shop was unsafe or failed to meet any regulations, but rather to stifle competition from other politically favored businesses. This blanket economic protectionism is unconstitutional. The South Fulton City Council cannot shut out new businesses just to protect existing ones from competition. The Georgia Supreme Court said so just last year in another IJ case involving lactation consultants. Every American has the right to use their property to earn a living without arbitrary government interference. The government cannot pick and choose who gets to pursue the American Dream.

Before the sun came up one morning, Trina Martin, her son Gabe, and her boyfriend Toi Cliatt were startled awake in their home by the sound of a flashbang grenade exploding in the Martin home. Trina’s instinct was to run to her 7-year-old’s bedroom, but Toi, fearing for her life, grabbed her and pulled her to their walk-in closet. As Toi was reaching for a shotgun to protect his home, an FBI agent opened the door and snatched Toi. Toi was handcuffed and thrown onto the floor. https://ij.org/?post_type=case&p=245246 Agents angrily shouted questions at Toi, but when he told them his address, the room went silent. The SWAT team realized they were in the wrong house. Agents quickly left and raided the target house. After that, an agent returned, apologized, and left a business card for his supervisor. But the FBI provided no help to Trina, Gabe, and Toi as they struggled to live, work, and go to school with the trauma of the raid hanging over them. So, Trina, Gabe, and Toi filed a lawsuit against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Congress passed the FTCA 80 years ago to provide everyday Americans with a remedy for harms caused by federal employees. Congress extended the FTCA further in 1974 to ensure that it covered mistaken federal police raids like the one committed against Trina, Gabe, and Toi. But in the decades since, the courts have made a muddled mess out of what should be a straight-forward law. Whether the FTCA actually provides the remedy Congress intended depends not on the language of the statute but on where in the country the language is being read. Unfortunately for Trina, Gabe, and Toi, the interpretation came from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which applies broad immunities to the FTCA. Here, because the court inexplicably concluded that FBI agents have the “discretionary authority” to raid the wrong house, sovereign immunity barred the claims. According to the court, Trina, Gabe, and Toi had no remedy for the raid because the almost-deadly mistakes that led the FBI to kick in an innocent family’s door were arguably characterized as a “policy decision.” Now, the Institute for Justice (IJ) is asking the Supreme Court to hear Trina, Gabe, and Toi’s case. IJ insists that the courts respect Congress’s decision to provide a remedy for federal harms. The courts cannot create immunity where Congress has waived it.

Can the government take your land just because they don’t like you? That’s happening to Brinkmann’s Hardware, a beloved local store in Long Island. After a lengthy fight, the town of Southhold, NY is now trying to take their land away through eminent domain—all to protect another business from competition. Today we talk with Hank Brinkmann and IJ Senior Attorney Jeff Redfern about how Brinkmann’s Hardware went from a small family shop to a champion of property rights—and their path all the way to the Supreme Court. LINKS: Become a Monthly Donor: https://ij.org/support/give-now/?recurring=1&monthlyother=5&utm_campaign=Monthly+Podcast+Ad&utm_medium=Advertising&utm_source=YouTube Audio (RSS) version of the show: https://ij.org/podcast/beyond-the-brief/ Case page: https://ij.org/case/long-island-hardware-store/ Case video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctxeny0KxhQ ABOUT BEYOND THE BRIEF: Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Beyond the Brief explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do.

The film Rebel Ridge came September 6 and shot to #1 on Netflix. It depicts a former Marine’s attempts to get his money back after it was taken by police through civil forfeiture. That story sounded pretty familiar to us at IJ. We have been working to dismantle civil forfeiture for decades, but unlike the film’s main character, our clients aren’t vigilantes who take the law into their own hands; instead, they fight back in court. So how accurate is Rebel Ridge’s portrayal of civil forfeiture? To find out, we talk with IJ attorney Kirby Thomas West. LINKS: Stephen Lara’s Video (Nevada Highway Patrol): https://youtu.be/MkeS_0NQUZs Detroit Forfeiture: https://ij.org/case/detroit-civil-forfeiture/ Audio (RSS) version of the show: https://ij.org/podcast/beyond-the-brief/ Become a Monthly Donor: https://ij.org/support/give-now/?recurring=1&monthlyother=5&utm_campaign=Monthly+Podcast+Ad&utm_medium=Advertising&utm_source=YouTube Federal Forfeiture Process: https://endforfeiture.com/federalforfeitureprocess/ About Beyond the Brief: Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Beyond the Brief explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do.

The Thomases sought peace at their lakeside cabin in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, but in the summer of 2023, that peace was shattered. On two separate occasions, Ty Moon, a Waterways Conservation Officer (“WCO”) for the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, invaded the Thomases’ lakeside property. https://ij.org/case/pennsylvania-fish-cops/ Tim and Stephanie Thomas purchased their cabin on Butler Lake in Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, in 2014. In 2022, after Stephanie was diagnosed with stage four cancer, it also became a sanctuary for her to rest and recover after her treatments. Unfortunately, the peace of Stephanie’s sanctuary was soon disrupted.  First, in May 2023, WCO Moon pounded on the Thomases’ front and back doors, roamed around their yard and took pictures of their cabin, dock, and yard—all without a warrant—on the unfounded belief that Tim had been fishing without a license. Then, in August of 2023, WCO Moon marched right by several “No Trespassing” signs, walked around the cabin, through the yard and down to the dock to seize Tim’s fishing rods. This time WCO Moon acted on an equally unfounded belief that Tim had been fishing with too many rods. Both incidents left Tim and Stephanie shaken and angry.  WCO Moon was able to intrude on the Thomases’ yard due to a Pennsylvania law which grants vast authority to WCOs. Under that law, WCOs are permitted to “[e]nter upon any land or water in the performance of their duties.”[c]30 Pa. C.S.A. § 901(a)(7)[/c] But this unlimited power directly conflicts with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant to search people’s homes and yards.  To vindicate his Fourth Amendment rights, and the rights of all Pennsylvanians, Tim has teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a federal lawsuit challenging the Pennsylvania law which permits this warrantless trespassing by WCOs. Tim is doing so in memory of his late wife, Stephanie.

What was supposed to be a joyous Christmas celebration turned into a nightmare for Jennifer Heath Box, when Broward County, Florida, sheriff’s deputies arrested her and threw her in jail for three days—all because they refused to check their paperwork to make sure they had the right person. https://ij.org/case/florida-mistaken-identity-arrest Because of indifference of police and jail personnel, Jennifer missed Christmas with her family and, most importantly, missed seeing her son before he deployed overseas with the United States Marines. Police did have a warrant for “Jennifer”—but not this Jennifer. This Jennifer had never been the subject of an arrest warrant and had never been charged with a crime. The Jennifer that police wanted was 23 years younger and five inches shorter than the Jennifer they arrested. She also lived in a different county, had a different driver’s license number, had different hair and eye colors, and even had a different last name—all information that police and jail personnel ignored. While the wrong Jennifer spent her Christmas in jail, terrified and confused as to how something like this could happen, her family worked around the clock to get Jennifer out. But the more they learned, the more it became clear that Jennifer was sitting in jail because of an obvious mistake—one that Broward County officials failed to rectify even after they learned that Jennifer had been wrongfully arrested and incarcerated, and one to this day they’ve never apologized for. Jennifer’s wrongful arrest and detention violated both the Fourth Amendment’s right to be free from unreasonable seizures, and the constitutional right to due process. Government officials should be held accountable when their mistakes lead to violations of constitutional rights. Jennifer is teaming up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to hold Broward County and its officials responsible for their mistakes and to ensure that this nightmare does not happen to someone else.

Eric Arnold stood in front of his property in Macon-Bibb County, Georgia, shaking in shock and disbelief. The house he had been painstakingly fixing up for months—the house he poured hours of work and thousands of dollars into—was being clawed into a pile of rubble by a backhoe. https://ij.org/case/georgia-home-demolition/ The County had secretly labeled Eric’s house an imminent threat to the community due to its supposed state of disrepair. Under the County’s rules, that secret label gave the mayor and his Code Enforcement officers the power to demolish Eric’s house without any semblance of due process or a court proceeding. But Eric’s property was not a threat to the community. He had been lovingly repairing the fixer-upper with an eye toward giving his children and grandchildren a place to settle nearby. While he still had work to do, the yard was neat, the exterior was clean, the house was locked up, and, most importantly, it was in a vastly improved state of repair compared to when he purchased it. Despite this progress, Eric first learned that his house might be on the chopping block a little over a month before the County demolished it, when a neighbor called him to say someone was placing a dumpster next to his house. Believing that the County made a mistake, Eric convinced the demolition crew to stand down and then rushed to County offices, begging officials to take his house off the demolition list. Eric did everything he could to save his house, and County officials led him to believe that he had stopped the demolition. Behind the scenes, however, the County secretly sped up the demolition after Eric asked county officials for help. Less than two months after Eric learned about the potential teardown, the County sent a team of armed Code Enforcement officers to make sure that his house was torn down in the early hours of the morning. The code enforcement officers succeeded. Unfortunately, much of Eric’s story is not unique. The County has leveled more than 800 homes in just over three years using the same secret procedure it used to demolish Eric’s house. But the Constitution doesn’t allow the County to simply destroy property —all property owners are entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the government tears down their home. The County has ignored and continues to ignore these constitutional rules. Eric knew the County was in the wrong, so he teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to sue Macon-Bibb County in state court and protect the rights of all Americans to due process and to ask for help from government officials.

It’s legal to travel domestically with any amount of cash. It’s legal to travel in and out of the U.S. with more than $10k if you declare it. But that doesn’t stop law enforcement from searching travelers’ property and seizing any cash they find without warrants or evidence of a crime. Today we talk with IJ attorneys Jaba Tsitsuashvili and Ben Field about how the government treats carrying cash like a crime and what IJ’s doing to fight back. LINKS: "Know Your Rights" card: https://ij.org/support/give-now/know-your-rights/?utm_campaign=btb-video-know-your-rights-card&utm_medium=Native+Social&utm_source=Website Audio (RSS) version of the show: https://ij.org/podcast/beyond-the-brief/ Become a Monthly Donor: https://ij.org/support/give-now/?recurring=1&monthlyother=5&utm_campaign=Monthly+Podcast+Ad&utm_medium=Advertising&utm_source=YouTube Federal Forfeiture Process: https://endforfeiture.com/federalforfeitureprocess/ Stephen Lara’s Video (Nevada Highway Patrol): https://youtu.be/MkeS_0NQUZs Kermit’s Case: https://ij.org/case/kermit-warren-forfeiture/ Rebecca’s Case: https://ij.org/case/dea-tsa-forfeitures/ ABOUT BEYOND THE BRIEF: Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Beyond the Brief explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do.

As they were losing their housing in 2014, Marcelino Martinez went to his boss Michael Ballard to ask if he and his family could stay at Michael’s vineyard. Marcelino was a valued employee and family friend of Michael’s, so Michael was happy to allow Marcelino to stay at Savannah-Chanelle Vineyards. As a result, Marcelino purchased a trailer and settled it into a secluded part of Michael’s 60-acre vineyard. https://ij.org/effort/santa-clara-fines-fees-statement/ For three years Marcelino, his wife, and their three children (the third of which was born while the family lived at the vineyard) were able to avoid living on the streets because of Michael’s generosity. However, in 2017, Santa Clara County officials deemed the Martinez family to be in violation of county law, which prohibits living in an RV, and fined Michael $250 a day. As fines mounted, county staff declined to help Michael acquire the proper permits. County officials refused to negotiate with Michael over his non-compliance and pushed him to evict the Martinez family, which he refused to do. Now, because of his act of kindness, Michael faces hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and legal fees.

On a typical day, police officers pull over more than 50,000 drivers. If you’ve had a recent encounter with police, chances are good it was during a traffic stop. Traffic stops can lead to searches, arrests, and worse, yet they seldom involve a [search] warrant. So how did vehicles become Fourth-Amendment-free zones? Today we are joined by Josh Windham, the leader of IJ’s Project on the Fourth Amendment. We’ll explore how traffic stops are driving a hole through the Fourth Amendment and how IJ is pushing back. LINKS: Tell us your story: https://ij.org/case-intake/warrantless-car-client-search/ "Know Your Rights" card: https://ij.org/support/give-now/know-your-rights/?utm_campaign=btb-video-know-your-rights-card&utm_medium=Native+Social&utm_source=Website Audio (RSS) version of the show: https://ij.org/podcast/beyond-the-brief/ Become a Monthly Donor: https://ij.org/support/give-now/?recurring=1&monthlyother=5&utm_campaign=Monthly+Podcast+Ad&utm_medium=Advertising&utm_source=YouTube IJ’s Project on the Fourth Amendment: https://ij.org/issues/ijs-project-on-the-4th-amendment/ Alek’s Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVEoC-gkbOU Stephen Lara’s Video (Nevada Highway Patrol): https://youtu.be/MkeS_0NQUZs About Beyond the Brief: Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Beyond the Brief explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do.

The freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment is a foundational and cherished right that sets America apart from other constitutional democracies. Many people think of the First Amendment in the context of controversial speech on highly politicized issues. But did you know that some of the most important free speech cases today involve uncontroversial speech on issues that matter to ordinary Americans in their daily lives? Today we have with us IJ Senior Attorneys Paul Sherman and Robert Johnson to discuss this trend and why it is affecting more and more Americans. LINKS: Audio (RSS) version of the show: https://ij.org/podcast/beyond-the-brief/ Become a Monthly Donor: https://ij.org/support/give-now/?recurring=1&monthlyother=5&utm_campaign=Monthly+Podcast+Ad&utm_medium=Advertising&utm_source=YouTube IJ’s free speech work: https://ij.org/issues/first-amendment/ About Beyond the Brief: Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Beyond the Brief explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do.

Everyone who visits a home for the first time—including delivery drivers, plumbers, and Girl Scouts—knows that you have to make sure you have the right address before barging in. Somehow, Waxahachie Police Department (WPD) Lieutenant Mike Lewis didn’t get the memo. In the dead of night, Lewis directed a heavily armed SWAT team to storm a home in which the innocent Karen Jimerson was getting ready for bed while her loved ones slept. https://ij.org/case/texas-wrong-house-raid/ Lewis had every reason to know he directed his SWAT team to the wrong house. First off, he had a copy of the search warrant and photos of the suspected house, and Karen’s address was clearly affixed to the front of her home. Although he later reported that he “believed” the numbers on Karen’s home (593) matched the address on the warrant (573), Lewis admitted that he never got a good look at her address before ordering the raid. Even worse, Karen’s home and the target house looked very different—Karen’s house had an impossible-to-miss wheelchair ramp (which the target house lacked), while the target house had a perimeter fence, a porch, a detached garage, and stairs leading to the front door (which Karen’s house lacked). Without double-checking Karen’s address or noticing the obvious physical differences between her house and the target house, Lewis ordered officers to “break and rake” her home. On Lewis’ command, officers busted down Karen’s door, detonated a flashbang grenade in her front yard, shattered her windows, and held her terrified family at gunpoint until another officer realized Lewis’ mistake. In the wake of the raid, an internal investigation found that Lewis “completely overlooked” the WPD’s “reasonable and normal protocol,” and Lewis was suspended without pay. Still, when Karen and her family sued Lewis for violating their Fourth Amendment rights, a divided three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit ruled that qualified immunity shields him from accountability. According to the panel, Lewis didn’t have “fair notice” that ordering a warrantless no-knock raid on the wrong house violates the constitutional rights of the people inside. The panel’s decision defies common sense and binding precedent. So Karen and her family have teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to ask the full Fifth Circuit to rehear their case. When an officer has detailed information describing the place to be searched—including photos and an address—but fails to confirm that information before raiding the wrong house, he should not be able to evade liability by invoking qualified immunity.

The U.S. Constitution says that when the government takes your property, it must pay you “just compensation.” But what if, instead of paying you just compensation, it gives you an IOU that you can never cash in? That’s exactly what happened to Melisa and Mike Robinson. In 2009, public workers in Okay, Oklahoma, devastated a small mobile-home park Melisa and Mike own and operate. The local sewer authority, which had a sewer easement on the property next door, sent workers out to build a new sewer line. Instead of working on the property they owned, though, they dug up sewer lines on Melisa and Mike’s land without any legal authorization. The damage was massive—beyond the damage from the digging itself, misaligned sewer lines failed to drain, and clipped power lines sparked power outages. Inside the tenants’ homes, toilets couldn’t flush, showers wouldn’t drain, and appliances blew out. It was a disgusting mess. When Okay officials refused to fix their mistake, Melisa and Mike ended up fixing the pipes themselves. Then they sued. Exercising the same rights enjoyed by property owners nationwide, they filed a lawsuit claiming that the unauthorized construction on their property was a “taking.” The logic is simple: If Okay had followed the rules, it would have been required to use eminent domain to take the Robinsons’ property before building a sewer line, and eminent domain requires the government to pay just compensation. Since the government didn’t pay compensation before it wrecked the property, it should be required to pay now. In other words, the rule in the Constitution is the same as the rule in Pottery Barn: You break it, you buy it. And they won. In a case that went all the way up to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, Melisa and Mike were awarded tens of thousands of dollars in compensation for the taking of their property. So far, the system was working the way it was supposed to. The government took Melisa and Mike’s property, but a court ordered the government to pay them for what it took. Then things took a turn. The problem is that sewer construction in Okay isn’t run by the Okay town government. It’s all run by the Okay Public Works Authority—a “public trust” that was legally established by the town. The Public Works Authority is run by the same six officials that were elected to run the town, but technically, it’s not part of the town. That’s where Okay officials tried to get clever. As it turns out, the Public Works Authority doesn’t have any money. It has the power of eminent domain, sure, but it doesn’t have any assets or revenues it could use to pay for the property it takes—those all belong to the town. And so Melisa and Mike, despite the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling in their favor, haven’t received a single cent in compensation, even though they are owed more than $200,000 at this point. The court judgment in their favor is just an unenforceable IOU. That’s not just wrong—it’s unconstitutional. That is why Melisa and Mike have teamed up with the Institute for Justice to file a federal civil-rights lawsuit demanding that Okay officials pay them for what they took. Okay is far from alone in thinking that it’s come up with a clever way to avoid its constitutional obligations. This lawsuit will make sure that it joins the ranks of government officials who learned the hard way that the Constitution is not a suggestion. It’s mandatory.

As our listeners probably know, civil forfeiture is legal practice that lets the government take and keep your property by claiming it’s connected to a crime, without needing to convict anyone. You can lose your property even when the government agrees you’re innocent. Recently, the Supreme Court decided an important forfeiture case. While the outcome was disappointing, the way they decided it gives us hope that the high court is finally ready to rein in this form of theft-by-government. Today we chat with IJ attorneys Dan Alban and Kirby Thomas-West to discuss Culley v. Marshall and what it means for the fight against civil forfeiture. LINKS: Audio (RSS) version of the show: https://ij.org/podcast/beyond-the-brief/ Become a Monthly Donor: https://ij.org/support/give-now/?recurring=1&monthlyother=5&utm_campaign=Monthly+Podcast+Ad&utm_medium=Advertising&utm_source=YouTube Culley v. Marshall: https://ij.org/press-release/institute-for-justice-attorneys-comment-on-todays-civil-forfeiture-decision-in-culley-v-marshall/ About Beyond the Brief: Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Beyond the Brief explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do.

Imagine a SWAT team raids a house—battering doors, breaking windows, and coating everything inside with tear gas residue. Now imagine the SWAT team had the wrong address. Who do think would pay for the damage? If you said insurance, you’re probably wrong. If you said the city, you’re probably also wrong. Today, IJ attorneys Jeff Redfern and Dylan Moore talk with us about this nightmare situation facing homeowners across America – and how the Institute for Justice is fighting to change it. LINKS: Audio (RSS) version of the show: https://ij.org/podcast/beyond-the-brief/ Become a Monthly Donor: https://ij.org/support/give-now/?recurring=1&monthlyother=5&utm_campaign=Monthly+Podcast+Ad&utm_medium=Advertising&utm_source=YouTube Vicki Baker SWAT Case: https://ij.org/case/texas-swat-destruction/ Wrong House Raid: https://ij.org/case/texas-wrong-house-raid/ About Beyond the Brief: Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Beyond the Brief explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do.

At airports across the U.S., Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents confront flyers as they are boarding flights and ask to search carry-on items. These interactions are supposed to be consensual. But flyers often get the impression that they have no choice but to submit to a search. IJ currently has a class action lawsuit against the DEA and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) over their unconstitutional searches and seizures at U.S. airports. Learn more about IJ's work protecting America’s foundational rights—including the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures: https://ij.org/issues/ijs-project-on-the-4th-amendment/

In March 2021, people entered a private security-deposit box company in Beverly Hills, CA, broke open hundreds of boxes, and indiscriminately seized their contents – collectively worth over one hundred million dollars. Box holders lost their life savings, family heirlooms, important documents, and more. But the people who took their property weren’t mobsters; they were FBI agents. Today we have with us IJ attorneys Bob Belden and Mike Greenberg. They’re going to share with us the story of an unprecedented FBI raid–and how the Institute for Justice is making sure it never happens again. LINKS: Audio (RSS) version of the show: https://ij.org/podcast/beyond-the-brief/ Become a Monthly Donor: https://ij.org/support/give-now/?recurring=1&monthlyother=5&utm_campaign=Monthly+Podcast+Ad&utm_medium=Advertising&utm_source=YouTube USPV Case Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31XBx_AbmqM USPV Case Page: https://ij.org/case/us-private-vaults-missing-property/ About Beyond the Brief: Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Beyond the Brief explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do.

We like to think of America as a land of opportunity and second chances. But what happens when a web of government restrictions prevents someone from earning an honest living due to past mistakes? Today we’re talking with IJ Attorney Andrew Ward, and Rudy Carey, a substance abuse counselor and former IJ client. We discuss so-called “permanent punishment” laws, the millions of people they affect, and how IJ is helping Americans get the fresh starts they deserve. LINKS: Audio only version of this episode: https://ij.org/podcast/beyond-the-brief/ Become a monthly donor: https://ij.org/support/give-now/?recurring=1&monthlyother=5&utm_campaign=Monthly+Podcast+Ad&utm_medium=Advertising&utm_source=YouTube Rudy’s Original Case Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiHMg2xBQUk Melissa Brown’s Case Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVi1beANBBQ About Beyond the Brief: Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Beyond the Brief explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do.

If a federal official violates your rights, is it impossible to hold them accountable? In this episode, we talk with IJ senior attorneys Anya Bidwell and Patrick Jaicomo, leaders of IJ’s Project on Immunity and Accountability. We discuss some outrageous cases of abuse by federal officials, why it’s so hard to sue the Feds, and what IJ is doing to clear a path to justice. LINKS: Audio only version of this episode: https://ij.org/podcast/beyond-the-brief/ Become a monthly donor: https://ij.org/support/give-now/?recurring=1&monthlyother=5&utm_campaign=Monthly+Podcast+Ad&utm_medium=Advertising&utm_source=YouTube Project on Immunity and Accountability: https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability/ Bivens: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/388/ Hamdi’s Case: https://ij.org/case/task-force-immunity-and-accountability/ About Beyond the Brief: Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Beyond the Brief explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do.

Ruth Herbel moved to Marion, Kansas, as a young woman and has lived there for over 60 years. She raised a family while serving in several state and federal government jobs. But rather than opt for a quiet retirement, Ruth kept working to make her hometown a better place. She was elected to the city council in 2019. Ruth’s focus on fighting what she saw as corruption brought her into opposition with Marion’s mayor, David Mayfield, and his allies, who tried at least four times to have Ruth removed from office. In August 2023, the small-town conflict in Marion exploded, making headlines around the world. The Marion County Record has been published continuously since 1869 and, like Ruth, it often came into conflict with the mayor. Both Ruth and the newspaper received information that a local restaurant owner close to the mayor had a DUI conviction that could have prevented her from getting a liquor license. In a contentious city council meeting, Ruth and the newspaper were accused of improperly accessing the restaurant owner’s driving record. The mayor and his recently appointed police chief, Gideon Cody, saw a chance to punish their political opponents. The police chief drew up warrants that hid the fact that he knew that neither the newspaper nor Ruth had accessed any government databases improperly, but nevertheless alleged charges of identity theft. They shopped for a judge who would sign that warrant and found one nearly an hour outside the county. The chief and his deputies were soon pounding on doors and collecting cell phones and computers. One of the warrants was served at the home of Joan Meyer, the 98-year-old co-owner of the Marion County Record. Meyer died the day after the raid as a result of an stress-induced heart attack. The police also showed up at Ruth’s door, traumatizing her husband, who suffers from dementia. They seized her cell phone, which was her only phone and had all her family and medical contacts on it The outcry over the raid of the newspaper and Meyer’s death turned the tables on the mayor and police chief. The county attorney withdrew the search warrants and, while the police continued to draw up a warrant to arrest Ruth, they never went through with it. Under the cloud of the abusive raids, the mayor left office and the chief resigned. The retaliation Ruth faced for her political opposition is a grave violation of the First Amendment. Ruth is suing with the Institute for Justice to hold the mayor, the police chief, and the city accountable. Her lawsuit is about sending a clear message that government officials cannot use criminal investigations to silence their critics and protect their friends..

Your home is supposed to be your castle. But what about the land your castle sits on? We discuss why it is that most private land in America gets no protection from warrantless government surveillance. We are joined by IJ attorney and co-director of IJ’s Project on the Fourth Amendment, Josh Windham. LINKS: Become a monthly donor: https://ij.org/support/give-now/?recurring=1&monthlyother=5&utm_campaign=Monthly+Podcast+Ad&utm_medium=Advertising&utm_source=YouTube Audio version of this episode: https://ij.org/podcasts/beyond-the-brief/ruling-lets-govt-trespass-on-96-of-private-land-in-the-u-s/ Bound By Oath Episode: https://ij.org/podcasts/bound-by-oath/mr-thorntons-woods-season-3-ep-1/ Open Fields Study: https://ij.org/report/good-fences-good-luck/ Tennessee Open Fields Case: https://ij.org/case/tennessee-open-fields/ Louisiana Open Fields Case: https://ij.org/case/louisiana-open-fields/ Pennsylvania Open Fields Case: https://ij.org/case/pennsylvania-open-fields/ About Beyond the Brief: Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Beyond the Brief explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do.

The Institute for Justice’s Zoning Justice Project aims to protect and promote the freedom to use property. For more than a century, the freedom to use property has been eroded through abusive zoning practices that disregard individual liberty and emphasize top-down planning over property rights. Those property rights have been further denigrated by the courts, where property owners have found little comfort from all but the most abusive zoning practices. https://ij.org/issues/zoning-justice/ It was not always this way; modern zoning has strayed far from its beginnings. And that departure has led to innumerable social and economic problems. IJ’s Zoning Justice Project offers solutions.

What can Americans do if the government retaliates against them for speaking out? Today we're going to discuss real world examples of governments retaliating against citizens for speech they don’t approve of. We are joined by IJ Attorneys Kirby Thomas West Ben Field. LINKS: Become a monthly donor: https://ij.org/support/give-now/?recurring=1&monthlyother=5&utm_campaign=Monthly+Podcast+Ad&utm_medium=Advertising&utm_source=YouTube Audio version: https://ij.org/podcast/beyond-the-brief/ https://ij.org/case/bailey-v-iles/ https://ij.org/case/detroit-civil-forfeiture/ https://ij.org/case/eagle-wi-fines-and-fees/ About Beyond the Brief: Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Beyond the Brief explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do.

Does qualified immunity actually accomplish what the Supreme Court intended? Kim Norberg and co-host Keith Neely discuss qualified immunity and how it plays out in the real world. IJ Senior Attorney Bob McNamara and data scientist Jason Tiezzi join to discuss Unaccountable, IJ’s new report that examines qualified immunity by the numbers. The report uses the largest ever collection of federal appellate cases, covering the 11-year period from 2010 through 2020. It is also the first to use cutting-edge automated techniques to parse thousands of federal circuit court opinions and answer key questions about cases where government defendants claim qualified immunity—what kinds of officials and conduct it protects, its impact on civil rights cases, and whether the doctrine is achieving its aims. LINKS: Become a monthly donor today! https://ij.org/support/give-now/?recurring=1&monthlyother=5&utm_campaign=Monthly+Podcast+Ad&utm_medium=Advertising&utm_source=YouTube Audio version of this episode: https://ij.org/podcasts/beyond-the-brief/qualified-immunity-protects-the-fbi-your-mayor-and-all-officials-not-just-police/ Read the Report! https://ij.org/report/unaccountable/ About Beyond the Brief: Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Beyond the Brief explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do.

Questions? Ask them in the comments and we may respond to them in the next episode! Unbeknownst to parents, a portion of their baby’s blood remained unused after a standard screening was complete. And New Jersey had unilaterally decided that it could keep that blood for 23 years. Even worse, New Jersey, along with other states, believed it could use that blood however it saw fit, whether that be selling it to third parties, giving it to law enforcement, or even turning it over to the Pentagon. On today’s episode of Beyond the Brief, hosts Kim Norberg and Keith Neely talk to IJ Attorneys Rob Frommer and Brian Morris about New Jersey’s creepy baby blood collection scheme. Become a monthly donor today! https://ij.org/support/give-now/?recurring=1&monthlyother=5&utm_campaign=Monthly+Podcast+Ad&utm_medium=Advertising&utm_source=YouTube LINKS: Audio Only Version: Case Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSQcje4Z4H0 Case Page: https://ij.org/case/new-jersey-genetic-privacy/ News Article: https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/11/14/civil-rights-concerns-grow-over-baby-blood-tests-as-state-mulls-genomic-sequencing/ About Beyond the Brief: Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Beyond the Brief explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do.

Welcome to Beyond the Brief. Join Kim Norberg, Keith Neely, and guests to learn about the abuses of power that threaten our constitutional rights and the legal battles that matter most. Episode 1 will be available starting on April 4th!

Melissa Brown made some mistakes during her teens and twenties. For years she struggled with addiction but, after a conviction for robbery in 2002, she turned her life around and became a state-certified counselor to help others suffering from addiction. https://ij.org/case/virginia-fresh-start-2 In 2018, Melissa found out she’s banned from working with patients under Virginia law. Melissa still wants to help others overcome addiction. Her firsthand experience makes her particularly well-suited to guide others through recovery. That is why Melissa is partnering with the Institute for Justice, to file a lawsuit challenging this permanent-punishment law preventing her from working in substance abuse counseling.

Americans have a long tradition of running for office with the goal of improving their local communities. After a fulfilling career in communications, Sylvia Gonzalez did just that. She knocked on the doors of 500 residents in Castle Hills, Texas, and squeezed out a win, beating a well-connected and powerful incumbent. https://ij.org/case/castle-hills-retaliation/ After her election, Sylvia got right to work. Acting on her campaign promise, she helped spearhead a citizens’ petition advocating for the removal of Castle Hills’ city manager Ryan Rapelye. The petition was a non-binding vote of no confidence in Rapelye, who had come under criticism for mistreating his employees and failing to address citizens’ concerns, such as fixing their streets. The petition did not sit well with Castle Hills’ incumbents, whose interests were well-represented by the city manager. Within weeks of winning her election, the harassment began. First, the city attorney, who was aligned with the mayor and the city manager, claimed Sylvia wasn’t properly sworn in and replaced her on the city council with the woman she’d just beaten. When a judge reinstated Sylvia, the city officials didn’t give up. In fact, that was only the beginning. In the midst of their attempt to unseat her, the mayor and police chief used bogus charges and a rarely-used law to have Sylvia arrested, booked, and thrown in jail—but she had done nothing wrong. Once the county prosecutor got involved, he dropped the case against her. Finally, after beating back the city twice, a group of citizens aligned with the mayor filed a lawsuit claiming Sylvia was incompetent. Sylvia stood her ground and won—but by then the damage had been done. Sylvia’s mugshot had been splashed across the news and her reputation dragged through the mud. Exhausted—with tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills—she stopped the fight to reclaim her seat. The city’s retaliation clearly violates Sylvia’s First Amendment rights. If America’s democracy means anything at all, it means that a city can’t arrest its residents for speaking out against a city manager. The fundamental right of political speech is high in the hierarchy of First Amendment values and the courts exist to ensure that it is protected. On September 29, 2020, Sylvia partnered with the Institute for Justice to file a federal lawsuit against Castle Hills to vindicate her First Amendment rights and hold the city officials accountable. On October 13, 2023, after a prolonged fight with the government over qualified immunity, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to Sylvia to review whether the Fifth Circuit correctly sided with the Castle Hills officials on that issue.

Tom Manuel is a forester who owns timberland in East Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. First and foremost, the land is part of his private forestry business/tree farm. Similar to most non-industrial, private forest owners, Tom also manages the property for wildlife conservation, recreation, and multiple other uses as well. https://ij.org/case/louisiana-open-fields/ When his kids were young, his family spent time on the property learning about tree farming, hunting, camping, and riding four-wheelers. Tom, an avid outdoorsman, also enjoys hunting on the land. And the land is marked accordingly: Boundaries are fenced and painted, entrances are gated and posted. It’s a private place—and Tom wants to keep it that way. But Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) game wardens have other ideas in mind. Twice in December 2023, they entered Tom’s land without consent, a warrant, or probable cause and confronted first him and then his brother. They were interrogated but both were complying with hunting laws and neither was given a citation. The game wardens think they have unlimited power to invade private land under an old Supreme Court rule called the “open fields doctrine.” The rule says that the U.S. Constitution’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures do not extend to land outside the immediate area around a home. But the wardens are ignoring that the Louisiana Constitution is different—it protects all “property” from warrantless searches. To vindicate his property rights for himself and all other users of private property in Louisiana, Tom has partnered with IJ to file a suit in Louisiana state court that aims to put a stop to these warrantless intrusions once and for all.

Oregon wants to regulate small farms like large commercial dairies. Why? Not because of real environmental concerns, but because large commercial dairies insist that small dairies somehow have a “competitive advantage” over big ones—that is, that they don’t have to install expensive infrastructure to manage waste. https://ij.org/case/oregon-small-dairies/ But small dairies don’t need that infrastructure because the amount of waste generated can safely decompose in fields or be composted for other productive use. The state is wrapping small dairies in meaningless red tape just to please big dairies. That is protectionist, irrational and, moreover, unconstitutional. Sarah, and three other small farmers, are now teaming up with the Institute for Justice to file a lawsuit against the Oregon Department of Agriculture and save small dairy farms in the Beaver State.

Government officials are not allowed to pursue personal vendettas or retaliate against people for criticizing their policies. But that is precisely what is happening in the town of Parksley on Virginia’s Eastern Shore, where out-of-control bureaucrats have done everything in their power to target and eliminate the town’s first—and only—food truck simply because they dislike its owners and the fact that they dared to work with the Institute for Justice to call for the repeal of the town’s unconstitutional food truck ban. Learn more about this case here: https://ij.org/case/virginia-retaliation/

Americans want more choice for one of the last and most important decisions they will ever make: where to be buried. Peter and Annica Quakenbush want to provide fellow Michiganders with more choice by opening the state’s first conservation burial ground—a type of green cemetery that preserves the land in its natural state. https://ij.org/case/michigan-green-burial/ But Brooks Township opposes the Quakenbushes and, to stop them, banned any new cemeteries. That drastic step violates the Michigan Constitution’s protections for property rights and economic liberty. Green burial provides a simple and environmentally responsible way to care for the dead. Peter and Annica’s conservation burial ground will provide Michiganders a unique burial option where the deceased are integrated into the environment with minimal disruption to the native forest. Peter, whose passion for nature led him to pursue a PhD in biology, realized ten years ago that green burial aligns with his and Annica’s personal philosophy of sustainability and closeness to nature. So, they decided to open a burial forest. And they found the perfect location last year in Brooks Township, Michigan. The property is high, dry, and covered in a native forest more than 100 years old—ideal for a burial forest and nature preserve. The Quakenbushes then approached the township’s zoning administrator, who told them to develop a site plan and get a conservation easement. They followed the administrator’s instructions and took additional steps to ensure the cemetery would comply with green-cemetery certification requirements and state health and safety standards. Peter and Annica were ready to move forward when the Township Board—spurred on by a small group of activists—passed the Cemetery Ordinance, a flat ban on any new cemeteries in the township. Despite strong support for the plan from a large portion of the community, the board passed the ordinance specifically to prevent the Quakenbushes from opening their cemetery.[1] That’s unconstitutional. The Michigan Constitution protects individuals’ rights to use private property and engage in any business that doesn’t harm the public. The ban infringes on exactly those rights, prohibiting the Quakenbushes from using their property for a legal and productive economic purpose. Caring for the dead is a fundamental and unavoidable human need. Operating a conservation burial ground is a safe, productive, and legitimate way to earn a living. That’s why Peter and Annica have teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a state lawsuit against the township and end this ban violating the Michigan Constitution.

The First Amendment’s protection for free speech isn’t limited to political advocacy or expressions of personal opinion—it extends to speech on all topics. That includes expert advice that people earn a living providing, an area known as occupational speech. For many Americans, this sort of expert advice is among the most valuable speech for helping people navigate the real problems they face in their day-to-day lives. That’s why the North Carolina Justice for All Project and two of its members, Morag Black Polaski and Shawana Almendarez, have joined with the Institute for Justice to file a federal lawsuit to vindicate their right to provide both free and paid legal advice regarding court-created forms. https://ij.org/case/north-carolina-upl/ America is in the midst of an access-to-justice crisis. For many Americans facing routine legal issues—whether they relate to divorce, child custody, evictions, or any number of problems that make up the bulk of state courts’ civil dockets—hiring a lawyer to navigate these problems is simply unaffordable. And this is not a problem limited to the poor. It is also a problem for the “missing middle”—those who earn too much to qualify for free legal assistance from groups like Legal Aid, but not enough to afford a lawyer. The inevitable result is that many Americans must navigate the legal system on their own.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of a Texas farmer who is seeking compensation from the state after the construction of a concrete barrier along a highway caused several devastating floods on his property. The case presents a simple yet vital question of constitutional law: When the Constitution says government must pay “just compensation” when it takes private property, does it mean what it says? Read more about Richie's Supreme Court case here: https://ij.org/case/devillier-cert-petition/ The Institute for Justice represents all of our clients for free! Learn how you can support our work here: https://ij.org/devillier

Amy Hadley watched in horror as her home was raided by police and destroyed in South Bend, Indiana, in June 2022. Over a year later, her family is still traumatized and their home still bears the scars of the raid. And all of this happened because police were searching for a man who was never in their home and who had no connection to Amy’s family. https://ij.org/case/south-bend-swat-destruction Noah Hadley, just 15 at the time, was the only one there when police surrounded his home and started calling for occupants to come out. He followed their instructions and told them he was the only one in the house. Officers cuffed Noah and took him away without letting him call his mom. Amy arrived on the scene shortly after the officers took her son away. None of the officers believed Amy when she tried to explain that the officers had the wrong house. She watched from down the street as a SWAT team and other officers shattered windows with tear gas grenades, flooded the house with toxic fumes, upended furniture, tore down fixtures, punched holes in the walls, destroyed family photos and drawings, and rifled through the family’s belongings. When the dust settled, the house was uninhabitable for days. Tear gas saturated everything, glass filled the beds, windows and walls were shattered and mangled. Amy and her family slept in her car. Amy tried to get answers and compensation from the government agencies. But they denied her requests. Her insurance company covered only part of the damage. She was left with thousands of dollars’ worth of damage to shoulder herself. That’s both unfair and unconstitutional. When the government deliberately destroys an innocent owner’s property to serve a public interest—here, public safety—both the Indiana Constitution and the U.S. Constitution require the government to compensate the owner. The local governments in this case determined that the public benefit of trying to apprehend a fugitive outweighed the costs of damaging Amy’s property in the process. That was their decision to make, but they must pay for it.

Many of the businesses that line Manchester Road in Brentwood, Missouri have been serving the community for decades. But now, the city is threatening to use its eminent domain power to force these well-loved businesses to close shop so a private developer can make way for new businesses—all in the name of economic development. https://ij.org/case/brentwood-blight/ The city claims the entire Manchester Corridor is “blighted,” a convenient label it can use to justify taking property by eminent domain. But these properties are not blighted in any sense of the term. They are well maintained, and the businesses provide valuable services to customers in the St. Louis area. None of them have received warnings for the condition of their properties. No business should lose its property just because the government wants to replace it with other, more favored businesses. The owners of a fly-fishing shop, a meal prep business, and a dance studio are now teaming up with the Institute for Justice to challenge the baseless blight designations and the proposed takings.

The Barber Shelter first opened its doors over 30 years ago, providing overnight refuge to people who are temporarily homeless and have nowhere else to go. It is the only homeless shelter in Wilkes County and sleeps, on average, fewer than a dozen people per night. https://ij.org/case/north-carolina-shelter-zoning/ In 2020, the Barber Shelter was looking for a new space when a local dentist generously offered his former office building as a location. The space was perfect: It was in an ideal part of town—near the services the shelter’s clients use, far from residential areas—and met each of the town’s zoning requirements. All it needed was a permit. But the town was not interested in allowing the Barber Shelter to care for the area’s neediest. Instead, it invented bogus reasons to deny the shelter its permit, such as concerns about the shelter’s clients walking on the sidewalk near a busy road. But that is nonsensical; the town requires homeless shelters to have sidewalks and be situated near major roads. The government’s reasoning meant that there was nowhere in town for the shelter to go. But the Constitution prohibits governments from ruling by paradox, and so the Barber Shelter teamed up with IJ to fight back. We sued the town, and, a few days before Christmas 2021, a federal court sided with IJ and the shelter, concluding that “deference cannot be an excuse for the Court to abdicate its duty to protect the constitutional rights of all people.” Victory in hand, the Barber Shelter got to work renovating the property. It now provides short-term housing for up to 10 men on the first floor and six women and a family on the second floor. There are kitchens, common areas, laundry facilities, and other necessities to provide comfort during a difficult time. The opening ceremony memorialized an important principle: Government shouldn’t stand in the way of private citizens using their own property and initiative to help the least fortunate in their communities.

Freedom of speech is a cherished Constitutional protection, framed in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Teaching is one of many forms of free speech and falls under the First Amendment's protections for the right to speech within their occupation. But the State of Minnesota disagrees and Leda Mox, a certified equine massage specialist, now faces the prospect of having to pay exorbitant fees unless her speech is approved by a government agency. ij.org/case/minnesota-horse-teaching/ Leda loves horses, so much so that she has turned her passion into a business teaching others how to care for them through the practice of equine massage. Horses, much like any human, can benefit from massage by alleviating muscle pain, training for athletic events, or just to ease tension and relax. Leda is an expert in the subject and has a bachelor’s degree in equine science as well as being certified in equine massage since 1997, when she skipped her high school graduation to attend one of the only certification programs in the country at the time. The Office of Higher Education doesn’t care about Leda’s credentials or her long history of success in the field. They are demanding Leda complete a thirty-page application, pay exorbitant fees up front, and then annually to maintain her license, and furnish the state with a great deal of information – most of which is completely inapplicable to her small business.  Leda, who has partnered with the Institute for Justice, has now filed a lawsuit against the state claiming a violation of her First Amendment rights and arguing the state has no right to demand their approval to freely speak on a subject which she is clearly an expert in.

If it’s legal to sell a product, it’s also legal to talk about that product. But not in Mississippi—at least not if the product is medical marijuana. https://ij.org/case/mississippi-advertising/ In 2022 Mississippi joined the growing number of states to legalize medical marijuana. And entrepreneur Clarence Cocroft recognized that a medical marijuana dispensary would be an excellent business opportunity. He opened Tru Source Medical Cannabis, LLC—the first state-licensed, Black-owned medical marijuana dispensary in Mississippi. The family-operated business has been successful, but an advertising ban imposed by the state Department of Health (DOH) has severely hampered it.  The Mississippi law legalizing medical marijuana lays out a scheme authorizing the cultivation, tracking, and sale of medical marijuana with a valid prescription. But the law also gives DOH discretion to regulate advertising for dispensaries, and the department has exercised that discretion aggressively: It has completely prohibited dispensaries from advertising and marketing in any media at all. Essentially, dispensaries are only permitted to have signs on their own property and maintain a basic homepage on the web, making it nearly impossible for patients to find the dispensaries best suited to their needs.   Like all entrepreneurs, Clarence wants to tell consumers about his business. He wants to be able to tell patients where it’s located, what he sells, and how much it costs. But he can’t, despite his constitutional right to do so.  The First Amendment protects the right to exchange truthful information about legal products. Medical marijuana is legal in Mississippi and the federal government has said it won’t enforce federal marijuana laws against state-legal medical-marijuana businesses. That means that no law—state or federal—justifies the state’s censorship here. Mississippians have a constitutional right to information that will inform their purchasing decisions. And the state has no interest in interfering with that right. That’s especially true here, where the state’s apparent goal is to manipulate consumers’ behavior by restricting their access to truthful information.   The advertising ban impermissibly harms Clarence’s business because it unconstitutionally restricts his speech. That’s why Clarence has teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a federal lawsuit challenging DOH’s advertising ban. Victory in this case will reaffirm that the First Amendment prevents the state from censoring people who want to speak about legal products and services and ensure entrepreneurs like Clarence can promote their legal businesses.

Like all new mothers, New Jersey residents Hannah Lovaglio and Erica Jedynak each experienced the usual emotional whirlwind during their pregnancies. They had attended prenatal classes, meticulously planned their nurseries, and devoured books on parenting. They were determined to give their newborns the best possible start in life. Little did they know that a disquieting surprise awaited them after their babies were born. https://ij.org/case/new-jersey-genetic-privacy/ Shortly after giving birth, medical staff performed a routine heel prick. Their children’s blood was collected on a card and whisked away to the New Jersey Department of Health’s Newborn Screening Laboratory to be tested for a range of disorders. New Jersey didn’t seek Hannah’s or Erica’s consent first; instead, each got a handout stating that New Jersey law mandated it. But that didn’t raise any red flags for the two: Every state conducts such testing, and they trusted the system. But Hannah’s and Erica’s real shock came upon learning what New Jersey didn’t disclose. Unbeknownst to parents, a portion of their baby’s blood remained unused after the screening was complete. And New Jersey had unilaterally decided that it could keep that blood for 23 years. Even worse, New Jersey believed it could use that blood however it saw fit, whether that be selling it to third parties, giving it to law enforcement, or even turning it over to the Pentagon. Hannah and Erica were appalled. Their top priority was protecting their children’s health and safety. Realizing that they had no idea where their children’s blood might be or what it was being used for only deepened their distress. Fueled by that concern and a shared sense of outrage, Hannah, Erica, and others have joined forces with the Institute for Justice to file a class action lawsuit, which invokes two fundamental claims under the U.S. Constitution. First, it raises a Fourth Amendment claim, arguing that the state’s retention of the children’s blood without consent was an unconstitutional seizure. And second, it raises a due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, asserting that the state’s creation of its blood database unconstitutionally infringed upon Hannah and Erica’s fundamental right to make medical decisions for their children. What they ask for is simple: An order telling New Jersey to either obtain informed consent from parents to hold on to the remaining blood, or else return or destroy it. Their fight is part of the Institute’s Project on the Fourth Amendment, dedicated to safeguarding Americans’ foundational right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. In the eyes of Hannah and Erica, this fight is not just for their children but for all children born in New Jersey, to ensure that their future is not subject to the unknown whims of the state.

Family homes that have been handed down generations, nestled among century-old oak trees. A charming, renovated two-story house on the National Register of Historic Places. Church property, donated by parishioners, that serves as the gathering place for the community. https://ij.org/case/ocean-springs-blight/ What do these places have in common? All of them are part of a “slum” or “blighted area”—at least, that is, according to the city of Ocean Springs, Mississippi. This past April, Ocean Springs declared all of these—alongside dozens of other well-maintained homes and properties—to be “slum and blighted” in order to designate them as an “urban renewal” area. That designation authorizes the city to use eminent domain to forcibly take away the homes and businesses within the city’s so-called “urban renewal area.” The city also didn’t tell any residents or property owners that they declared them blighted—or that the blight designation would be final and unappealable if they failed to appeal within 10 days. Unsurprisingly, since no one knew, no one appealed. Cynthia Fisher has lived in the Railroad District for 70 years. In 1980, she moved around the corner from the home she grew up in, which is now declared “blighted.” At least seven family members, including one of her daughters, live just a few steps away. The houses in her family are over 100 years old; six generations of Cynthia’s family grew up in their Robinson Street house. Now, Cynthia, along with other home and business owners whose properties have been blighted, are teaming up with the Institute for Justice to launch a federal lawsuit. Well-cared-for property should never be blighted, and blight designations should never be passed in secret. The U.S. Constitution bars government from depriving people of their property rights without due process, but that is exactly what Ocean Springs did.

The right to criticize the government is a pillar of our constitutional republic—embodied in the text and history of the First Amendment. And yet, across the country that right continues to be violated by unaccountable government agents. One particularly blatant example of this abuse happened recently in the small town of Newton, Iowa, where a resident named Noah Petersen was arrested for criticizing his mayor and police department. https://ij.org/case/iowa-retaliation/ Petersen, frustrated by the behavior of a local police officer and the police department’s treatment of residents, chose to express his concerns at city council meetings during the public comment period. However, instead of being heard—as was his right—he was arrested twice for “disrupting a lawful assembly.” When the city brought these charges to trial, a judge ruled in Petersen’s favor and confirmed that Petersen had a constitutional right to voice his concerns at the meeting. Petersen, who has partnered with the Institute for Justice, has now filed a lawsuit against the mayor, the police chief, and the City of Newton. The lawsuit claims violations of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, arguing that his arrest was without probable cause and that he was unfairly singled out for his public comments. Petersen’s case also challenges the city’s rules against criticizing government officials, asserting that they infringe upon the First Amendment. His fight forms part of IJ’s mission to protect free speech against government retaliation. The lawsuit is also part of IJ’s Project on Immunity and Accountability, which aims to ensure that government officials are not above the Constitution.

When the government judges someone’s integrity, it should do so based on who they are today—not who they were 20 years ago. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), however, imposes a permanent ban from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) on food retailers who have committed any offense related to alcohol, drugs, or firearms. https://ij.org/case/maryland-grocery-fresh-start/ Altimont Mark Wilks is one of the many entrepreneurs impacted by the USDA’s lifetime ban. Altimont served time in prison after he was arrested for dealing drugs back in 2004. By the time he came home, he was in his late 40s and wanted a fresh start. His mother, Carmen, helped him get back on his feet and fulfill his dream of owning his own business. Altimont opened a community-focused convenience store by his home in Hagerstown, Maryland, with the goal of providing affordable food to the people in his neighborhood. He named it Carmen’s Corner Store to honor his mother’s commitment and generosity.     More than one in every five households near Altimont’s Hagerstown store depends on SNAP benefits to buy their groceries. As Altimont would soon learn, though, the USDA prohibits lots of business owners with a criminal record from accepting SNAP benefits at their stores. But the USDA doesn’t just punish crimes like fraud or business-related offenses that might suggest that an owner could steal from SNAP. For some unknown reason, the USDA reserves its harshest punishment for business owners who’ve previously committed offenses related to alcohol, drugs, or firearms.    That policy prevents Altimont from ever accepting SNAP benefits at his store—something that makes it difficult for his business to compete in the market and effectively serve his community. There’s nothing Altimont could ever do in his lifetime that would convince the USDA that he is more than the mistakes he made two decades ago.    But Altimont is undeterred. With growing community support for Carmen’s Corner Store, Altimont opened a second location in Frederick, Maryland. He once again applied to be a SNAP retailer, and the USDA once again imposed a permanent ban on his new store.    This time, Altimont was ready. He teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a lawsuit challenging the USDA’s permanent ban in federal court. The government cannot exclude businesses from its programs for irrational reasons. Permanently banning Altimont from being a SNAP retailer doesn’t make sense—it just deprives people in his community of access to affordable groceries, which defeats the entire purpose of SNAP. That’s why Altimont and IJ are asking the court to rule that the USDA’s permanent ban is invalid. A victory will vindicate the simple truth that old and irrelevant criminal convictions should not prevent anyone from getting a fresh start.

For thirty years, Carlos Pena ran a print shop in North Hollywood. His world was turned upside down, however, in August 2022, when a fugitive forced his way into Carlos’s shop and barricaded himself inside. After a prolonged standoff, the City of Los Angeles’s SWAT team stormed the shop, launching dozens of grenades that tore through the walls, windows, and ceilings, destroying most of Carlos’s expensive printing equipment. In total, the damage from the assault alone exceeded $60,000. https://ij.org/case/los-angeles-swat-destruction Carlos’s insurance—as is common—does not cover destruction committed by the government. Meanwhile, Carlos couldn’t afford to repair his shop and replace his equipment. He twice requested compensation from the City, which ignored his pleas. Unable to re-open his shop, Carlos has lost out on tens of thousands of dollars in revenue. Carlos had hoped to pass the business on to his son; now, he can hardly afford to pay his own bills. This is not merely unfair; it’s unconstitutional. When the government deliberately destroys an innocent person’s property for some public benefit, it must pay for it. In this case, the City’s officers determined that the public benefit of apprehending a fugitive outweighed the costs of destroying Carlos’s shop. That was their decision to make, but, under the United States Constitution, they must pay for it.

A group of Sparta, Georgia, property owners announced they have teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to challenge a private railroad’s attempt to take their land for a rail spur that would benefit a private business. IJ will represent Don and Sally Garrett, Blaine and Diane Smith, and Marvin and Pat Smith in a legal proceeding before the Georgia Public Service Commission against Sandersville Railroad’s attempt to use eminent domain to condemn and take their land. https://ij.org/case/sparta-georgia-eminent-domain/ In March 2023, Sandersville filed a petition with the Georgia Public Service Commission to obtain the authority to condemn the land owned by the Garretts and the Smiths to build a rail spur to haul materials used for making concrete out of the Hanson Quarry, owned by Heidelberg Materials. The taking of the land—which would require parcels from some 18 properties nearby—would serve no public interest. It would simply allow Heidelberg to export materials via train instead of trucks. “Taking people’s private land and handing it over to a private company for the benefit of a private business isn’t just wrong, it’s unconstitutional and against Georgia law,” said IJ Senior Attorney Bill Maurer. “The power to use eminent domain is limited to public uses and the public is not going to use this railroad—a private business is. Neither the Constitution nor Georgia statutes permit this kind of abuse of the eminent domain power.” Sandersville Railroad is a powerful business with political connections. Meanwhile, the landowners in rural Sparta are fighting to save properties that have been in their respective families for generations. The Garrett family, for example, has owned the land since the 1800s. “This is more than just land to our family – it’s where we’ve shared memories and built a life for ourselves for generations,” said Don. “We’re not going to let Sandersville just go in and take it from us.” As for the Smiths, Marvin and Blaine’s great grandmother was born a slave on the property, which was then a cotton plantation. In the 1920s, their grandfather and grandmother were able to obtain part of the land as their own. They farmed the land, and always told their children to hold onto it—and they have. The property has been in the Smith family ever since. While the Smiths now live in Maryland, they routinely come back to visit the house they grew up in and they plan to continue keeping this land in their family for future generations. “Our family has owned this land for 100 years, and we plan to continue owning it for generations to come,” said Blaine. “We refuse to let a private company come take the land that we hope to leave for our children and our children’s children.” “It’s clear to anyone that Sandersville’s attempt to take land from the Garretts and Smiths serves no legitimate public interest,” said IJ Litigation Fellow Betsy Sanz. “We look forward to standing up for these property owners in their fight against this unconstitutional land grab.” The Institute for Justice (IJ) is the national expert on defending property owners against eminent domain abuse and other property rights violations. It represents the property owners in Sparta whose land would be seized by this eminent domain taking. Those property owners include Don and Sally Garrett, Blaine and Diane Smith, and Marvin and Pat Smith.

Josh Highlander’s son is afraid of the boogeyman. While playing with his mother in the yard, their basketball rolled toward the woods. She was shocked to see a figure standing in their woods wearing a camouflage “leafy jacket.” She quickly brought her son back in the house and alerted Josh. By the time Josh came out, the stranger was nowhere to be seen. But Josh soon discovered that a camera he used to monitor game on his property was missing. He called police to report the theft. They responded that the camera was in the possession of the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR). In the weeks following, Josh did not receive a warrant nor was he given any hunting citations. Josh’s son was afraid to go outside alone for weeks afterward and continues to talk about the scary man in the woods. Josh is an avid hunter and has grown a food plot on his property to attract game. Growing food plots isn’t just legal, it’s encouraged on the DWR’s own website. The camera was posted on a pole in the middle of the plot, which is about 100 yards through the woods from the house. The 30 acres Josh owns outside Richmond is private land. When he built his home a few years ago, he purchased and posted more than 100 “private property” signs so that he could make that clear. Virginia is one of many states where government officials conduct warrantless searches of “open fields” under a century-old U.S. Supreme Court precedent. That precedent leaves most private property in the U.S. unprotected by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. But the DWR did more than just trespass on his property and observe his family. It took Josh’s camera in order to spy on him. Now, Josh and the Institute for Justice are suing in state court to get his camera back, to protect his home, and to restore the right of all Virginians to be secure on their land. Whatever the U.S. Supreme Court may have said about the Fourth Amendment, the Virginia Constitution does not tolerate these kinds of warrantless intrusions. LINKS: Read more about Josh Highlander's lawsuit against the Virginia DWR for invading his privacy and taking his property: https://ij.org/case/virginia-open-fields/ Watch IJ Attorney Josh Windham's argument at the Tennessee Court of Appeals here: https://www.youtube.com/live/t8uiFAU4IcA?feature=share&t=869

If the Fourth Amendment means anything, it’s that police can’t just pull you over, interrogate you, and ransack your car without a good reason to suspect you of a crime. But that’s exactly what happened to Alek Schott in 2022. https://www.ij.org Alek was driving home from a work trip on I-35 near San Antonio when a Bexar County sheriff’s deputy pulled him over for allegedly drifting between lanes. What should have been a momentary delay quickly turned into an unconstitutional fishing expedition. After interrogating Alek for ten minutes, the deputy who detained him called a drug dog to search his truck. The dog allegedly “alerted” to the presence of drugs, and police proceeded to tear apart Alek’s truck. But they found nothing because there was nothing to find. From the very beginning, the traffic stop was unconstitutional. Footage from Alek’s own dashcam shows he never drifted lanes. Bodycam footage from the deputy shows Alek gave the officer calm, mundane answers about a run-of-the-mill work trip. Nothing about what he said was suspicious, but the deputy called a drug dog anyway. And moments before the dog alerted by jumping on the truck, the handler’s bodycam shows that he signaled the dog. The Fourth Amendment prohibits stop-first, justify-later policing. Police must have a fact-based suspicion of a crime before making a stop, a valid reason to extend that stop, and either a warrant, consent, or an objective reason to believe there’s contraband inside to search a vehicle. In Alek’s case, the deputy failed to meet any of these criteria and instead used an unjustified traffic stop to probe into crimes Alek hadn’t committed. Alek is partnering with the Institute for Justice to sue the deputies and Bexar County for violating his Fourth Amendment rights. Because if we the people must follow the law, government officials must follow the Constitution.

Fairytale Farm Animal Sanctuary is a refuge for abused and neglected donkeys, goats, rabbits, ducks, and more. The sanctuary is also the home of Kimberly Dunckel and her family. But when the Dunckels invite visitors to their home, they risk being cited by city officials for running afoul of the zoning code. https://ij.org/press-release/north-carolina-animal-sanctuary-fights-back-against-crushing-zoning-restrictions/ Winston-Salem’s zoning code would allow the Dunckels to operate a home day care or teach music lessons. But because operating a nonprofit animal shelter is not explicitly allowed, the city says that the sanctuary cannot have events, teach classes, or host groups of volunteers. Because engaging the community at their home is critical to supporting Fairytale Farm, the Dunckels teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a lawsuit in state court challenging the restrictions on visitors. “Winston-Salem’s zoning power does not trump Kimberly Dunckel’s right to use her property to serve the community,” said Institute for Justice Attorney Anna Goodman. “She’s not hurting anyone, she’s only helping. And the city cannot prohibit her and her family from using their property as an animal sanctuary just because it was not creative enough to consider that potential use.” In 2017, Kimberly and her husband Art began searching for a property that would serve both as a home and a place to host the Winston-Salem community. After purchasing and restoring their 3.3-acre lot, they started caring for animals, many with special needs and some referred to the sanctuary by the local government animal control. In 2021, they registered Fairytale Farm as a non-profit. They hosted groups of Girl Scouts and homeschoolers, held themed events for people to meet with the animals, and welcomed groups of volunteers to help with care and upkeep of the sanctuary. But earlier this year, the city ordered the Dunckels to close the sanctuary completely. After an outpouring of community support, the city changed its mind but gave the Dunckels new and confusing restrictions on the visitors they could host at their home. Those restrictions have made it difficult for the sanctuary to fundraise, threatening its long-term sustainability. “We hoped that the animals we invited to Fairytale Farm would have a happily ever after, but the city’s senseless restrictions are making it difficult to care for these rescues that have already been through so much,” said Kimberly. “We’ve been operating for over a year without complaint and taking in animals that local shelters don’t have a place for. It seems like we’re being singled out for doing something good that doesn’t fit neatly into the zoning code.” Zoning codes in the U.S. often seek to prohibit people from using their property in safe, reasonable ways. IJ is currently defending a Texas mother seeking to operate a home daycare, a Texas mechanic required to provide an impossible number of parking spots before he can open his shop, and an Idaho woman who can park her tiny home on wheels in her town but is banned from living in it.

“If you break it, you buy it” is a simple rule that anyone who has shopped at a Pottery Barn probably already knows. It means that if you cause damage to someone else’s property, you are responsible for paying for that damage. And yet, the state of Texas argues that this basic tenet does not apply to state governments when they take private property for public use. Unfortunately, in direct defiance of decades of Supreme Court precedent, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and now the Institute for Justice (IJ) is helping a fourth-generation family farm appeal their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. https://ij.org/press-release/texas-farmer-asks-supreme-court-to-adopt-pottery-barn-rule-if-the-government-breaks-something-it-buys-it/ “There is not an asterisk next to the Fifth Amendment that says the government doesn’t have to pay just compensation if it doesn’t want to,” said Institute for Justice Deputy Litigation Director Robert McNamara. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed Americans’ right to just compensation is an inherent part of the Constitution. It cannot be ignored or circumvented by the government or the courts.” Richie Devillier is a farmer who has lived on his family’s land in Winnie, Texas, for generations. For as long as anyone can remember, the Devilliers’ land has never flooded—that is, until the early 2000s, when the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) renovated a nearby highway. In an effort to make sure the eastbound lanes of the highway would be available as an evacuation route in the event of a major flood, TxDOT raised the highway’s elevation and built an impermeable concrete barrier down the median. Now, whenever a major storm hits, the Devillier family farm and many of the surrounding properties are inundated. The effects have been devastating. When Hurricane Harvey hit the Houston area, countless acres of crops were ruined. For days their farmland resembled a lake. Innumerable cows and horses died—drowned, or just killed by the cumulative effects of standing chest-deep in water for days on end. The damage was enormous. Two years later, while the Devillier family was still recovering, Tropical Storm Imelda hit the area, and once again their land flooded. When they complained, the state did next to nothing and refused to pay for the damage caused by its public works project. “My family has farmed this land for generations, and we’ve never seen anything like this flooding before,” said Richie. “It destroyed our crops, killed our animals, and caused untold damage to our property. I don’t know if we’ll ever be able to farm this land again without worrying that we’ll lose everything in an instant. When we talked to the state, they basically said ‘tough luck.’ That’s not right. We shouldn’t have to pay the price for a public works project that benefits the entire community. We’re not asking that they get rid of the wall. The only thing we’re asking for is the right that is guaranteed to us by the Constitution—the right to be compensated for the damage done to our property.” Their only option was to take the state to court, which they did in 2020. Texas courts allow property owners to file lawsuits for takings of their property, but Texas’ lawyers asked to have the case moved to federal court. Once they were there, they asked the federal judge to throw the case out because Congress has never passed a law allowing people to sue states for taking their property. That’s true—federal civil-rights laws only allow lawsuits against people, not against states—but courts across the country have held that, when it comes to takings, people do not need a law giving them a remedy. Instead, the Constitution, which guarantees “just compensation” for takings, guarantees the remedy. Shockingly, though, the Fifth Circuit sided with Texas, holding that property owners whose land is taken by the state don’t have any federal remedy at all. The Devilliers’ claim did not exist at all. That ruling is wrong, and it conflicts with rulings of both the Supreme Court and other courts nationwide. That is why the Institute for Justice has filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to take up the Devillier family’s case and affirm that states cannot ignore the Constitution. “Federal courts are supposed to be places where citizens go to have their constitutional rights vindicated,” said IJ Litigation Fellow Trace Mitchell. “This ruling turns them into places where the government can run to hide when they have violated people’s rights.” “This case is about holding the government accountable and ensuring that the Constitution’s protections for property owners are respected,” said Scott Bullock, chief counsel and president of the Institute for Justice. “The Institute for Justice will continue to fight for the property rights of all Americans, and we believe that this case will be a critical turning point in that ongoing struggle.”

Town officials in Conway, New Hampshire, are trying to force a local bakery to paint over a mural made by local school students. In June, students from Kennett High School painted a colorful mural above the front door of Leavitt’s Country Bakery on White Mountain Highway. The mural features a New England mountain landscape made entirely of baked goods, such as donuts, scones and muffins. Leavitt’s owner Sean Young said at the time, he thought the mural “would be a fun project for kids and good for the community.” But no good deed goes unpunished. Two months later, town officials decided that they would treat the students’ mural as a “sign” subject to strict size and location restrictions. Why? Simply because the mural’s mountainscape depicts baked goods like those sold at the bakery. Thus, officials believe the sign should be treated as an advertisement. But Conway’s treatment of Leavitt’s mural as a “sign” is discriminatory and contrary to the First Amendment. The Institute for Justice is helping the bakery fight back. Learn more about this case here: https://ij.org/case/new-hampshire-donut-mural/

Seattle, like many cities, is experiencing a housing shortage—or what some city leaders call a “crisis.” But in an attempt to address it, Seattle has only made matters worse. https://ij.org/case/seattle-housing-affordability/ In 2019, the city created the Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) Program, which places unique burdens on anyone building in certain zones throughout the city. In so doing, the city’s attempt to make housing more affordable has done just the opposite: it has made it more expensive to build affordable housing. The city was warned that this would happen. The city-commissioned report on MHA’s “economic feasibility” acknowledged that its burdensome costs would stall new housing construction in the bottom third of the housing market. Nevertheless, the city put MHA into effect—trumpeting it as a “grand bargain” with “major players,” including large developers. But for ordinary Seattleites, MHA is no bargain. Longtime Central District homeowner Anita Adams knows this firsthand. Anita wants to build a modest addition to house her two adult children. But before she can get a building permit, the city demands that she either build additional “affordable” housing units or pay nearly $77,000 into the MHA program. Those fees make Anita’s plans impossible—and leave the city with fewer affordable housing units. Anita is not alone. Across the city, anyone wishing to construct a home must face incomprehensibly high fees or burdensome and intrusive new housing mandates levied in the name of “affordable housing.” And yet, the laws of basic economics (and common sense) dictate that these costs result in higher rents and fewer housing options. Fortunately for Anita, the Constitution dictates that governments cannot use the permitting process as an opportunity to coerce money from property owners, and certainly not at the expense of the city’s middle- and low-income residents. Anita has partnered with the Institute for Justice to challenge Seattle’s counterproductive and unconstitutional MHA program and clear the way for homeowners to develop their own land without paying exorbitant fees.

Justin Pulliam was standing still when a Fort Bend County deputy walked up and arrested him for interfering with the police in December 2021. While Justin had permission from the property owner to record a mental health call and was far from the active scene, the deputy cuffed him and put him in a squad car. Justin was forced to undergo a strip search and spent several hours in jail, during which the Sheriff personally called Justin in for a meeting and became angry when Justin refused to speak to him without a lawyer present. This was not the first time that Justin had problems with the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office. In July 2021, Justin was excluded from a press conference at Sheriff Eric Fagan’s explicit direction. The First Amendment prohibits government officials from unreasonably restricting an individual’s right to record the police, and it doesn’t let them decide who is or isn’t a journalist. Today, Justin filed a federal lawsuit against the Sheriff and his deputies with the Institute for Justice (IJ), a non-profit public interest law firm that defends free speech nationwide. “Arresting and prosecuting Justin is a violation of his First Amendment rights, and it can’t stand,” said IJ Attorney Tori Clark. “The Sheriff may not like Justin’s style, but the government doesn’t have the power to single out journalists because they don’t like their viewpoint.” Justin believes that local government has the greatest impact on our daily lives and that our freedom depends on its transparency and accountability. He reports on everything from city council meetings to vehicle accidents—events that traditional media outlets typically do not cover. His videos are uploaded onto his YouTube channels, such as Corruption Report, and other social-media sites. “Sheriff Fagan is unfairly discriminating against me because I sometimes criticize the police and other government officials,” said Justin. “It’s outrageous that I was harassed, arrested and prosecuted for exercising our constitutionally protected rights to film and report about activities by public officials from a different perspective. Filming the police makes communities safer and increases accountability.” Journalism and political commentary like Justin’s are at the heart of the First Amendment. Justin gathers information about, broadcasts, and reports on government officials’ public activities. Independent journalists like Justin are increasingly stepping into gaps left by traditional media outlets in recent years. The lawsuit seeks to protect Justin’s First Amendment rights in two ways. First, the public is allowed to record police subject only to reasonable restrictions. Again, Justin was far from interfering with police activities. Second, government officials cannot treat independent journalists differently from members of the established media or other members of the public. The deputy who arrested Justin singled him out from others on the scene just because Justin was recording. And the Sheriff excluded Justin from the press conference, which occurred at a public park, while choosing to answer questions from other news crews on site. “Filming the police and other officials conducting public business is good for everyone,” said IJ Senior Attorney Jeff Rowes. “It protects the public from police abuse, and it protects the police from false accusations of wrongdoing. We want to protect the rights of Justin and every other American to document government officials.” Background music via https://www.FesliyanStudios.com

We expect police officers to pull people over for speeding or running a red light. But for driving a red Mustang? That’s what happened to Mario Rosales in June 2022. https://ij.org/case/louisiana-traffic-stop/ Mario and his girlfriend, Gracie, had just gotten off work for the day. They weren’t doing anything suspicious, and Mario was following the traffic laws. He turned on his left turn signal as he stopped at a red light. A police vehicle stopped behind him. When the light turned green, Mario turned. The police vehicle followed and immediately pulled Mario over. Mario was confused about why the police had pulled him over. Were they looking for someone else and mistook him for that person? No. The officers were simply fishing for crimes. Over the next 20 minutes, two police officers searched Mario and interrogated him and his girlfriend—not just about where they live and work, but also about a litany of drugs, past interactions with police, and their feelings about the U.S. Constitution. All without a single reason to believe Mario or Gracie were dangerous or involved in drugs or that either committed any crime whatsoever. They weren’t; they aren’t; and they hadn’t. When Mario and Gracie asked why they had been pulled over, the officers answered that Mario failed to use his turn signal. But multiple recordings of the incident clearly show that Mario used his blinker. When asked why they were questioning Mario and Gracie about drugs, the officers’ answer was they were “just curious.” The Constitution protects against this stop-first-justify-later form of policing. Police can’t just detain you to ask you questions, regardless of how curious they might be. That is why Mario and Gracie have sued the police officers and the city of Alexandria—to enforce the constitutional boundaries that are supposed to protect motorists from bogus traffic stops that that turn into free-for-all fishing expeditions for crimes.

Man fights to uphold court ruling that judges aren't above the law. https://ij.org/case/west-virginia-judicial-field-trip/ Judges are not entitled to do whatever they want, and then demand special treatment just because they happen to wear a robe at work. But that’s exactly what happened in Raleigh County, West Virginia. During divorce proceedings between Matthew Gibson and his ex-wife, Raleigh County family-court judge Louise Goldston personally forced her way into Matthew’s home to search for items that were in dispute. Goldston—accompanied by Matthew’s ex-wife and the ex-wife’s attorney, among others—walked barefoot through the house, ordering Matthew’s ex-wife to seize DVDs, yearbooks, and pictures off the wall. Some of the items didn’t even belong to Matthew’s ex-wife. And when Matthew tried to record the encounter, the judge threatened him with arrest. Goldston was ultimately censured and fined, and roundly condemned, by the West Virginia high court for violating the state’s code of judicial conduct. When Matthew sued for these egregious violations of his privacy and free-speech rights, Goldston argued that she was not liable—even if she had violated the Constitution—by invoking a court-made doctrine called judicial immunity. Judicial immunity, as the name suggests, shields judges from liability only for things they do in their roles as judges. Goldston argued that she was entitled to judicial immunity’s special protections for leading a search party through Matthew’s home. But judicial immunity is reserved for judicial actions, and searching someone’s home is not a judicial act. Just like police officers cannot act like judges, judges cannot act like police officers. The trial court correctly recognized this principle and denied Goldston judicial immunity for her actions. Nonetheless, Goldston is now appealing that decision to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On appeal, Matthew is teaming up with the Institute for Justice to protect important constitutional guarantees by holding judges accountable.

In Bullhead City, Arizona, your kindness might cost you your freedom. It nearly did for Norma Thornton, a 78-year-old grandmother who was arrested and criminally charged for feeding those in need in Bullhead City. Under a new ordinance, the city has deemed it a criminal misdemeanor—punishable by fines and even imprisonment—to share prepared food in a public park “for charitable purposes.” As the city attorney clarified, people may freely share food in public parks at “social events, which would include a party.” But be sure your “party” doesn’t include any homeless people, or you might go to jail.  https://ij.org/case/arizona-charitable-giving/ That’s the city’s lesson for Norma Thornton. Norma operated a restaurant before retiring to Bullhead City in 2017. Bullhead City is a city of 40,000, neighboring the Colorado River on Arizona’s western border. In Bullhead City Community Park, Norma encountered people in need—that is, people who could barely afford housing nearby, as well as people experiencing homelessness. Though no one spends nights at the park (retreating to federal land nearby), some come together in the day in the public park, where they can take advantage of shade, benches, and restrooms. She learned that the nearest shelters and food pantries are miles away, and their resources and availability are limited, leaving dozens hungry each night. So Norma decided to use her career skills to share nutritious, hot, homecooked meals with people in the park. For more than four years, Norma would regularly bring her food to the picnic tables there, sharing with anyone who asked. That all changed on March 8, 2022. Just as she was performing her usual cleanup of the area, Norma was arrested and criminally charged with violating the city’s ordinance. Norma refused to plead guilty as she felt she’d done nothing wrong; months later (after hearings in criminal court), the city dropped the charge—but only while clarifying that if Norma does it again, the city would throw her in jail. Now, Norma shares her food in a private alley—without shade in the scorching heat, without tables or a seating area, without a place for people to wash their hands, and out of sight of people who could use her help. Homelessness is, of course, a complicated and serious problem. But criminalizing acts of charity isn’t the solution. What’s more, it’s unconstitutional. That’s why on October 25, 2022, Norma joined with the Institute for Justice (IJ) in filing a new federal lawsuit against Bullhead City. The lawsuit asks the court to strike down the city’s ordinance and allow Norma, and people like her, to share food in the park.

In 2018, after a wildfire destroyed their Southern California home, Corrine and Doug Thomas did their best to find a silver lining and turn that nightmare into a dream: They packed up their remaining possessions, and—along with one of their two autistic adult sons—bought a modest home nestled in Northern California’s fabled redwood forests. The home, which is perched on a hill over the Avenue of the Giants highway in Humboldt County, was a perfect fit for their family and included a large barn out back for Doug’s workshop. Unfortunately, the Thomases’ dream quickly turned into a terrible new nightmare. Just six days after moving in, they received a notice from the county fining them $12,000 per day because the previous owners had used the barn to grow cannabis over two years before the Thomases bought it. The county, which requires a lengthy permit process for demolitions, gave them just ten days to tear it down. Panicked, they hired a building engineer, who estimated that the demolition would cost more than $180,000—which was money they don’t have. As of today, they have accrued more than $1 million in fines. By the county’s reasoning, anyone with a greenhouse, cleared garden, barn or any other structure that could be used to grow cannabis is assumed to be growing cannabis and fined at least $10,000 per day. Humboldt accuses property owners of cannabis-related offenses without any proof or process. The county rarely bothers to conduct even the most cursory investigation. If the inspector had visited the Thomases’, for instance, he would have found an empty barn with a few tools. But Humboldt’s inspectors have admitted that they frequently rely on satellite images alone to issue fines. The Thomases, like hundreds of other Humboldt property owners, are victims of the county’s so-called “abatement” program, which levies crippling fines based on unfounded, scattershot allegations that property owners are growing cannabis without paying the county for a permit. Once fined, owners face a legal labyrinth to prove their innocence. In the Thomases’ case, for instance, they’ve waited more than a year for the county to schedule a simple hearing to plead their case. Even as the Thomases waited for a hearing, the daily fines continued to accrue. That is why, today, the Thomases—along with a group of other Humboldt property owners—have partnered with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a class-action lawsuit to put an end to the county’s unconstitutional practice of levying outrageous fines against innocent individuals. “Humboldt is fining innocent homeowners millions of dollars for crimes they didn’t commit,” said Jared McClain, an attorney at the Institute for Justice. “The Constitution guarantees that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. But in Humboldt County, inspectors have turned that principle on its head and are fining innocent homeowners based on crimes the county has no proof of and hasn’t even bothered to investigate.” Like the Thomases, Blu Graham knows the pain of Humboldt’s abusive abatement program firsthand. Blu, who is also part of the lawsuit, is a backcountry guide and volunteer firefighter. He and his wife own a local restaurant in Shelter Cove, California, which is known for its homemade hot sauces. They were having a hard time getting the exotic peppers locally, so Blu decided to build two rudimentary greenhouses and started to grow them himself. When the county inspector was reviewing satellite images, he saw Blu’s new greenhouses, assumed they had to be for cannabis cultivation, and gave Blu ten days to remove them, along with a rainwater-catchment pond he’d built for fire safety, or face $10,000 daily fines. Incensed, Blu drove into Eureka to appeal the fine, where county officials insisted they knew he was “not just growing asparagus.” With nearly $1 million in fines hanging over his head, Blu waited more than four years for a hearing, which the county mysteriously scheduled just before Blu filed this suit. “If the county inspector had asked to swing by, I would have been happy to show him inside my greenhouses. I’ve got nothing to hide. It was just a bunch of peppers,” said Blu. “But instead, I had to wait years for a hearing. The County eventually gave up on pretending they had proof I grew marijuana but wouldn’t give me a permit for my house unless I settled.” The lawsuit, which represents the interests of all Humboldt property owners still subjected to the county’s abusive abatement procedures, argues that fining property owners for crimes they did not commit, without even a cursory investigation, is a clear violation of their constitutional right to due process. Furthermore, it argues that $10,000 daily fines for permitting violations are unconstitutionally excessive and that owners have a right to have a jury decide whether they really violated the code to grow cannabis illegally. Filmed on a Canon C70, R5C, and a DJI Mavic Pro 3.

If the First Amendment means anything, it surely means that an individual can mock the government without fear of being arrested. But that’s exactly what happened to Anthony Novak when he created a parody Facebook page poking fun at his local police department in Parma, Ohio. Anthony has lived in Parma for most of his life. In his free time, he enjoys writing comedy sketches with his friends. And in March 2016, he decided to create a Facebook page parodying the Parma Police Department’s page. Anthony’s parody page was modeled after the real department page. It had the same name and profile picture, but displayed the satirical slogan, “We no crime.” The posts on Anthony’s page were obvious parody and included things like the announcement of an “official stay inside and catch up with family day” to “reduce future crimes” during which anyone caught outside would be arrested. The Parma Police Department did not appreciate Anthony’s criticism. Citing 11 calls that Parma residents made to a nonemergency line to either ask about or tattle on Anthony’s parody page, police obtained a warrant for his arrest, searched his apartment, seized his electronics, and charged him with a felony under an Ohio law that criminalizes using a computer to “disrupt” “police operations.” Anthony had to spend four days in jail before making bail. He was prosecuted, but after a full criminal trial, a jury found him not guilty. But when Anthony tried to vindicate his rights by filing a civil-rights lawsuit, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to hold the police officers accountable for their actions. Despite the clear violation of Anthony’s First and Fourth Amendment rights, the Sixth Circuit granted the officers qualified immunity—a doctrine that the Supreme Court invented in the 1980s to protect government officials from being sued for unconstitutional conduct. As a result, Anthony’s case was thrown out. If the police can use their authority to arrest their critics without consequence, everyone’s rights are at risk. Now, with the help of the Institute for Justice (IJ), Anthony is asking the Supreme Court to take up his case. The First Amendment has a long history of protecting parodies like Anthony’s, and qualified immunity cannot shield officials who arrest people for their speech. Filmed on a Canon C70, R5C, and a DJI Mavic 3 Drone. The Onion Amicus was for Anthony's case.

Nearly a decade ago, Jeremy Sark opened an automotive repair business on North Main Street in Mauldin, South Carolina, which he and his partner, Marie Dougherty, still run today. From the beginning, they have rented U-Haul trucks and trailers to people moving across town or across the country and welcomed new Mauldin residents dropping off U-Haul trucks and trailers. The rentals are an important part of their business, but the city has decided that rental trucks are unsightly. At the end of the year, it will be illegal for Sark’s to continue renting U-Hauls where it has been for more than nine years. https://ij.org/case/south-carolina-amortization/ In anticipation of hoped-for downtown development by a private developer, the city reworked much of its zoning code. All existing businesses at the time of the rezoning were grandfathered into the new code except one: moving truck rentals. The city cannot prohibit someone from continuing a safe, reasonable use of their private property, especially not to benefit private developers. Jeremy and Marie have joined up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to sue the city of Mauldin for violating their rights under the South Carolina Constitution. “Jeremy and Marie are living the American Dream, but city officials don’t like how that dream looks,” said IJ Attorney Bob Belden. “The city thinks it is ‘compensating’ Jeremy and Marie by letting them rent U-Hauls until the end of the year, even though they want to keep renting them indefinitely. That is an absurd and dangerous argument that threatens property rights in general.” Small-town Mauldin has big-city plans. For years, city officials have worked with a string of developers on plans to give downtown a makeover. At one point, a developer expressed distaste for the look of moving truck rentals. City leaders agreed. So, as part of a broad overhaul to the city’s zoning laws, the City Council prohibited the “sale and rental of moving trucks [and] trailers” in all zones but one, effective December 31, 2022. Banning a land-use while giving existing uses a period of time to wind up is called “amortization.” Cities resort to amortization to avoid having to compensate property owners for taking their land-use or business, on the theory that the property owner has a reasonable time—in the government’s view—to recoup their investment in the property. But operating for one more year falls far short of compensating Jeremy and Marie for what they will lose if the U-Haul rentals are taken away, especially in light of the fact that Jeremy and Marie would have continued renting them indefinitely. The revenue from that part of their business is approximately $50,000 a year and losing it will mean having to lay-off at least one employee, and maybe two. They will also lose the work they currently do repairing U-Haul trucks and trailers, as well as the benefits that come from people finding out about their businesses when they rent or drop-off U-Haul trucks after moving to Mauldin. “The city will do real damage to our business and put people out of work if they eliminate U-Haul rentals,” said Jeremy. “We’ve invested a lot in Mauldin over the years, turning an empty store into a thriving business. It’s disappointing that the city is prioritizing the opinion of private developers over people working to build up the community.” The Institute for Justice defends property rights nationwide and successfully defended Wilmington, North Carolina homeowners from an amortization that tried to take away their right to rent their home. IJ recently defended a mechanic whose city tried to force him to create dozens of new parking spaces for his one-man shop and a home day care owner who was threatened with fines by her Texas city. “Giving you a reprieve for a couple more years doesn’t make it okay for the government to stop the legal, safe use of your property,” said IJ Attorney Seth Young. “If Mauldin is allowed to do this to the Jeremy and Marie, other cities will certainly try the same scheme against all sorts of disfavored businesses. Courts should put a stop to this before more small business owners and homeowners find themselves in the same situation.”

The housing crisis has hit every corner of the country and few places have been hit as hard as the Boise area; housing prices increased 118% between the first quarter of 2017 and 2022. That is more than double the national increase of 50 percent over the same time period. https://ij.org/case/meridian-idaho-tiny-homes/ Chasidy Decker, a native of the Treasure Valley, had a savvy solution after being priced out of the traditional real estate market: she bought a beautiful tiny house on wheels and found a local homeowner who would let her park it on his property. Many homes in the neighborhood have trailers and RVs hooked up to them, so imagine Chasidy’s shock when just 1 day after she moved in, the city ordered her to move out or face criminal charges and up to $1,000 daily fines. At a time when people are struggling to find affordable housing, it makes no sense that the city would rather see Chasidy homeless than live in her lovely, safe tiny home. This is unconstitutional. And IJ is fighting back. Filmed on a Canon R5 with 24mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.2. Drone shots were filmed on a DJI Mavic Pro 3.

Our free and democratic society isn’t possible if citizens cannot voice their opinions about politics and elected officials. That’s why the First Amendment safeguards people’s rights to participate in the political process, to criticize government officials and to advocate for political change. That’s just what William Fambrough was doing in his home city of East Cleveland in 2021 when he used his step van—outfitted as a sound truck with a candidate poster—to campaign for a challenger to the incumbent mayor. https://ij.org/case/east-cleveland-retaliation/ But rather than respecting his basic rights, the city government, angered at its political competition, used its police and law departments to retaliate against William in the months leading up to the election. Police officers repeatedly showed up at William’s home and claimed that parking the van there violated an old city ordinance—an ordinance that is never enforced against anyone else. They ultimately fined him and towed his van, doing thousands of dollars of damage in the process. And they cited William for “noise pollution,” despite his obtaining a permit to broadcast campaign messages from his van throughout East Cleveland. Because the towing caused so much damage to the van, it knocked it out of commission for the crucial final weeks of the campaign. When William went to court to resolve the noise citation, the city’s assistant law director made it clear that William was being targeted for his political advocacy. Government officials using the police to punish political opponents is a core violation of the First Amendment. William is fighting back with a lawsuit against East Cleveland to vindicate his First Amendment rights and to hold city officials accountable. Represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ), his lawsuit is part of IJ’s long tradition of protecting free speech. The lawsuit is also part of IJ’s Project on Immunity and Accountability, which is devoted to the simple idea that government officials are not above the law; just as citizens must follow the law, the government must follow the Constitution. East Cleveland’s retaliatory tactics go beyond depriving William of his rights. Without being held to account, East Cleveland will serve as a model to local governments that want to punish political enemies. The sheer number of laws on the books in federal, state and municipal codes ensures that government officials can always find one to enforce against any American. If they are allowed to do so when the reason is retaliation for political speech, then nobody’s rights are safe.

The Sheriff’s Office of Pasco County, Florida, harasses people in their own homes using a method they call “predictive policing.” The program has unfolded like a dystopian nightmare for the Pasco County residents it has ensnared, who have been subjected to near-constant police surveillance and harassment. The Sheriff’s Office claims the program’s goal is to predict and prevent crime before it happens by targeting people they suspect may commit crimes in the future, dubbing the approach “intelligence-led policing.” This euphemism may make it seem like there’s thoughtfulness to the approach, but there’s nothing fair or smart about it. https://ij.org/case/pasco-predictive-policing/ Using a crude computer algorithm, the Sheriff’s Office creates a list of people they think are likely to commit crimes in the future. It places people on the list based on their criminal record, but also based on things that the person may not have been able to control, such as whether they have been suspected of a crime, whether they witnessed a crime or even whether they were a victim of a crime. The Sheriff’s Office calls the people on the list “prolific offenders.” Then, deputies are sent out to monitor, intimidate and harass people on the list. The deputies are instructed to gather as much information as possible about their targets, and routinely show up unannounced at people’s houses to interrogate them about their friends, their families and their comings and goings. Dalanea Taylor, who was placed on the prolific offender list because she had been incarcerated as a teenager, was harassed by Pasco deputies for years after she was released and had turned her life around. Code enforcement is a favorite tactic for ensuring compliance during the deputies’ visits. To coerce people into letting the deputies into their home or answering their questions—or sometimes purely to intimidate them—the deputies slap their victims with citations for innocuous offenses like missing house numbers on the mailbox, chickens in the back yard or unmowed grass on the lawn. By design, family members of prolific offenders are ensnared by the program too. Robert Jones had a son on the prolific offender list, and Pasco deputies showed up at his door multiple times a week asking about his son. When the deputies decided that he wasn’t cooperating fully, they wrote him multiple citations for tall grass and other similar property code violations. They even arrested him several times on bogus charges. Tammy Heilman and Dolly Deegan, who both had sons on the list, also received multiple citations for thousands of dollars in fines for code enforcement violations. Worse, the motivation of the program is more sinister than merely “fighting crime”: The Sheriff’s Office acknowledged that they want these “problem people” gone. Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco, the architect of the program, boasted that the goal was to predict which residents are likely to commit crimes and then “take them out.” In the words of a former Pasco County deputy, they were under orders to “[m]ake their lives miserable until they move or sue.” Experts on policing have roundly criticized Pasco County’s practices, pointing out that it is based on junk science and could tend to reinforce racially biased policing practices. But the Sheriff’s use of predictive policing is not only methodologically shaky; it’s unconstitutional. The government cannot harass you in your home just because it has decided that you or someone you live with might someday do something wrong. That’s why Robert, Dalanea, Tammy, and Dolly have decided to challenge Pasco’s program, alongside the Institute for Justice, in court to affirm the basic principle that there is no such thing as “innocent until predicted guilty.” Filmed on a Canon C70. B-cam Canon R5 with RF 70-200 2.8 lens. Drone shots taken on a DJI Mavic 3.

In the spring of 2020, law enforcement agents working for the United States Postal Service violated that fundamental constitutional guarantee when they baselessly stopped, seized, and searched a set of four ordinary boxes containing thousands of Covid-19 face masks. https://ij.org/case/oakland-mail-seizure/ The masks belonged to René Quiñonez, who operates Oakland-based Movement Ink LLC, a small, family-run, social justice-focused screen-printing company. Following the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, organizers hired Movement Ink to rapidly print as many face masks as possible to distribute to protestors marching across the country. René, his family, employees, and friends worked night and day to hand-print each mask with political messages like “Stop Killing Black People.” When they finished, René packed the masks in ordinary brown boxes and shipped them overnight to organizers in Brooklyn, D.C., Minneapolis, and St. Louis. But they didn’t arrive. Instead, he and his clients were greeted by a disturbing “Alert” on the Postal Service website: “Seized by Law Enforcement.” René panicked. After all, he hadn’t done anything wrong. He knew face masks were not illegal; in fact, at the time, they were required by law. After René contacted his Congresswoman and went to the press, the real story came out. Claiming the completely ordinary boxes were somehow suspicious, the agents seized and searched them without ever getting a warrant, let alone having the probable cause necessary to obtain one. As a result of this unconstitutional conduct, the masks arrived at their destinations multiple days (and several protests) late. This cast a pall of suspicion over René and Movement Ink. Some of René’s longstanding clients dropped him, and the organizers backed out of plans for future recurring apparel orders. To this day, Movement Ink is struggling to recover from these blows to its reputation and business. And René remains distraught at the unjust cloud of suspicion law enforcement hung over him, tarnishing his reputation and his efforts to align his business with his activism. But René is not one to take an assault on his constitutional rights lying down. On June 2, 2022, René and Movement Ink partnered with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of California to hold the officers who baselessly seized and searched his mail accountable for violating his rights.

Do you think anyone who works for the government—not just the police—should be able to pull you over and detain you? https://ij.org/case/minnesota-csi/ And if a government employee who was never granted police powers assumes these powers unilaterally and clearly violates your constitutional rights, should you be able to hold them to account? Or should they be allowed to get off scot-free through “qualified immunity” merely because they work for the government? Across the nation, government officials are routinely exceeding their authority and violating the rights of ordinary Americans but are escaping accountability because of the court-created doctrine of qualified immunity. As a result, citizens have been beaten in unprovoked attacks, detained illegally, and even killed by government workers. But the victims and their families have been denied their day in court to hold these bad actors accountable because courts across the nation—following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court—refuse to enforce constitutional limits on government officials who, they say, are shielded by qualified immunity. When the U.S. Supreme Court created qualified immunity, it said it was balancing “two evils.” On the one hand, the Court conceded that granting qualified immunity would sometimes leave people without a remedy when government employees violated their rights. On the other hand, if suits were broadly allowed, those tasked with performing government jobs could be afraid to execute these tasks to the best of their abilities. Qualified immunity was the Court’s attempt to get this balance right. It provided government officials with a protection from lawsuits, but only if these officials were executing the duties prescribed to them by law. In other words, immunity would be available only in suits “arising from actions within the scope of an official’s duties.” If there is one thing that proponents and opponents of qualified immunity agreed on, this was it: A government official’s ability to claim qualified immunity could be raised only in in defense of their actions while doing their job; they couldn’t receive qualified immunity when their actions far exceed any reasonable interpretation of their authority. But this baseline premise is no longer the case. Several months ago, the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted qualified immunity to a county engineer who acted like a modern-day “Dwight Schrute” from the TV show “The Office.” Despite having no authority whatsoever to act like a police officer, this engineer pretended to be a traffic cop by pulling over two trucks traveling peacefully on a highway and detaining the drivers for three hours. He then called a local sheriff’s office, tribal police, and state troopers, asking them all to come and ticket the drivers because they were over a weight limit that he had made up less than an hour before. When state troopers finally arrived, they ticketed one driver but dismissed the ticket the following day. In the end, the engineer unconstitutionally detained the drivers and their trucks and forced the police to waste valuable time. But for some reason, the court granted qualified immunity to the county engineer, who has no business performing traffic stops, for his unlawful detention of the drivers. The Eighth Circuit’s decision runs in the face of the Supreme Court’s precedent on qualified immunity. It is also inconsistent with this nation’s historical practices. To ensure that rogue agents are not able to cloak themselves in an unjustified immunity, the Institute for Justice (“IJ”) now represents the owner of the trucks (Central Specialties, Inc., “CSI”) in seeking Supreme Court review of the Eighth Circuit’s decision granting qualified immunity to the county engineer. This case is part of IJ’s Project on Immunity and Accountability, which is devoted to the simple idea that government officials are not above the rules; if citizens must follow the law, then government must follow the Constitution.

Police take an oath to protect and serve the public. But in Brookside, Alabama, a top-down scheme pushed by its police chief, mayor and council has prioritized something else instead: generating money. Hundreds of people tell similar stories about being pulled over for dubious reasons and charged with bogus violations. Many motorists were left stranded on the side of the road when their cars were towed without justification, often at night and with small children. https://ij.org/case/brookside-alabama-fines/ The town prosecutor and judge rubber-stamped these abuses, and in turn, Brookside’s revenue spiked by over 600% in two years, with fines and forfeitures coming to fuel nearly half the town’s budget. Yet still, that was not enough for the minds behind Brookside’s policing racket. Police Chief Mike Jones, who recently resigned, declared the 600% increase “a failure” because the town could be raking in more cash with “more officers and more productivity.” This “productivity” is carried out in a manner as outrageous as its goal. Following Chief Jones’ takeover, the police force began fabricating violations, patrolling outside its jurisdiction, threatening and harassing drivers, and handcuffing people and towing their cars for bogus reasons. The police have been targeting the people they know are more vulnerable, including low-income individuals and people of color. With its nine police officers and only 1,200 residents, Brookside’s rate of officers is one per 139 residents, more than four times the national average. Brittany Coleman was one of the victims of Brookside’s policing for profit scheme. A recent University of Alabama graduate, she was pulled over by Brookside police for allegedly following her boyfriend’s car too closely, as they drove together to get lunch on her birthday. Without justification, the officer forced Brittany to stand handcuffed in the hot Alabama sun for more than 30 minutes as he searched her car. She was issued citations for tailgating and for marijuana possession. The possession charge was later dismissed because the police never actually found any marijuana. The officer told Brittany that, if not for the pandemic, he would have arrested her. Regardless, he ordered her car towed. Brittany was forced to pay Brookside nearly $1,000 in towing fees, fines, and court costs. Abuses like these are not isolated incidents. Brookside police had a practice of finding any reason to tow cars and leave people on the side of the road. No matter the weather, no matter the time of day, and without regard to whether there were small children in the car, people were left stranded on empty country roads. Brookside’s policing practices are deeply offensive—not only to common decency, but also the U.S. Constitution. Courts recognize that generating 10% of revenue from fines and fees raises a presumption of unconstitutionality; Brookside generated five times that. That’s why Brittany and three other victims of Brookside’s policing racket, represented by the Institute for Justice, are filing a class action lawsuit to affirm that police must act in the interest of justice, not their pocketbooks.

Cristal Starling runs a mobile food cart in Rochester, New York, to provide for herself and her grandnephew. She dreamed of expanding the business into a food truck, and she saved enough money to do just that. But in the fall of 2020, the local police raided her apartment and seized $8,040—the money she was going to use to pursue her dream. https://ij.org/case/new-york-forfeiture-appeal/ Police accused Cristal’s then-boyfriend of dealing drugs, but he was acquitted by a jury. Yet Cristal’s nightmare continued. The police turned Cristal’s savings over to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), which sought to keep her money through an abusive practice called civil forfeiture, and federal prosecutors pressed forward with the civil forfeiture case even after the not-guilty verdict. Civil forfeiture laws take the presumption of innocence and turn it upside down, forcing property owners like Cristal to prove their own innocence. Cristal fought to get her money back. She did everything she knew—making phone calls, following instructions she received, and filing a claim with the DEA. It made no economic sense to hire a lawyer to recover $8,040, so Cristal tried to fight without one. She successfully navigated the administrative process at the DEA, but when prosecutors filed a forfeiture action in federal court she missed the deadline to file one required piece of paper. That was enough for the government to take her money forever. The government never even tried to show that Cristal had done anything wrong, but it was able to take her money by tying her up in complicated legal procedures. And, unfortunately, that is typical in civil forfeiture cases. The average value of forfeiture cases is small, meaning it doesn’t make sense for most people to hire a lawyer even if they could afford one, and most civil forfeiture cases end with a missed deadline rather than a decision on the merits. Property owners are forced to run a procedural gauntlet, and they lose by default if they make just a single mistake. Cristal has teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to appeal the district court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In a non-forfeiture case, the court would have let Cristal continue her case notwithstanding a single missed deadline. Forfeiture should be no different. Cristal showed up in court to fight, she tried to fight, and she should have been allowed to make her case.

Everybody knows your prosecutor can’t also be your judge. Everyone, that is, except for former Midland County, Texas, prosecutor Ralph Petty, his supervisor, and the county’s entire system of justice. Petty spent 20 years moonlighting as a law clerk for the same judges he argued before, effectively playing both prosecutor and judge in more than 300 cases. It is one of the most brazen and obvious examples of prosecutorial abuse in modern American history, yet Petty and the others who oversaw this miscarriage of justice have never been held personally accountable for their actions in a court of law. With a lawsuit it filed on April 12, 2022, the Institute for Justice seeks to change that.

Women have traditionally used their homes to care for their neighbors’ children. Now during the national shortage of childcare, neighborhood day cares are more important than ever. But in West Austin, some neighborhood golfers are trying to shut down a home day care by exploiting the fact that Lakeway, Texas, has some of the most restrictive zoning laws in the country for home businesses. https://ij.org/case/texas-home-daycare/ Bianca King is a single mother to two small children. After being laid off during the pandemic, she realized how beneficial a neighborhood day care could be for other parents struggling to find quality, affordable childcare. Bianca began watching a few of her neighbors’ children during the workday as she stayed home with her own two children. The parents are extremely happy with Bianca’s day care, which provides an intimate and loving setting for their children so close to home. But not all of Bianca’s neighbors are so happy about the service she provides to her community. Bianca’s suburban home backs up to the neighborhood golf course, and the sight and sound of children in her private backyard led several golfers to complain about Bianca’s business. Unfortunately for Bianca, one of these golfers used to be the Mayor of Lakeway, and he is intent on shutting down her day care. The former mayor, Joe Bain, showed up to Bianca’s hearing before the zoning commission and complained that her day care was interfering with his golf game. Two more golfers joined him to oppose Bianca at her second hearing. The golfers didn’t like that they have to see toys and hear children playing when they tee off behind Bianca’s house, so they weaponized the city’s zoning laws against her business. Lakeway’s zoning ordinance requires that home businesses meet 19 criteria that virtually no business could ever satisfy. In practice, the city uses these onerous requirements to give it broad discretion to deny any business it wants. City officials relied on several of these criteria to deny Bianca’s permit. Lakeway’s home-business ordinance is unconstitutional. The Texas Constitution prohibits overly oppressive laws that burden a person’s economic or property rights. Lakeway has no legitimate interest in stopping Bianca from running a day care just because it may annoy some golfers. Bianca has teamed up with the Institute for Justice to fight for her right to keep her day care open. She has asked the Texas state courts to reverse Lakeway’s denial of her permit and to rule that Lakeway cannot prevent harmless home businesses like Bianca’s day care. Filmed on a Canon C100 Mark ii with L Series lenses.

You shouldn’t need a law degree to start the small business of your dreams. But too often, entrepreneurs struggle with local regulatory burdens, finding themselves trapped by high fees, long wait times, and complex paperwork. These burdens amount to a death by a thousand cuts, unless aspiring business owners can successfully navigate them before reaching opening day. Local officials must make it cheaper, faster, and simpler for entrepreneurs to start a business. Barriers to Business: How Cities Can Pave a Cheaper, Faster, and Simpler Path to Entrepreneurship presents specific recommendations to make those needed changes. Go here to learn more and read the report. https://ij.org/report/barriers-to-business/

The government shouldn’t be able to force you off your land and bulldoze your home to make way for private development, like a privately owned plant that makes semiconductors. But that is exactly what officials from Onondaga County in New York are threatening against the Burnet Road homeowners. https://saveburnetroad.org/ For generations, Burnet Road has been the center of a tight-knit community and home to dozens of families. Britta and Danny Serog are siblings who grew up in the home their father—a Holocaust survivor—built in 1963. Though they moved away, each still cherishes and regularly visits the property. Paul and Robin Richer are a married couple who both, like Britta and Danny, grew up on Burnet Road in the 1960s and 70s, and they still live there today. They raised their two daughters in another home on Burnet Road, but, when Paul’s dad passed away, they moved into the house he’d built in 1954. In Paul’s words, they “moved back home.” Britta, Danny, Robin, and Paul love Burnet Road and the community there, and none wants to leave. Unfortunately, Onondaga County wants to push the Serogs, Richers, and other families out. The County’s development agency (OCIDA) plans to use eminent domain to take the Serogs’ and Richers’ homes, bulldoze them, and add the vacant land to 1,200 acres of already-vacant land the County already owns in the hopes of attracting a huge corporation to build a microchip plant there. Eminent domain has traditionally been understood as the power of government to take private property for a public use, like a courthouse or public school. But New York permits bureaucracies, like OCIDA, to use eminent domain to take property for purely private development, like expanding a vacant “commerce” park. New York courts encourages this abusive practice notwithstanding a nationwide backlash against takings for purely private development. And New York’s bureaucrats have no hesitation about using eminent domain to take private property for speculative private development or bullying New Yorkers off their property by threatening to use eminent domain. The Institute for Justice is helping Britta, Danny, Paul and Robin to defend homes that are rightfully theirs. Your home is supposed to be your castle. But in New York, your home is your castle only until a government bureaucrat thinks of putting something there that might pay more taxes. That is not only wrong, it is unconstitutional.

Nashville resident Pat Raynor opened a state-licensed salon in her home after her husband passed away. The county shut her down after an anonymous complaint. The reason? The county has an ordinance making it illegal for some—but not all—home businesses to serve clients in the home. Pat fought back with the Institute for Justice (IJ) and her case reached the Tennessee Supreme Court. In 2020, the county passed an ordinance to temporarily allow Pat and other home business owners to host clients, but that reprieve expires in 2023. A new IJ report reveals that many Americans have started businesses in their homes after pandemic-related job losses and business closures. Like Pat, they have to battle red tape that stands in the way of their entrepreneurial dreams. Read the report HERE: https://ij.org/report/entrepreneur-from-home-how-home-based-businesses-provide-flexibility-and-opportunity-and-how-cities-can-get-out-of-their-way/ For more on Pat’s case visit https://ij.org/case/nashville-home-based-business/.

One of the most controversial practices in modern policing is law enforcement's power to "stop and frisk" individuals without probable cause that a crime has been committed. On today's show, we talk about the origins of this practice, the court rulings that normalized and expanded it, and the need--and opportunity--for the U.S. Supreme Court to scale it back. Host: Melanie Hildreth Guests: IJ Senior Attorney Bob McNamara and IJ Attorney Keith Neely More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Jeremy Bennett had no idea that asking an Ohio Department of Natural Resources officer to come back when his taxidermy shop was open for the season meant that he might face jail time for “denying” an inspection. Unfortunately, the courts have opened the door to this troubling disregard for property rights and facilitated warrantless inspections policies that affect a wide variety of businesses. In today’s show, we’ll discuss how this happened, how it affects ordinary Americans like Jeremy, who are just trying to earn a living, and what can be done to make things right. Host: Melanie Hildreth Guests: IJ Senior Attorney Rob Frommer and IJ Attorney Josh Windham More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Azael Sepulveda, also known as Oz, loves everything about cars. He has a popular YouTube channel where more than 22 million viewers have watched him explain how to perform car repairs. https://ij.org/case/texas-mechanic He also has successfully run his own repair shop, Oz Mechanics, for 9 years with stellar reviews. Recently, Azael decided he wanted to expand his business by moving out of his leased space and buying his own shop. Azael’s dreams seemed to be coming true when he bought a storefront in his hometown of Pasadena, Texas, in the summer of 2021. But instead of welcoming his investment in his community, the city of Pasadena forbade Azael from opening. The reason? The City decided that he had to provide 28 parking spaces—a nearly sixfold increase from the five existing spaces at the storefront—just to open his business. Azael would never need this many spots for his shop, as he is a one-man operation that takes cars by appointment only. And installing the new spots would cost him at least $40,000—almost half the price of the property and more than he can possibly afford. As a result of the City’s unreasonable demands, Azael cannot open his new shop. This is despite the fact that the previous business that operated at the storefront—an auto machine shop similar to Azael’s — used the existing five spaces with no problems or complaints. Making matters worse, Azael tried to follow the procedure the City itself recommended to apply for an exception from the parking requirements. But when he applied, the City refused to even consider his application. Pasadena’s requirements are unconstitutional. The Texas Constitution prohibits governments from enforcing unreasonable or overly oppressive laws that burden a person’s economic or property rights. Yet Pasadena’s parking minimums for auto repair shops have no reasonable justification and are so oppressive that they prevent entrepreneurs like Azael from opening businesses on their own property. Azael has teamed up with the Institute for Justice to fight back against the City’s crippling and unreasonable demands. He has filed a lawsuit asking Texas state courts to strike down Pasadena’s auto-shop parking requirements and allow him to exercise his right to earn an honest living on his own property.

A police officer arrested two innocent children at gunpoint. Now they are asking the Supreme Court to hold the officer accountable. A court said the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unwarranted arrests is “hazy.” Now, with IJ’s help, a family is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to clear the haze and rein in police’s ability to arrest someone for no reason. https://ij.org/support/give-now/pollreis/ Rarely a day goes by that Americans don’t hear news of police wrongfully arresting someone. In many ways, Americans have grown numb to the fact that police and other government officials routinely violate our Fourth Amendment rights. But today, an Arkansas family working with the Institute for Justice (IJ), a nonprofit public interest law firm, has asked the United States Supreme Court to reaffirm one of this country’s most important founding principles: that when government officials violate our constitutional rights, citizens can hold them accountable in court. The case started in January 2018, when Haden and Weston Young—two boys, aged 12 and 14—were heading home from their grandparents’ house after a family dinner. As they approached their home, a police car came around the corner with its lights on. The car stopped and the officer emerged with his gun drawn. He had no reason to believe that two boys who were walking calmly toward his car posed any threat. And yet, within moments, the officer—who was looking for two grown men who’d fled from police earlier—shouted “get on the ground,” handcuffed the boys, and held them at gunpoint. The boys’ mom, Casondra “Cassi” Pollreis, watched the scene unfold from her front yard. She rushed to the scene and pleaded with the officer, “They are my boys!” The officer ignored her pleas, pointed his Taser at her and shouted to get back inside. For six terrifying minutes the boys lay face down on a sidewalk while the officer paced around them with his gun pointed at their backs. Eventually the officer’s sergeant arrived, assessed the scene, immediately realized a mistake had been made and let the boys go. The officer got back in his car, closed the door, and said to himself “duuummb.” He knew that what he did was wrong. The incident didn’t end that night. Cassi and the boys talked with a lawyer and decided to file a federal civil rights lawsuit against the officer for making a wrongful arrest. The district court agreed and found that the officer had violated the boys’ Fourth Amendment rights, writing that “handcuffing two boys laying facedown on the ground, at gunpoint,” was “more intrusive than necessary.” But the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion, found that the boys had never been “arrested” at all. Instead, it said that what constitutes an arrest “can be hazy,” and that the officer’s conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Now, with the help of IJ, Cassi and her boys have asked the United States Supreme Court to take up their case. Today they filed a Petition for Certiorari asking the Court to rein in the ever-expanding doctrine of “stop and frisk” and make clear that the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from being arrested without probable cause. “Through silence and inaction, the Supreme Court has allowed the doctrine of ‘stop and frisk’ to morph into ‘stop, drop, handcuff, and hold at gunpoint,’” said IJ Senior Attorney Robert McNamara. “As the number of involuntary encounters between citizens and government officials has soared in recent decades, the rules protecting citizens from abuse in those encounters have withered. The Fourth Amendment is not ‘hazy’ when it comes to our basic right to go about our business without being assaulted by government agents who’ve lost their cool.” At issue in the case is what is called a “Terry stop,” which is named after a 1968 Supreme Court case called Terry v. Ohio. In Terry, the Supreme Court held that police officers had a “narrow authority” to briefly detain someone without probable cause and pat them down to ensure they aren’t carrying any weapons—but that’s all. Since then, many federal courts—like the Eighth Circuit in this case—have broadened Terry’s authority to include highly intrusive, sometimes violent law enforcement conduct as constitutionally permissible. At the same time, other courts have reined in the practice. Today’s petition is part of the Institute for Justice’s mission to fight on behalf of those individuals who are denied their rights and to hold government officials accountable for their unconstitutional actions. IJ stands up for ordinary American’s Fourth Amendment rights to be secure in their both their property and persons. Most recently, IJ filed a lawsuit in Ohio to stop “whenever, wherever” business inspections. IJ has also filed lawsuits across the country standing up for tenants’ right to be free from warrantless home inspections.

In Virginia, any one of 176 so-called barrier crimes can disqualify a person from work in certain occupations for life—no matter how old the conviction, how unrelated it is to the work the person desires to do, or how little it reflects the person’s fitness today. These laws kept IJ client Rudy Carey from fulfilling work as a substance abuse counselor for people he is uniquely fit to help. In today’s show, we talk about what happened to Rudy and how he is fighting against collateral consequences laws that are irrational and unjust. Host: Melanie Hildreth Guests: IJ Attorneys Andrew Ward and Michael Greenberg More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Stephen Lara did everything right. But, as subscribers of our YouTube channel know well, even innocent people aren’t safe from civil forfeiture. Stephen is a 39-year-old retired Marine from Lubbock, Texas. He is a devoted father of two teenage daughters and, once a month, he drives from Texas to see them in California, where they live with their mother. Eager to be closer after spending the pandemic in Texas caring for his elderly parents, he has been shopping for a home near the California-Nevada border. https://ij.org/case/nevada-civil-forfeiture/ In February 2021, Stephen was making his usual trip west through Reno when he was pulled over by the Nevada Highway Patrol for supposedly following a tractor-trailer too closely. The officer complimented Stephen’s driving, thanked him for observing the speed limit, and explained that NHP was “conducting a public information campaign” to help drivers avoid danger. Confident that the officer was only there to help, Stephen cooperated with his escalating investigation, even volunteering that he was carrying a large amount of cash. Ninety minutes later, Stephen had been robbed of his life savings—$86,900—which he carried with him after a spate of robberies in his parents’ neighborhood. The officer who pulled Stephen over wanted to let him go; he was overruled by NHP Sergeant Glenn Rigdon, who ordered the money seized specifically so that it could be “adopted” by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. “Adoption” is a process by which federal law enforcement agencies can take over a seizure by state and local law enforcement. If the federal government is successful in forfeiting the property, its “equitable sharing” program guarantees the state or local agency that seized the property up to 80% of the proceeds for use in the agency’s budget. In Stephen’s case, the DEA sat on his life savings for months, ignoring the legal deadlines requiring it to charge Stephen with a crime, begin a civil forfeiture case against his property, or return the money within six months of seizure. The DEA did none of those things. So, on August 30, IJ sued it in federal court on Stephen’s behalf. Early the morning of September 1, the agency announced it would return all of Stephen’s money. In less than 24 hours, it had learned of our lawsuit, answered hard questions from The Washington Post, and committed to reviewing its policies for federal adoptions. When we learned he would be getting his money back (filled with joy), he told us, “This isn’t over.” And it isn’t. At the same time we filed in federal court, we also filed a major constitutional challenge in state court. Our state case aims to make federal adoptions impossible in Nevada as violations of the state constitution’s guarantees of reasonable seizures supported by probable cause and due process of law—not based on mere suspicion or for the financial benefit of the seizing agency. If we are successful, it will be the first time a state court has struck down federal adoptions. And a victory will take the profit motive out of roadside seizures. Filmed with a Canon C70 with a 50mm 1.2 lens. Aputure 300d, 120d, and amaran.

Jeremy Bennett built his taxidermy and deer processing business from the ground up. After teaching himself the craft in high school, he slowly grew his business from a part-time gig into a flourishing business through hard work and quality workmanship. He even designed and built, by hand, the two-story shop that houses his taxidermy and deer processing businesses. https://ij.org/case/ohio-warrantless-inspections/ Jeremy’s shop is a private space. It sits on his property just a few dozen feet from his home, where he and his wife home-school their five young children. His wife helps with the books and his children are frequent visitors during the day. Customers visit the shop by appointment only and, even then, there are private areas in the shop where customers are not allowed. But Jeremy’s desire for privacy doesn’t matter to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). Although Ohio does not regulate the work of taxidermists and deer processors, it does require them to maintain records of the animals they work on. And to enforce that recordkeeping requirement, ODNR grants its wildlife officers free rein to inspect taxidermy and deer processing shops without warrants. For years, these warrantless searches were only a minor inconvenience for Jeremy. But following a personnel change at ODNR in 2011, the searches became increasingly intrusive and disruptive. During an inspection of his deer processing shop at the height of hunting season in 2020, he politely asked an officer to come back and inspect his taxidermy shop when it opened in a few weeks. Jeremy was then criminally prosecuted and threatened with jail time. Now, Jeremy has no choice but to comply with future warrantless searches or else face additional criminal charges. ODNR’s treatment of Jeremy and other taxidermists and deer processors is unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment generally forbids warrantless searches of private businesses. And although ODNR has pointed to an exception for “closely regulated industries,” Ohio doesn’t even regulate taxidermists or deer processors—it just requires them to keep simple records. If the government can side-step the Fourth Amendment by requiring businesses to keep records, then no business would ever be free from warrantless searches. Now Jeremy, represented by the Institute for Justice, is fighting back to protect his constitutional rights. Jeremy has filed a federal lawsuit asking the court to hold that ODNR’s warrantless inspections violate the Fourth Amendment, because a simple recordkeeping requirement does not make it open season for government officials to barge into your place of business whenever they want. Filmed on a Canon C70 with a .071x adapter with a Canon 24-105mm ii, 50mm 1.2 EF, and various other lenses. Zacuto shoulder rig and follow focus.

The Institute for Justice’s Project on the Fourth Amendment strives to protect one of America’s foundational property rights: The right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. As government has grown in size and scope, judges have invented one exception after another, poking holes in the Fourth Amendment until it resembled Swiss cheese. These exceptions let Big Brother snoop on our daily lives--including by coming onto peoples’ land to snoop on them and demanding records about who people called or what websites they visited--all without ever having to get a judge’s permission. The threat these exceptions pose grows ever more dire because under current search and seizure law, the further technology advances, the more privacy must retreat. https://ij.org/issues/ijs-project-on-the-4th-amendment/ But IJ’s Project on the Fourth Amendment will restore Americans’ rights to security and privacy. It will persuade both courts and the public that the Fourth Amendment is a fundamental aspect of our property rights. It will eliminate loopholes that let the government investigate us and our property without having to get a warrant. And it will convince courts that whether a search or seizure is “unreasonable” turns not on their own personal views, but rather on the protections that Americans fought a revolution to secure.

Americans have been living in small homes for generations. People choose to live in small homes for a variety of reasons, from environmental concerns and simplicity to cost. But Calhoun, Georgia, like cities around the country, is denying people the ability to even make that choice. Despite the demand for small homes in Calhoun, the government is banning the construction of homes less than 1,150 square feet. https://ij.org/case/georgia-tiny-homes/ Cindy Tucker started volunteering for Tiny House Hand Up, or THHU, to help hardworking residents of Calhoun and surrounding Gordon County achieve their dreams of homeownership by filling a niche for smaller, less costly homes. But the city of Calhoun has banned THHU from moving forward with their plan because the homes aren’t as large as the city demands. Cindy and THHU are ready to break ground on the “Cottages at King Corner,” a community of beautiful, Southern-style cottages with 540 to 600 square feet of living space each. They have housing plans, support from a financial institution to help finance mortgages, and contractors at the ready. All they need is for the government to get out of the way. There is no reason to ban smaller homes, which people have built and lived in for generations. Smaller homes comply with all building code requirements concerning health and safety. And it makes no sense to say that a community of beautiful cottage homes would negatively affect neighbors when Calhoun was willing to let Cindy and THHU build a truck terminal, warehouse, or scrap metal processing center in the same place. The only reason to ban smaller homes is to exclude so-called “undesirable” people who could afford to buy them and to artificially inflate property values in Calhoun by forcing people to build unnecessarily large homes. That is not just wrong, it is unconstitutional. Georgia’s Constitution requires zoning laws to be substantially related to public health, safety, morality or general welfare. Calhoun’s ban on smaller homes is not related to anything other than excluding people with lower incomes and forcing people to live in homes that are larger than they want. That is why Cindy and THHU have teamed up with the Institute for Justice to fight for their right to use their property the same way people have always used their property: to build and live in modestly sized homes. On October 27, 2021, they filed a petition to allow a lawsuit to go forward, asking the court to find that the City of Calhoun’s ban on smaller homes violates the Georgia Constitution.

In Wilmington, Delaware, any car with more than $200 in outstanding fines can be towed by private towing companies. Vehicle owners have no way to contest the tickets or seizure without first paying the city everything it demands in parking tickets, fines, fees, and penalties. If they can’t afford to pay in 30 days, the companies get to scrap their cars and keep their full value, returning nothing to the property owners and not even crediting part of the value of the car to the underlying fines. In exchange, the city gets a free impound program; property owners lose everything. In today’s episode, we will talk about all the ways that this system violates constitutional rights—and what two residents are doing to fight it.

The federal government and most states use civil forfeiture to take cash, cars and more without charging owners with a crime. The proceeds often flow into accounts controlled by law enforcement, sometimes including the same police and prosecutors who seized and forfeited the property. Yet few Americans realize this legal process exists until they find themselves fighting for their own property. Now a first-of-its-kind study from the Institute for Justice (IJ) takes a detailed look at the victims of a law enforcement practice often called “policing for profit.” https://ij.org/report/frustrating-corrupt-unfair/ The new study, “Frustrating, Corrupt, Unfair: Civil Forfeiture in the Words of Its Victims,” surveys victims of Philadelphia’s forfeiture program, which raked in tens of millions for Philadelphia police and prosecutors. Thanks to a class action lawsuit IJ brought, the program was dismantled in 2018, and a $3 million compensation fund was created for more than 30,000 victims. The new study, co-authored by IJ researcher Jennifer McDonald and IJ Senior Director of Strategic Research Dick Carpenter, surveyed those victims to learn about their first-hand experiences with forfeiture.

People who have overcome drug or alcohol addiction often want to help others overcome addiction, too. Their first-hand experience can make them particularly well-suited to guide others through recovery. https://ij.org/case/virginia-fresh-start/ Rudy Carey is one of those people. After a long battle with drug and alcohol addiction, in 2007, Rudy completed rehab and turned his life around. Then he got married, completed hundreds of hours of coursework and training in substance-abuse counseling, and started a career as a counselor at a Fredericksburg, Virginia treatment facility. Unbeknownst to Rudy, his career was illegal. That’s because Virginia bans people with convictions for any of 176 “barrier crimes” from being employed in a “direct care” position, which includes substance-abuse counselors. Generally, the ban applies no matter how old the conviction, how unrelated it is to substance-abuse counseling, or how little it reflects the person’s fitness today. As a result, old mistakes still prevent many people who have overcome addiction themselves from counseling the people they are uniquely fit to help. For Rudy, the ban meant that after five years of excellent work, Virginia sent his employer a letter saying that he was banned from working as a substance-abuse counselor there—or anywhere else in the commonwealth—forever. Not because he wasn’t qualified: Rudy’s clients loved his work. Rather, Virginia banned Rudy from counseling because of a single assault conviction from 2004—well before he turned his life around. In other words, Virginia is judging who Rudy was nearly two decades ago. It should be judging who he is today. The U.S. Constitution protects Americans’ right to earn an honest living free from irrational government interference. Banning Rudy from working isn’t rational—it just deprives people battling addiction of a qualified, sympathetic counselor. That’s why Rudy has teamed up with the Institute for Justice to file a federal lawsuit challenging Virginia’s lifetime ban. A victory will vindicate a simple truth: that no one should be denied the right to work because of irrelevant criminal convictions. Filmed on a Canon C70 with a .071x adapter with a Canon 24-105mm ii, 50mm 1.2 EF, and various other lenses. Zacuto shoulder rig and follow focus.

Police in Texas’s most populous county routinely ask drivers if they have cash in the car, only to seize the cash, accuse it of a crime, and drive away with it in their patrol car. Texas’s civil forfeiture law allows police and prosecutors to take cash from people they don’t arrest, and hand it over to prosecutors so that they can bend the power of Texas’s civil courts to keep the cash permanently in their own budgets. Forfeiture abuse in Texas is fueled by a perverse financial incentive: police and prosecutors can seize and forfeit cash from people, and that cash can then be used to fund salaries and overtime—their own paychecks. That kind of policing for profit isn’t just wrong; it’s unconstitutional. https://ij.org/case/texas-forfeiture-ii/ Ameal Woods and Jordan Davis got trapped by Harris County’s forfeiture racket and want their life savings back. To pursue the dream of owning their own trucking business, Ameal and Jordan saved money from jobs, tax refunds, and by keeping expenses low. They accumulated over $40,000, enough for Ameal to rise from truck driver to truck owner. On May 14, 2019, after weeks of scouring ads for used tractor-trailers, Ameal was ready to buy one of his own. He drove from Natchez, Mississippi, and headed towards Houston. But when he arrived in Harris County, police pulled Ameal over, took his cash, and sent him on his way without so much as a warning. For the past two years, the couple heard nothing from Harris County due to the County’s feeble efforts to satisfy the most basic of constitutional requirements: notice. Who could afford to have their life savings taken away for more than two years with no hearing and no opportunity to go before a judge? Over that time, others like Ameal and Jordan also lost their cash to police, and County prosecutors used Texas’s civil courts, not criminal courts, to keep the cash permanently. Harris County has an unconstitutional financial incentive to seize and forfeit cash and other property without probable cause and to do so excessively, sweeping in innocent people and property. Its practice of using form affidavits, vague allegations, and tough tactics instead of evidence of crimes also violates the Texas Constitution. That is why Ameal and Jordan have teamed up with the Institute for Justice to file a major class-action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Harris County’s civil forfeiture program.

Challenging Wilmington’s tow-and-impound racket, which pays private tow companies by letting them keep and scrap cars. https://ij.org/press-release/wilmington-residents-file-lawsuit-challenging-citys-unconstitutional-impound-racket/ Wilmington, Delaware, issues a lot of parking tickets and then allows private companies to tow any car with more than $200 in outstanding fines. Rather than pay money to those companies for their services, the city contractually empowers the towing companies to keep and scrap cars. The tow companies get to keep the full value of the cars: If a car is worth more than the amount of ticket debt, the tow companies keep the excess value, and, in fact, the proceeds from scrapping the vehicle aren’t even used to pay off the tickets. In the end, Wilmington doesn’t pay for its impound program, the private tow companies make money by scrapping people’s property, and car owners lose their vehicles without compensation.

Find out more: https://ij.org/support/give-now/byrd/ What does it take to hold federal police accountable for using excessive force? That question is once again being raised with cases being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. And it’s coming to the Justices in the form of a petition from Kevin Byrd, a Texas mechanic who was almost shot to death by a federal officer in a dispute over a purely personal matter. Kevin is not fighting alone. The Institute for Justice (IJ) represents him in his U.S. Supreme Court appeal. And three groups of exceptional scholars and cross-philosophical public policy organizations are supporting him with friend-of-the-court briefs in which they urge the Justices to take up Kevin’s case.

Though Susette Kelo’s fight to save her home from her city’s efforts to take it for a private developer ended in 2005, the fight against eminent domain abuse has continued. In today’s show, we revisit that landmark decision and talk about the aftermath and where the biggest eminent domain battles are happening now, from pretextual takings to “common carrier” seizures. We also discuss Eychaner v. Chicago and other signals that the Supreme Court is ready to correct its Kelo errors. Host: Melanie Hildreth Guests: IJ Senior Attorneys Robert McNamara and Jeff Rowes More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Kermit Warren is a hardworking grandfather and the head deacon of his church in the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans. After losing his home to Hurricane Katrina, Kermit managed to rebuild his life. Thanks to a dogged work ethic, frugal lifestyle, diligent saving, and a small inheritance, Kermit managed to build a nest egg of nearly $30,000 in cash over several years. When Kermit lost his job due to the COVID-19 pandemic, he tried to use his savings to purchase a tow truck that he could use to support himself. But, on a trip to Ohio, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) officers took Kermit’s much-needed life savings. Now, the federal government is trying to keep his money using the abusive practice of civil forfeiture, which does not require charging Kermit with any crime, let alone securing a conviction. https://ij.org/case/kermit-warren-forfeiture/ Kermit and his youngest son, Leo, lost their hotel jobs when the pandemic began. They decided to turn Kermit’s longtime side gig of hauling scrap metal into a fulltime, father-son enterprise. But they needed a tow truck for the business to support them. In early November 2020, with Kermit’s cash life savings in hand, they flew to Ohio, where they had arranged to look at a truck that they hoped to buy and drive home. But when the truck turned out to be too large for their needs, they had to fly back to New Orleans. At the Columbus airport, TSA screeners noticed that Kermit had a large amount of cash in his bag. They asked him about it but let him continue to his gate. Later, as Kermit and Leo were waiting to board their flight, DEA agents approached them and asked questions about Kermit’s cash. The officers were uninterested in Kermit’s and Leo’s evidence about the source and purpose of the money; it was clear the officers were simply there to take it. Kermit panicked and did something he greatly regrets: In a last-ditch effort to avoid losing his hard-earned life savings, he told the agents that he was a retired New Orleans police officer and showed them his other son’s old badge, which Kermit keeps for sentimental reasons. The officers saw through this right away and Kermit admitted that he was not a former cop. The DEA agents took all of Kermit’s money. But they did not arrest Kermit or Leo or charge them with any crime. Instead, the agents let them board their plane to New Orleans without Kermit’s life savings. About six months later, the government filed a civil forfeiture complaint in federal court, arguing that Kermit’s money should be permanently taken because it is somehow connected to drug activity. But the government’s allegations do not connect Kermit or his money to any crime. Instead, the government contends that Kermit vaguely fits the profile of a drug courier. But the government should not be able to take property forever with flimsy evidence; it should have to prove someone’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, Kermit has teamed up with the Institute for Justice to call the government’s bluff and ensure that the judiciary holds the government to its burden of presenting actual evidence of criminality before taking away what he worked so hard to set aside.

In March 2021, FBI agents broke into private safe deposit boxes at the Southern California business U.S. Private Vaults and—though no individual box owner was suspected of wrongdoing—rifled through and cataloged owners’ belongings, then seized the contents. Property owners are fighting back, and in today’s episode, we talk about what happened, all the reasons that the government’s behavior was illegal and unconstitutional, and why protecting financial privacy is so crucially important for all Americans. Host: Melanie Hildreth Guests: IJ Senior Attorneys Robert Frommer and Robert Johnson. More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Hamdi Mohamud escaped war-torn Somalia when she was a child. As a teenager in Minnesota, she found herself caught in a web of well-documented lies and manipulation spun by St. Paul police officer Heather Weyker. In 2011, Weyker was deputized as part of a federal task force. At that time, the officer created outright lies to have Hamdi arrested and put in jail, even though Hamdi was innocent of any crime and Weyker had no reason to believe otherwise. Nonetheless, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Hamdi cannot sue Weyker for ruining so much of her life through her unconstitutional acts for one simple and outrageous reason: Weyker performed all her misdeeds while holding a federal badge. If a state or local police officer took the same actions as Weyker, she could be held accountable for clearly violating Hamdi's constitutional rights. Although qualified immunity typically prevents victims from holding state and local officers answerable for rights violations, Weyker's acts were so egregious that qualified immunity could not shield her from a lawsuit. But because she was employed by the federal government—not a state or local government—the court let her off the hook. This leaves Hamdi with no chance to take Weyker to court so a judge or a jury can decide if her actions violated the Constitution. That is all that Hamdi seeks with her case: the chance to bring Weyker to trial and prove her case in a court of law. But the court of appeals has given blanket, absolute immunity to rogue federal officers, like Weyker, and prevented them from potentially being held accountable for what they did to their innocent victims. This absolute immunity for federal police officers makes no sense and violates the principle that where there is a right, there must be a remedy. That’s why, on August 6, 2021, the Institute for Justice (IJ) filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to reverse the decision in Hamdi's case. Simply put, the courts have turned a federal badge into a shield against the Constitution, and that needs to change.

A Florida court rejected the town of Lantana’s attempt to end a lawsuit filed by resident Sandy Martinez, who is contesting sky-high fines she was assessed for minor infractions on her own property. One parking violation, assessed daily for over a year, totals more than $100,000. The total amount the town fined her, which includes two other infractions, comes to an astounding $165,000, more than half what her home is worth. In February, Sandy teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a lawsuit asking the court to rule that her excessive fines violate the state constitution. https://ij.org/press-release/homeowner-facing-100000-parking-violation-wins-first-round-of-her-lawsuit-against-florida-town/ “Six-figure fines for parking on your own property are outrageous and today’s decision will allow Sandy to make the case that these fines are unconstitutional,” said IJ Attorney Ari Bargil. “While Florida’s Constitution forbids fines that are ‘excessive’ or ‘shock the conscience’, places like Lantana routinely impose crippling fines against residents for minor code violations. It is time that Florida courts make it clear that cities cannot fine people into poverty for trivial violations.” “It’s surreal that the town still refuses to admit that what it’s doing to me is abusive and unfair,” said Sandy. “Like everyone else in my neighborhood, I work hard for what I’ve got. I shouldn’t have to fight in court to stop the city from fining me into poverty. But with today’s decision, I’m glad that I am one step closer to making sure that doesn’t happen—to me or anyone else.” The $165,000 that Sandy owes is a result of daily fines that the city assessed for property code violations. Most of this amount is a result of the way Sandy’s family parks their cars. Sandy, her two adult children and her sister all own cars so that they can get to their jobs. When all four cars are parked in the driveway, sometimes one of them has two tires on the lawn, a $250 per day violation. And those fines continue to accrue until the homeowner corrects the problem and calls the city to inspect the property to confirm it is in compliance. After receiving the parking violation, Sandy called the town like she was supposed to, but an inspector never came out. Once Sandy discovered that the fines were still accruing over a year later, she immediately called and passed the inspection. But by then, the amount she owed was $101,750. This fine is on top of fines for two other similarly trivial violations—for cracks in the driveway and a fence that fell over during a storm. IJ has challenged abusive fines and fees across the country, notably in Dunedin, Florida, where a homeowner is facing foreclosure after he was fined over $30,000 in fines for tall grass. IJ has successfully protected homeowners in California and Missouri from abusive fines and fees practices. In 2019, IJ released a study of cities that relied heavily on fines and fees to balance their budgets, “The Price of Taxation by Citation,” and in 2020 released a 50-state survey of state laws governing municipal fines and fees. https://ij.org/press-release/homeowner-facing-100000-parking-violation-wins-first-round-of-her-lawsuit-against-florida-town/

In Episode 30 of Deep Dive, we talked about how fines for harmless property code violations could snowball into six-figure debt. All too often, municipalities set up these “taxation by citation” schemes to bolster city budgets—not protect public health and safety. Schemes like this are rife with due process problems, and in today’s episode, we discuss the way Kafka-esqe code enforcement systems in many cities make it very easy to incur ever increasing amounts of fines and fees—while erecting barriers that make it very difficult to challenge them. We’ll also talk about what the Constitution means when it guarantees due process and IJ’s legal strategy for tackling abusive fines and fees regimes. Host: Melanie Hildreth Guests: IJ attorneys Diana Simpson and Josh House More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

This term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Caniglia v. Strom, a case about the “community caretaking” exception to the general principle that police need a warrant before entering a home. In today’s episode, we talk about what the government and the property owner argued in that case and what the Court ruled. We also dig into the history of the community caretaking doctrine and the biggest current threats to Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure. Host: Melanie Hildreth Guests: IJ Senior Attorney Robert Frommer and IJ Attorney Joshua Windham More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Wayne Nutt is an engineer. He graduated with a degree in engineering from the University of Iowa in 1967, and he promptly went to work as an engineer. He spent most of his time working in North Carolina, mostly for DuPont, using his expertise to do things like designing piping systems and helping with international technology licensing. Since his retirement in 2013, Wayne has not done any engineering—he hasn’t designed or built things—but he is still an engineer at heart, and so he talks about engineering a lot: When he spots math errors in public documents, he speaks up. When he thinks people are mischaracterizing engineering reports, he speaks out. And when he can answer a question that he thinks is important, he answers it. https://ij.org/press-release/north-carolina-board-tells-retired-engineer-he-cant-talk-about-engineering/ And that is what has gotten him into trouble. Wayne never needed a license to work as an engineer. Because he worked for big manufacturers for his whole career, everything Wayne did (like everything most engineers do) fell under North Carolina’s “industrial exemption” and did not require a license. But according to the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors, talking about the sort of work Wayne did does require a license. Wayne’s trouble started when he volunteered to testify as an expert witness in a case his son, an attorney, was litigating. The case involved a piping system in a housing development that allegedly caused flooding in nearby areas, and Wayne, who had designed plenty of pipes in his day, volunteered to testify about the volume of fluid that pipe could be expected to carry. Wayne still had a copy of the leading sourcebook on his bookshelf, and the analysis itself seemed pretty easy—at least for Wayne. But it was also—according to the Board—illegal. After Wayne’s deposition in the case, where he truthfully testified that he was not (and never had been) a licensed engineer, someone complained to the Board that he was practicing engineering without a license, which is a criminal misdemeanor. It might seem impossible to “practice” engineering by sitting in a conference room answering questions, but, shockingly, the Board seems to think Wayne crossed a line. The Board’s position is that offering any testimony that requires “engineering knowledge” is illegal without a license—even if someone truthfully discloses their credentials, and even if a judge wants to hear the testimony. But that is wrong. In this country, we rely on people to decide who they want to listen to. We do not rely on government to decide who gets to speak. The Board’s position gets that important principle backwards. That is why Wayne has joined forces with the Institute for Justice to file a major First Amendment lawsuit against the Board, designed to vindicate the basic principle that the First Amendment protects our right to hear useful speech on difficult topics and that the Board cannot silence Wayne simply because his opinions are based on his knowledge of engineering.

Paul and Jennifer Snitko are model citizens. Paul is a retired aerospace engineer who has held multiple security clearances and Jennifer is an entertainment lawyer. Neither has ever been in trouble with the law. Yet the government is now forcing them, and hundreds of other people not even suspected of a crime, through a legal gauntlet with no clear end in sight. https://ij.org/press-release/security-deposit-box-owners-step-forward-to-demand-fbi-return-property-seized-without-a-warrant/ Paul and Jennifer, who live in Los Angeles, needed a place to safely store their prized possessions. They found that U.S. Private Vaults, in Beverly Hills, was convenient, secure and had better hours. So, they stored precious items like Paul’s flight log and watches he and his father earned from years of service at their jobs in their rented box. But the government broke open the Snitkos’ private space on March 22, 2021, when FBI agents raided U.S. Private Vaults. The raid was the result of an indictment accusing U.S. Private Vaults, the business, of money laundering and other crimes. But in executing the warrant, the government didn’t just seize the company’s business property. Upon the pretense of wanting to take a relatively worthless metal rack of boxes, federal agents broke into every security deposit box and emptied them of their contents. The FBI now refuses to give anyone their property back until they come forward and submit to an “investigation.” In other words, the government wants to force people to prove their own innocence to get their own stuff back. Everyone has the right to contract for a private, secure place to store their property. But no place can be secure if the government gets away with what it did here. That’s why Paul and Jennifer—along with two other plaintiffs—have teamed up with the Institute for Justice to demand that the federal government return the property of everyone who has come forward to claim their property from the FBI. Reuniting those who rented boxes from U.S. Private Vaults with their property is critical to prevent the government from doing this to other security deposit box owners, storage unit renters or anyone else who rents a private space.

After Sandy Martinez got a ticket from Lantana, Florida, for parking her car with its wheels slightly outside her driveway and on the grass in her yard, she didn’t know that she was being fined a whopping $250 per day by the town. Weeks later, when she learned about the fines, the bill had accrued to an eye-watering $101,750, and she realized that a harmless code violation had brought her to the brink of financial ruin. In today’s episode, we talk about how and why cities rely on fines and fees for revenue, the ways these systems are deeply problematic, and what courts can do to enforce constitutional protections for all Americans. Host: Melanie Hildreth Guests: IJ attorneys Diana Simpson and Ari Bargil More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

When IJ client Abdallah Batayneh tried to open a resort shuttle service in rural Colorado, his application was denied by a state regulatory agency at the same time it assured him that he was “operationally, managerially, and financially fit” to run his company. In today’s episode, we discuss how Abdallah became the victim of an outrageous legal regime that many states erected to protect existing businesses at the expense of new start-ups and customers—and how and why these laws should be eliminated nationwide. Host: Melanie Hildreth Guests: IJ Senior Attorney Justin Pearson and IJ Attorney William Aronin. More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Opening a new business in a small town often comes with lots of hurdles, but a town on Long Island has come up with a new way to keep entrepreneurs out: eminent domain. https://ij.org/press-release/family-owned-hardware-store-sues-long-island-town-trying-to-take-away-their-property/ The family owners of Brinkmann’s Hardware thought they had found the perfect location for a new store. But even though they followed all the rules, the town of Southold is trying to take their property for a park—not because the town wants a park, but because that is the only way to stop the Brinkmanns. It’s an extreme tactic to prevent an entirely legal business from serving the community, and it’s unconstitutional.

Although Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are hitting the mainstream, the way the law will treat them is still undeveloped. In this episode, we talk about how and whether the First and Fourth Amendments might apply to cryptocurrency, what kind of protection they offer, and ways to make sure the law develops in a way that protects innovation and opportunity. Host: Melanie Hildreth Guests: IJ Senior Attorneys Robert McNamara and Jeff Rowes More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Jerry Johnson is the proud owner and operator of a small trucking business and lives just outside Charlotte, North Carolina. To keep his business growing, Jerry saved his money until he had enough to purchase a third semi-truck. And based on his research, Jerry was confident he could find a good deal at an auto action in Phoenix, Arizona. So, in August 2020, Jerry did something that is completely legal: he flew domestically with cash (from Charlotte to Phoenix). That was when his trouble began. https://ij.org/press-release/charlotte-trucking-company-owner-fights-for-39500-police-took-from-him-at-phoenix-airport/ After Jerry landed at the Phoenix airport, he was approached by a detective and questioned about the cash. That detective accused him of laundering money for illegal drugs and refused to believe that Jerry was operating a legitimate business. Eventually, under the threat of arrest and further interrogation, Jerry let the detective take the $39,500 that he had in his carry-on and checked bag. He returned home the next day without his money and without a truck. When Arizona prosecutors tried to take the money by civil forfeiture, Jerry hired an attorney. Jerry knew that he had done nothing wrong, and so he made the decision to fight for his rights and the return of his hard-earned money. But to challenge the forfeiture, Jerry first had to prove that the money was in fact his. The evidence Jerry presented at the hearing should have been more than enough to allow him to continue pursuing the return of his property. After all, the only question the court was supposed to decide was whether Jerry had shown that the money, which was taken directly from his carry-on and checked luggage, was his. But instead of answering that question, the court listened to the state’s completely circumstantial case and answered a different question. The court determined that Jerry had not shown that he was the innocent owner of the money. In so doing, the court held Jerry to a higher standard than the one imposed by Arizona law, essentially requiring Jerry to prove his own innocence. It also absolved the state of its burden of proof—its duty to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Jerry’s money was connected to criminal activity in order to forfeit his property. Now the Institute for Justice is teaming up with Jerry to help him fight for his money. Making someone prove their own innocence before they can even contest the forfeiture of their property violates the constitutional guarantee of due process.

The public school system works well for many students, but not all of them. Still, school choice programs are the subject of many misconceptions, thanks largely to the agenda of school choice opponents. While school choice programs can allow families to select a religious school for their children’s education, school choice is so much more than that. School choice allows innovative educators to create an education specifically customized to their students’ needs. Many times, without these innovative educational options, students would be left behind in the public school system, without the chance to reach academic or social fulfillment. The stories of these schools, Build UP in Birmingham, Alabama, Fugees Academy Columbus in Columbus, Ohio, and Kuumba Preparatory School for the Arts in Washington D.C., help illustrate how school choice empowers children who need an educational option that meets their needs, where they are. www.ij.org

Elizabeth Brokamp is a professional counselor, meaning she uses talk therapy to help people feel better. During the COVID-19 pandemic, online teletherapy has allowed her to continue providing aid in difficult times. Even when one of her clients relocated to New York, Elizabeth was able to continue speaking with her client over internet video. But now Elizabeth and her client face a looming deadline: When the pandemic ends, it will be illegal to continue their conversations. https://ij.org/case/new-york-teletherapy/ Licensing for professional counselors is a state patchwork. Elizabeth is located (and licensed) in Virginia. But, ordinarily, New York requires anyone providing teletherapy to New York residents to be licensed in New York—a burdensome process that largely duplicates the licensure process that Elizabeth has already gone through in Virginia. And of course those burdens aren’t limited to New York: To talk to clients just across the river in DC, Elizabeth needs a DC license, and many other states impose similar restrictions as well. Thankfully, New York has waived its licensing requirement for out-of-state counselors during the pandemic. But that waiver is only renewed month-to-month. At any time, Elizabeth could be forced to stop talking to her client in New York. And, because Elizabeth does not believe it would be fair to start a new relationship if she would have to cut it off in a few months, Elizabeth also had to turn away another potential client in New York—even though she would have gladly helped that person if not for New York’s licensing laws. All of this raises the question: If New York can waive its licensing requirements during the pandemic, why are those requirements necessary in the first place? Professional counselors and their clients should not need a pandemic to take advantage of the benefits of teletherapy. These restrictions on teletherapy violate the First Amendment. Professional counselors talk to their clients; they listen to their clients’ concerns, ask questions, and provide advice and guidance. Elizabeth does not prescribe medication, perform medical procedures, or do anything other than talk. And, under the First Amendment, the government cannot prohibit unauthorized talking. So, Elizabeth has teamed up with the Institute for Justice to challenge New York’s restrictions on teletherapy. This lawsuit follows another lawsuit that Elizabeth and IJ filed in Washington, D.C., in December 2020. If this new lawsuit is successful, Elizabeth will be able to provide her services to New York residents even after the pandemic is over. And victory in both lawsuits will set a precedent that can be used to challenge restrictions on teletherapy nationwide.

When the Institute for Justice filed suit against the so-called predictive policing program in Pasco County, Florida, the Sheriff’s Office issued a statement saying that their program is not “in any way, shape or form the ideals or implementations projected in the film ‘Minority Report.'" But in this episode of Deep Dive, we discuss the chilling reality of a program that targets residents for possible future crimes based on a crude algorithm, as well as the program’s myriad constitutional violations and IJ’s lawsuit to end it. Our lawsuit: https://ij.org/case/pasco-predictive-policing/ Tampa Bay article: https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2020/investigations/police-pasco-sheriff-targeted/intelligence-led-policing/ Host: Melanie Hildreth Guests: IJ Senior Attorney Robert Johnson and IJ Attorney Ari Bargil. More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Drones! In recent years, drones have captured the imagination of Americans. As of January 2021, there are over 1.7 million FAA-registered drones in the nation. And increasingly, drones are used not just for fun, but for innovation. Drone-photography companies have popped up across the nation, and many use cutting-edge technology to capture, create and process data. The services have been a boon for many industries: developers hire drones to monitor their property; construction companies hire them to examine progress on building sites; and real-estate agents hire them to capture vivid, comprehensive images. https://ij.org/case/north-carolina-drones/ Increasingly, though, drone start-ups have found themselves on a collision course with a centuries-old profession: land surveyors. As most people would understand it, “surveying” involves establishing legal boundaries between tracts of land. But some surveying boards have taken a far more expansive view: they maintain that simply collecting and disseminating information about land (dimensions, shape, and size, for example) is the “practice of surveying” and unlawful without a full-blown land-surveyor license. This puts many small-business drone companies in direct violation of state laws. Michael Jones learned this the hard way. He started a one-man drone operation in 2016, and his services included taking aerial photos of land and stitching them together into high-definition orthomosaic maps. He also used drones to capture other data for clients—for example, thermal maps for large buildings. At no point did he purport to mark the legal boundaries of property. Even so, he received a letter in 2018 from the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors. They were investigating his business for engaging in the unlicensed practice of land surveying. And the following summer, the Board formally warned him to stop “mapping.” Unless Michael “came into compliance,” the Board cautioned, he’d face civil and even criminal consequences. Michael’s experience is far from unique; since 2018, North Carolina’s surveying board has cracked down on at least a half-dozen drone companies. Other states have behaved similarly, warning drone start-ups against disseminating even basic information about land. Now, Michael is fighting back. He wants to use innovative technology to create and disseminate images and data. In other words, he wants to communicate information—speech. With the help of the Institute for Justice, he is suing North Carolina’s surveying board in federal court to vindicate his—and everyone’s—First Amendment right to generate and disseminate information. It is not the government’s place to squelch speech and entrepreneurial opportunity.

Does due process require a prompt hearing after the government seizes a vehicle through civil forfeiture? That is the question the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will consider addressing in Serrano v. Customs and Border Patrol, a lawsuit appealed by the Institute for Justice (IJ) on behalf of its client, Gerardo Serrano, who had his new truck taken from him at the Mexican border in 2015. https://ij.org/press-release/case-appealed-to-u-s-supreme-court-seeks-to-ensure-prompt-hearings-after-property-seizures/

Elizabeth Brokamp is a professional counselor who just wants to help people at a time when many Americans need it more than ever. But if the Virginia resident tries to talk with clients just miles away in D.C., she will cited and fined for making a Zoom call. In today’s show, we talk about what she’s doing to fight back, and why her case is a crucial part of the fight to protect free speech. Host: Melanie Hildreth Guests: IJ Senior Attorneys Bob McNamara and Robert Johnson More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Abdallah Batayneh just wants to start a new shuttle service, but Colorado law allows existing transportation companies to veto new competition. Today, in order to clear the way for himself and other entrepreneurs in Colorado, Abdallah is partnering with the Institute for Justice (IJ) in a constitutional lawsuit to strike down these protectionist trade barriers once and for all. https://ij.org/case/colorado-transportation-con/ Photos shot on a Canon R5.

This summer Vicki Baker woke up one morning to every homeowner’s worst nightmare: the night before a fugitive had taken refuge in her second home, and after a standoff, the police SWAT team used tear gas grenades, explosives and an armored vehicle to utterly destroy the home. They called it “shock and awe.” https://ij.org/case/texas-swat-destruction/ The incident left Vicki in shock, too. When the smoke cleared, the home—which her daughter was living in and which was under contract to sell—was uninhabitable. The only living thing that survived the raid was her daughter’s dog, which was left deaf and blind from the explosions. Vicki, who had recently moved to Montana to retire, was left holding the bill. The city of McKinney and her homeowner’s insurance company told her that police had “immunity” and wouldn’t pay for a dime of the damage. A few days later, the buyer walked away and the sale fell through. All told, Vicki spent more than $50,000 and months of time to repair her home. She ran up debt on her credit cards, and when those ran out, she had to withdraw funds from her retirement account to afford the repairs. When she finally sold the home this winter, it was for substantially less than before the raid. Although her home is sold, Vicki’s work in McKinney is not done. Today she partnered with the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm, to sue the city of McKinney for the damage its police did to her home. “In America, ‘if you break it, you buy it,’” said IJ Attorney Jeff Redfern. “The McKinney SWAT team didn’t just break Vicki’s home—they destroyed it . Now it is time for them to pay for the damage they caused.” The lawsuit, which was filed in the Eastern District of Texas federal court, argues that McKinney’s refusal to pay for the damage violates that Just Compensation clauses of both the U.S. and Texas Constitutions. “The United States and Texas Constitutions make it clear that when the government deprives someone of her property to benefit the public good, the government must compensate the owner,” said Suranjan Sen, a Liberty and Law fellow at the Institute for Justice. “For instance, if a city uses eminent domain to seize a home to build a road, it must pay the homeowner the fair market value for their property. The same principle applies in Vicki’s case. Taking a fugitive off the streets benefits everyone, so the cost of the damages caused by the SWAT team should be borne by everyone, not Vicki alone.” “I appreciate that the police did what they thought was necessary to protect the community,” Vicki said. “I don’t question their actions, but it’s unfair to place the costs—replacing or redoing all of my flooring, the burst pipes, the damaged roof, the blown-out garage door, the broken doors, the toppled fence— on me, just because the guy happened to pick my house and not someone else’s.”

New York City is home to more than one million buildings that—when taken together—make up the city’s unmistakable skyline. Although skyscrapers may dominate the skyline, they are only a fraction of buildings in the city. From lofts in the East Village and walk-ups in Chinatown to Brownstones in Brooklyn and single-family homes on Staten Island, residential buildings make up the lion’s share of the city’s structures. https://ij.org/case/new-york-permit-fines/ New York City’s Department of Buildings (DOB) oversees all of these buildings, commercial and residential alike. It issues permits, inspects buildings, oversees construction-related licenses, enforces the building and construction codes, and imposes fines for violations. The DOB’s mission is to ensure the safety of the Big Apple and all its inhabitants. But the DOB often loses sight of this charge. Instead, it penalizes property owners over and over again for sometimes trivial issues, leaving them owing the city thousands of dollars while navigating an incredibly complex system that lacks the hallmarks of due process. Ultimately, the DOB assesses immense fines that property owners can never challenge in a court of law, instead simply demanding compliance and payment. Caught up in all of this is Queens resident Joe Corsini. Joe, like many New Yorkers, is a pigeon keeper. Keeping pigeons is the city-equivalent of having a backyard rabbit hutch in the suburbs. As Joe’s hobby grew, he decided to build a small pigeon coop on the roof of his home. Unfortunately, he did not realize he needed to obtain a building permit for the small structure. Shortly after the coop went up, he received $3,000 in fines from the DOB and an order that he bring his coop into compliance by getting a permit. Round and round he went with the DOB, until he gave up and took it down. He received additional violations while he was engaging with the DOB. He ultimately amassed approximately $11,000 in fines and—after hiring an attorney— was able to negotiate a reduced penalty of $7,800 to resolve the penalties. This did not sit well with Joe, who has now teamed up with the Institute for Justice to fight back. It is perfectly reasonable for a city to ensure safety in construction by focusing on actual safety concerns. But hitting a homeowner over and over again with fines that can range up to $25,000 per violation—even while they are trying to comply—and failing to provide a legitimate recourse to appeal to a neutral party, does not advance any legitimate safety interests. All it does is rack up money for the government and deprive property owners of their due process rights. Joe is fighting to change this system and ensure that homeowners are treated with dignity and due process.

Most people accept that the government can fine you a small amount for parking illegally. But can the government cripple you financially for how you park your car on your very own driveway? https://ij.org/case/lantana-fines/ In Lantana, Florida, that is exactly what happened to local homeowner Sandy Martinez. The city fined her more than $100,000—at a rate of $250 per day—for violating an ordinance regulating how one can park their car on their own driveway. When stacked on top of the astronomical fines the city imposed for two other trivial code violations—$47,375 for a storm-damaged fence and $16,125 for cracks in her driveway, each of which she fixed as soon as she could afford to—Lantana has fined Sandy over $165,000. That outrageous amount is nearly four times her annual income and more than half the value of her home. But the government cannot lock you into a lifetime of crushing debt for such harmless code infractions. That is because Florida’s Constitution clearly forbids “excessive fines.” This protection enshrines a centuries-old axiom: The punishment must fit the crime. By trying to impose ruinous fines on Sandy for such minor infractions, Lantana is violating Sandy’s constitutional right to be free from excessive fines. To fight back, she’s teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a lawsuit in Florida state court to hold the city accountable for this unconstitutional behavior.

Big technology companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook have come under scrutiny for the ways they are—and are not—controlling speech on their platforms. In today’s show, we talk with two IJ senior attorneys about some of the most common concerns people have about these companies, from free speech considerations to the ways they supposedly act as monopolies. We consider where the law is now on these issues, weigh some of the options that have been proposed to address them, and discuss ways to look at these questions as they evolve in the coming months and beyond. Host: Melanie Hildreth Guests: IJ Senior Attorneys Bob McNamara and Paul Sherman More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

José Oliva survived the bloodiest year in Vietnam, but he most feared for his life when he was brutally beaten in an unprovoked attack by federal officers in a Veterans Affairs hospital in his hometown of El Paso. If the Fourth Amendment doesn’t protect a 70-year-old veteran beaten by federal police inside a veterans’ hospital for no reason, it doesn’t protect anyone. That’s why, on January 29, 2021, the Institute for Justice filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to reverse the clearly erroneous 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which ruled that federal officers, such as those in a VA hospital, may act with impunity and not be held accountable for their actions, no matter how unconstitutional. https://ij.org/case/oliva-v-nivar/ José is a native of El Paso, Texas and a Vietnam War vet, who served nearly three decades in law enforcement, and advocated on behalf of veterans in his hometown and nationwide. In February 2016, federal police working as security at an El Paso VA hospital assaulted José as he was entering the hospital for a dentist appointment. They then charged him for disorderly conduct—charges that were later dismissed. When José sued the officers, a predictable thing happened. The officers invoked qualified immunity—a controversial doctrine that the Supreme Court invented in 1982 to protect government workers from being sued for unconstitutional conduct. To its great credit, the district court denied the officers qualified immunity—a decision that the officers promptly appealed. The 5th Circuit agreed with the officers and reversed the district court, holding that even if qualified immunity were not available, José still can’t sue because he was assaulted by federal, and not state, officers. This decision is wrong. Federal officials are not above the Constitution. The 5th Circuit’s decision disregards Supreme Court precedent and departs from the consensus of other courts of appeals that have considered this same issue. As a result, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi are now constitution-free zones, as far as federal police are concerned. IJ is not going to let that happen. That’s why we teamed up with José to ask the Supreme Court to reverse the 5th Circuit’s decision and let the case proceed to trial. IJ, through its Project on Immunity and Accountability, seeks to ensure that the Constitution serves to limit the government in fact, not just in theory, and that promises enshrined in its Bill of Rights are not empty words but enforced guarantees.

In the name of “zoning,” the City of Sierra Vista, Arizona, is attempting to kick some residents out of their homes in the middle of a pandemic. Amanda Root has called Sierra Vista, in southeast Arizona, home for more than 20 years. In the late 90’s, Amanda acquired a small lot in the then “Cloud 9 Mobile Home Park.” Amanda lived in a mobile home there, on her own property, all of which she owned free-and-and clear, for many years without any problems. In 2016, Amanda’s home burned to the ground, leaving her temporarily homeless. But through the generosity of friends, in 2017, Amanda was given a park trailer to put on her property to live in. Amanda was back home. And she never wanted to leave again. For years, Amanda and other neighbors lived in similar homes without any problems. For them—as with all of us, especially during COVID-19—their homes are their castles, and their sanctuaries. But in July 2020—during the middle of a COVID-19 pandemic and out of the blue—the city of Sierra Vista tried to kick Amanda and the others out of their homes and off their property. And the city gave them just 30 days to leave. There was no hearing or appeal offered. There is no health or safety reason for kicking Amanda out of her home. The home is perfectly safe, and the city has never claimed otherwise. Rather the city says that Amanda lives in an “RV” instead of a “manufactured home.” To be clear, it is perfectly legal to live in an “RV” in Sierra Vista. The city just says Amanda cannot have an RV on the property she owns. Why? Because of the technicalities of the city’s zoning laws. As Amanda learned, zoning laws regulate even the minutest detail of our lives, and can be the difference, as here, between having a home of your own and being homeless. Now, Amanda and her neighbors are teaming up with the Institute for Justice to sue the city and protect their RV homes. No one should be made homeless in the name of zoning.

IJ’s Justin Wilson discusses “Does Forfeiture Work? Evidence from the States” with author Dr. Brian Kelly of Seattle University. The study is the first to look at whether state forfeiture actually fights crime or is instead used to “police for profit.” Looking at data from five states that use forfeiture extensively—Arizona, Hawaii, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota—it finds forfeiture doesn’t work to fight crime but is used to raise revenue. These results are particularly salient during the COVID-19 pandemic, when local governments are facing budget shortfalls. They also add to mounting evidence that forfeiture fails to serve the public good, all while violating Americans’ property and due process rights, showing the pressing need for forfeiture reform. Check out the report here: https://ij.org/report/does-forfeiture-work

What should have been a routine dental appointment at his local VA took a frightening turn for 70-year-old Jose Oliva when security guards tackled him and threw him to the ground, injuring and humiliating him. When he sought to hold them accountable for their outrageous behavior, he found that the law protected those who abused their power—not him. In this episode, we dig into his story and what it means for millions of Americans. Host: Melanie Hildreth Guests: IJ Attorneys Alexa Gervasi and Patrick Jaicomo More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

In 2015, New Mexico abolished a controversial practice known as civil forfeiture. Critics of the reform claimed it would be a gift to criminals, increasing crime and making it harder for police to do their jobs. In this episode, we talk about what things look like in New Mexico now, five years post-reform. We also dig into the broader findings of new research that presents the largest-ever collection of state and federal forfeiture data. Read the report here: https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-3/ Host: Melanie Hildreth Guests: IJ Senior Research Analyst Jennifer McDonald and IJ Senior Attorney Wesley Hottot. More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Jim and Cliff Courtney have tried for 23 years to transport customers to their family’s businesses, only to be blocked by government every step of the way. The infamous Slaughter-House Cases stripped Americans of most economic liberties BUT explicitly protected the right to use the navigable waters as a right of national citizenship. The 9th Circuit, however, ruled that states can flatly bar INTRAstate transportation on the navigable waters. If precedent means anything, the Courtney brothers should win. https://ij.org/case/lake-chelan-ferries/

The Catherine H. Barber Memorial Homeless Shelter is the only option for people experiencing temporary homelessness in all of Wilkes County, North Carolina. It’s been serving the community there for more than 30 years, and its record is exemplary. But when the shelter tried to apply for a permit for a new building in an ideal location (near businesses and public transit but far from residential areas) their application was rejected, even though the shelter met all the town’s requirements. In this episode we discuss the situation, and how—and whether—the Constitution applies to local zoning boards issuing permits. Host: Melanie Hildreth Guests: IJ Senior Attorney Jeff Rowes and IJ Attorney Diana Simpson More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Civil forfeiture is a massive unjustified threat to property and due process rights. As the third edition of Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture shows, most state laws still stack the deck against property owners and give law enforcement perverse financial incentives to pursue property over justice. Proponents claim forfeiture is an important crime-fighting tool, but new research finds otherwise: There was no increase in crime after New Mexico abolished civil forfeiture and the profit incentive in 2015. Strong forfeiture reform does not sacrifice public safety. As states and Congress look for ways to create a fairer criminal justice system, one reform everyone should be able to agree on is ending civil forfeiture and the perverse profit incentive that fuels it. https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-3/

Elizabeth Brokamp is a professional counselor, meaning she uses talk therapy to help people feel better. During the COVID pandemic, online teletherapy has allowed her to continue providing aid in difficult times. But D.C.’s restrictions on teletherapy have forced her to turn people away, even though she believes they would benefit from her help. https://ij.org/press-release/mental-health-professional-sues-d-c-for-the-right-to-teleconference-with-clients/ Elizabeth is located (and licensed) in Virginia, near the D.C. border, and ordinarily she would meet with D.C. residents in-person at her Virginia office. But now she is only seeing clients online. Elizabeth is not licensed in D.C., and she cannot talk to new D.C. clients without violating D.C.’s licensing laws. For Elizabeth, the pandemic has heightened longstanding frustration with the way occupational licensing interferes with teletherapy. Elizabeth has had clients move out of state who have asked to continue seeing her online, but licensing restrictions have made that impossible. And, with two states and D.C. closely packed together in a single metropolitan area, licensing restrictions make it difficult to offer teletherapy as an option for clients who cannot schedule time to meet in person. These restrictions on teletherapy violate the First Amendment. Professional counselors talk to their clients; they listen to their clients’ concerns, ask questions, and provide advice and guidance. Elizabeth does not prescribe medication, perform medical procedures, or do anything other than talk. And, under the First Amendment, the government cannot prohibit unauthorized talking. So, Elizabeth has teamed up with the Institute for Justice to challenge D.C.’s restrictions on teletherapy. If the lawsuit is successful, Elizabeth will be able to provide her services to D.C. residents during the pandemic without worrying about D.C.’s arbitrary licensing restrictions. After the pandemic has ended, victory will allow Elizabeth to offer expanded teletherapy to D.C. residents. And victory will also set a precedent that can be used to challenge restrictions on teletherapy nationwide.

Special investigators, trumped up charges, and a night in jail. What happened to Sylvia Gonzalez is truly outrageous—and the local government’s reaction to her efforts to hold them accountable is even worse. In this episode, hear Sylvia’s story and the latest in her fight to ensure what happened to her doesn’t happen to anyone else. Host: Melanie Hildreth Guests: IJ Attorneys Anya Bidwell and Patrick Jaicomo More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

CORRECTION: The private law firm representing the Town of Eagle told Annalyse Victor that it would take at least $45,000—not $20,000—to cover their fees. “Life on the farm” conjures images of wide-open spaces, grazing animals, and lemonade on the front porch. That is, unless you’re in the Town of Eagle, Wisconsin, where “life on the farm” means endless property inspections and abusive code enforcement. https://ij.org/case/eagle-wi-fines-and-fees/ The Town of Eagle, a small municipality where most of the 3,500 residents live on multi-acre tracts of land, has weaponized its code enforcement to punish local residents and to produce a profit. With the help of Municipal Law & Litigation Group—a private law firm that is paid by the hour to prosecute code violations—the town uses its codes to retaliate against citizens who speak out against town officials, to fine citizens tens of thousands of dollars for minor violations, and to pass the attorneys’ fees on to unwitting citizens. The law firm has even threatened citizens with jailtime if they can’t pay up. The town subverts basic constitutional rights, devastating the residents unfortunate enough to be caught in the town’s crosshairs. But the law is clear: governments may not infect their enforcement systems with perverse financial incentives. Prosecutors must serve the interests of justice, not the interests of their pocketbooks. Nor may towns retaliate against their citizens for engaging in constitutionally protected activity, such as criticizing local government. If a code is worth enforcing, it must be enforced uniformly, without bias, and to protect public health and safety. And governments may only impose fines for a code violation that are reasonable and proportionate to the violation. The town’s officials have been skirting these constitutional requirements for far too long, but they can’t evade the law any longer. The Institute for Justice teamed up with Erica and Zach Mallory, and Annalyse and Joseph Victor, and filed challenges in Wisconsin state court to hold the town, town board and the Municipal Law & Litigation Group accountable for their unconstitutional code enforcement practices.

IJ clients are ordinary people fighting back against outrageous government abuse. We defend our clients free of charge to protect the rights of all Americans. Stand with us to make this country more free and just. For a limited time, all tax-deductible donations from new donors will be matched dollar for dollar! Donate here: https://ij.org/support/give-now/online?utm_campaign=20201201-promovideo&utm_medium=Website&utm_source=Native+Social

In 2020, debates about veggie burgers and almond milk may sound like small potatoes. But controversies about how the government can regulate the way that companies talk about these foods and other products actually have important implications for free speech. In this episode of Deep Dive, we talk about what the debate is, and why it matters. More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing the fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. In each episode, host Melanie Hildreth talks with litigators, researchers, and activists to give listeners an in-depth, inside look at cutting-edge legal and policy issues—and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

What is qualified immunity? How does it work? Do police officers need qualified immunity to protect their split-second decisions? Here are some facts on the controversial judicial doctrine that lets government officials escape lawsuits when they violate constitutional rights. https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability/

When Kathy Hay set up a little free pantry in her backyard last December, she had no idea that an unprecedented crisis was about to create thousands of newly-jobless neighbors scrambling to find food for their families. At the time, she just wanted to share food with her lower-income neighbors and give back to a community that had supported her when she was having a hard time putting food on her own table. https://ij.org/press-release/amid-crisis-neighbor-fights-for-right-to-help-feed-others-in-need/ Unfortunately, no good deed goes unpunished. Rather than sending her a note of thanks, Asotin County sent her a cease and desist letter in February, demanding that she shut down the pantry. To reopen, the county said that she has to pay annual fees, a fine and obtain a burdensome permit. If she tried to reopen without complying, the county threatened criminal prosecution. Now Kathy and two of her neighbors who used the pantry have partnered with the Institute for Justice to fight back. Today, they filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit to protect their right to share food with each other. The lawsuit is part of IJ’s overall effort to respond to the current health and economic crisis by working to cut red tape hampering individuals’ ability to help one another. “With the state’s food banks running low on food and an unprecedented number of Washingtonians out of work, stopping neighbors from helping each other is the last thing the government should be doing right now,” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Erica Smith. “Kathy has a constitutional right to share food with others at her home, and needy people have a right to accept willing food donations.” Many of Kathy’s neighbors in the working-class town of Clarkston, Washington, struggle to put food on their table. Kathy herself has struggled to make ends meet in the past and wanted to help. Rather than donate to her local food bank, Kathy wanted to do something that allowed her neighbors to be more engaged in helping one another. So after doing a little research, she set up a “little free pantry” in her backyard. Little free pantries are small structures—typically the size of a kitchen cabinet—where people can donate or take food. Similar to the “little free library” movement, thousands of Americans have built little free pantries to help fight hunger. In fact, many little lending librarians are converting their boxes to pantries in light of the current crisis. “The ability to safely share food is now more important than ever,” said Caroline Grace Brothers, a constitutional law fellow at the Institute for Justice. “Before the current crisis, Kathy made sure the food being donated was safe and that the pantry itself was clean and orderly. And now, given the current crisis, she’s more than willing to take additional measures to ensure the food being donated is safe.” Kathy’s pantry took off immediately. People took and donated fresh produce, canned goods and other foods from the pantry. Kathy estimates that her little free pantry served at least a dozen needy people each day. Two of those people were Dawna Larson and Brooklyn Anderson, who were both grateful to have access to free food for themselves and their family. Everyone appreciated the pantry except the Asotin County Board of Health. About two weeks after Kathy opened her pantry, the county concluded that little free pantries should be treated like institutional food banks or soup kitchens. That means that, even though many in her community are struggling with food insecurity, the county has prohibited Kathy from sharing food with them at her own home until she follows the long list of “Donated Food Distributing Organization” regulations. Even though no one had gotten sick from the food in the pantry, the County claimed these regulations were necessary to prevent foodborne illness. Among other requirements, a Donated Food Distributing Organization must undergo the complicated and burdensome process to become a 501(c) charitable nonprofit organization, submit an annual written plan detailing its operations, pay an annual fee and have a commercial-grade kitchen (that cannot be in a home kitchen) if it provides any fresh food. Even if Kathy secured the permit, she would still be banned from sharing fresh produce, fresh bread and any other food, except shelf stable foods with “tamper evident” packaging. Adding salt to the wound, the County told Kathy that she could not reopen the pantry until she paid a County “invoice” for the time the County spent investigating her pantry. “By Asotin’s reading of the law, it is perfectly legal for a farm to sell food at a roadside stand using an “honor box,” but illegal for Kathy to do the same with food from the grocery store,” said Caroline Grace Brothers. “The only difference is that farm stands cater to foodies, while Kathy’s pantry caters to individuals struggling to make ends meet.”

Most people think they know what “precedent” means in the law, but the concept is actually more complicated than most realize! Precedent is ancient, but when senators are grilling judicial nominees about precedent, are they actually using the concept in a much more modern way? In today’s episode, we discuss the kinds of cases that set precedent, how it works, and just how expansive—or limited—precedent can be. More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing the fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. In each episode, host Melanie Hildreth talks with litigators, researchers, and activists to give listeners an in-depth, inside look at cutting-edge legal and policy issues—and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

When the Catherine H. Barber Memorial Shelter applied for a zoning permit to open at a new facility in North Wilkesboro, its board of directors was confident that the town would grant the permit. After all, the building is in an ideal location, near businesses and public transit but far from residential areas, and it meets the town’s requirements for homeless shelters. They assumed they would get the permit and could then shift to renovating the space to meet their needs. But one thing they didn’t expect was the town Board of Adjustment to break its own rules—as well as state law and the Constitution—to find a reason to deny the permit. https://ij.org/case/north-carolina-shelter-zoning/ Citing the shelter’s supposed lack of “harmony” with the community, among other reasons, on September 9, 2020, the Board of Adjustment rejected the Shelter’s application. Now, with the help of the Institute for Justice, the Barber Shelter is fighting back. Today it filed a lawsuit to the challenge the Board’s denial and stand up for the shelter’s right to use private property for private charity. “There is not a ‘harmony exception’ to the Constitution’s protection of private property,” said Diana Simpson, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, which represents the Barber Shelter. “The Supreme Court has made it clear that when the government limits people’s property rights, it must follow the rules and have a rational reason for imposing those limitations. The Town of North Wilkesboro and its Board of Adjustment could not point to a single good reason to reject the Barber Shelter, but they denied the permit anyway. From their actions, it is clear that they just don’t want a homeless shelter anywhere.” The Catherine H. Barber Memorial Shelter opened its doors more than three decades ago. As the only shelter in all of Wilkes County, N.C., most clients are experiencing temporary homelessness due to acute economic distress, domestic abuse, or a family breakdown. Its goal is to transition people as quickly as possible to more long-term arrangements, working with local social services agencies to help people access resources and get back on their feet. In search of new space, the Barber Shelter was relieved when a local dentist offered to donate his 3,000 square foot office building. It is in an ideal location—in the Highway Business district, just as the zoning code requires; its immediate neighbors are a mix of non-residential uses, such as a cell-phone store and gym; it is near public transit; and the state just built new sidewalks along the road. In other words, the property completely satisfies the town’s zoning requirements. But that is not enough for the Town of North Wilkesboro, which has taken steps in recent years to remove people in need from visibility. Until 2018, shelters were allowed without a special permit. But after getting wind that a nonprofit from a neighboring county was considering building a shelter in North Wilkesboro, the town amended its zoning code to add specific requirements for homeless shelters, including that they obtain a conditional-use permit from the town’s Board of Adjustment. The Barber Shelter’s conditional-use-permit application objectively satisfied the zoning code’s homeless shelter ordinance. Even the Board of Adjustment agreed: “[T]he issue here is that it meets the zoning requirements, but that doesn’t mean it belongs there,” said Board of Adjustment Chair Lisa Casey. So the Board of Adjustment came up with irrational reasons to deny the permit. One such reason? The supposed danger of the proximity of the Barber Shelter to the road and sidewalks, despite the fact that the zoning code requires shelters be next to busy roads and have sidewalks. “All we want to do is serve our clients and our community,” said Barber Shelter Chair Elizabeth Huffman. “It isn’t right that the town is making up reasons to keep us out.” The lawsuit asks the court to hold that the Barber Shelter’s constitutional rights are violated by the town requiring that homeless shelters obtain a conditional-use permit, even though similar uses, like drug rehabilitation facilities, don’t need one. It also argues that the Board of Adjustment violated the U.S. Constitution in denying the Barber Shelter a conditional-use permit based on irrational reasons not supported by evidence. “The principles of this case affect Americans everywhere,” said IJ attorney Alexa Gervasi. “Allowing the Board’s decision here to stand paves the way for zoning boards to invent irrational reasons to deny any applicant their permit, regardless of their proposed use.” In recent years, the Institute for Justice has particularly focused on the abuse of zoning laws through excessive fines and fees to deny freedom and opportunity to those of modest means. This case expands on that work. https://ij.org/case/north-carolina-shelter-zoning/

Wildfires are raging across the West, and California is grappling with a record-breaking season. Why, then, does the state tell qualified firefighters that they can’t earn a living fighting fires? The state’s irrational law barring people like IJ’s client Dario Gurrola from working isn’t the only one of its kind on the books. Learn more about this and other collateral consequences laws in this episode of Deep Dive. More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing the fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. In each episode, host Melanie Hildreth talks with litigators, researchers, and activists to give listeners an in-depth, inside look at cutting-edge legal and policy issues—and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Sylvia is not alone in fighting for her rights. Will you help the Institute for Justice help Sylvia and others like her? https://ij.org/support/give-now/?utm_source=youtube&utm_campaign=sylvia_video&utm_medium=youtube_description There is no better way to make a difference in the lives of everyday Americans than to run for local office. After a fulfilling career in communications, Sylvia Gonzalez did just that. She knocked on the doors of 500 residents in Castle Hills, Texas, and squeezed out a win, beating a well-connected and powerful incumbent. In the process, Sylvia became the first Hispanic woman to become a councilmember in her hometown. https://ij.org/press-release/after-being-arrested-for-speaking-out-a-texas-woman-sues-to-hold-gov-officials-accountable/ After her election, Sylvia got right to work. Acting on her campaign promise, she helped spearhead a citizens’ petition advocating for the removal of Castle Hills’ city manager Ryan Rapelye. The petition was a non-binding vote of no confidence in Rapelye, who had come under criticism for mistreating his employees and failing to address citizens’ concerns, such as fixing their streets. The petition did not sit well with Castle Hills’ incumbents, whose interests were well-represented by the city manager. Within weeks of winning her election, the harassment began. First, the city attorney, who was aligned with the mayor and the city manager, claimed she wasn’t properly sworn in and replaced Gonzalez on the city council with the woman she’d just beaten. When a judge reinstated Gonzalez, the city officials didn’t give up. In fact, that was only the beginning. In the midst of their attempt to unseat her, the mayor and police chief used bogus charges and a rarely-used law to have Gonzalez arrested, booked, and thrown in jail—but Gonzalez had done nothing wrong. Once the county prosecutor got involved, he dropped the case against her. Finally, after beating back the city twice, a group of citizens aligned with the mayor filed a lawsuit claiming Sylvia was incompetent. Sylvia stood her ground and won—but by then the damage had been done. Sylvia’s mugshot had been splashed across the news and her reputation dragged through the mud. Exhausted—with tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills—she stopped the fight to reclaim her seat. The city’s retaliation clearly violates Sylvia’s First Amendment rights. If America’s democracy means anything at all, it means that a city can’t arrest its residents for speaking out against a city manager. The fundamental right of political speech is high in the hierarchy of First Amendment values and the courts exist to ensure that it is protected. On September 29, 2020, Sylvia partnered with the Institute for Justice to file a federal lawsuit against Castle Hills to vindicate her First Amendment rights and hold the city officials accountable. The lawsuit is part of IJ’s Project on Immunity and Accountability, which is devoted to the simple idea that government officials are not above the law; if citizens must follow the law, then government must follow the Constitution.

As anyone who’s seen a Cheerios box or Coca-Cola bottle knows, a product’s name is often the biggest thing on it. Other words on product labels are usually much smaller, except for large warnings required to highlight dangers, like on cigarette and alcohol labels. https://ij.org/press-release/new-lawsuit-challenges-unconstitutional-oklahoma-labeling-law-that-tries-to-herd-vegan-food-companies-out-of-the-state/ But this year, at the meat lobby’s prompting, Oklahoma will start treating safe and healthy plant-based meat alternatives like these products. Oklahoma’s new law forces plant-based food businesses to completely overhaul their labels with mandatory, oversized disclaimers. This compelled-speech requirement would have a devastating effect on companies like Upton’s Naturals—an independently owned, Chicago-based manufacturer of vegan foods. Upton’s Naturals markets its foods to consumers around the nation who are specifically looking for alternatives to meat. Unsurprisingly, Upton’s Natural’s labels proudly state that its foods are “100% Vegan.” But under Oklahoma’s so-called “Meat Consumer Protection Act”—which goes into effect on November 1, 2020—these and similar labels become illegal, with potential fines and even criminal penalties for violations. Oklahoma’s law has nothing to do with protecting consumers and everything to do with protecting the meat industry from honest competition. No reasonable consumer who buys Upton’s Naturals’ foods thinks they’re buying animal meat. Instead, people seek out these foods because they want to enjoy something tasty not made from animals. And Upton’s Naturals has a right to advertise its foods to those consumers using the plain language that consumers understand. That is why Upton’s Naturals—and the Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA) of which it’s a member—teamed up with the Institute for Justice to file a federal lawsuit challenging Oklahoma’s unconstitutional compelled-disclaimer requirement.

David and Peg Schroeder are lifelong residents of Wilmington, North Carolina. They raised their family in Wilmington and were small business owners in the city. After retiring to the mountains, the Schroeders bought a townhome in Wilmington as a place to stay when they visit family and to maintain their ties with the community. To afford the townhome, they planned also to offer it as a vacation rental when they were not living there. But now the city of Wilmington is trying to ruin their retirement plan by taking their right to rent away from them. https://ij.org/case/north-carolina-amortization/ The Schroeders made substantial investments to renovate their townhome to make it suitable as a vacation rental—all based on the correct belief that it would be perfectly legal for them to do so. After several months and about $75,000 in renovation costs, the Schroeders had the property ready to rent. That is when the City changed the rules on them—passing a zoning ordinance that created a hard cap on how many properties were allowed to engage in vacation rentals. And under the cap, any property that fell within 400 feet of another vacation rental would be prohibited from operating as a vacation rental. Finally, to decide which property owners would retain their right to offer vacation rentals, the city devised a randomized lottery process. The result was an arbitrary, zero-sum process that pitted neighbor against neighbor in a raffle for property rights. And because the Schroeders’ neighbor drew a winning ticket, the Schroeders lost. Using an oppressive and little-known process called “amortization,” Wilmington gave properties that did not win the lottery one year to continue operating. At the end of that time, people like the Schroeders would have to quit renting. That is because, as the theory of amortization goes, the Schroeders would be able to use that one-year period to recoup their investment in their property. And according to the city, this absolves the city of having to pay the Schroeders “just compensation” for their taking of the Schroeders’ property rights. In other words, Wilmington believes that it can take the Schroeders’ property and not pay for it because the Schroeders had time to cover their own losses. But if the city wants to take the Schroeders’ property rights, it has to pay for them. What Wilmington cannot do is turn peoples’ property rights into lottery tickets and raffle them off. Nor can it create a small group of people allowed to exercise rental rights at the expense of everyone else. The North Carolina Constitution protects the Schroeders’ right to rent and it prohibits the city from granting exclusive privileges and creating rental monopolies that prohibit everyone else from renting. Now the Schroeders are fighting back, determined not to lose the property right they invested so much to acquire. That is why they have teamed up with the Institute for Justice to challenge Wilmington’s unconstitutional zoning and amortization scheme. https://ij.org/case/north-carolina-amortization/

Law enforcement agencies routinely seize currency from travelers at airports using civil forfeiture—a legal process that allows agencies to take and keep property without ever charging owners with a crime, let alone securing a conviction. In this episode, we discuss the real stories of victims of this abusive practice, the new IJ report—"Jetway Robbery?”—that shows just how widespread it is, and what travelers need to know to protect their property. More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing the fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. In each episode, host Melanie Hildreth talks with litigators, researchers, and activists to give listeners an in-depth, inside look at cutting-edge legal and policy issues—and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Law enforcement agencies routinely seize currency from travelers at airports nationwide using civil forfeiture—a legal process that allows agencies to take and keep property without ever charging owners with a crime, let alone securing a conviction. This study is the first to examine airport currency seizures by Department of Homeland Security agencies. It is also the first to use data from the Treasury Department’s forfeiture database, the Seized Assets and Case Tracking System or SEACATS. Read the report: https://ij.org/report/jetway-robbery/ Covering 2000 through 2016, the study quantifies just how often DHS agencies have seized currency at airports—and just how much currency has flowed into the federal government’s coffers as a result. It finds DHS airport currency seizures put innocent people’s property at risk without appearing to advance serious crime-fighting objectives. Indeed, in most DHS airport currency seizure cases, a person’s only “crime” is failure to file required paperwork. To ensure another innocent American never loses property unjustly, Congress must reform civil forfeiture. Read the report: https://ij.org/report/jetway-robbery/

When it handed down Espinoza v. MT Dept. of Revenue this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court added one more facet to a year that has already upended the status quo when it comes to education. In this episode, we discuss where the Espinoza case came from, what the ruling means, and what it really does to the separation of church and state. More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing the fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. In each episode, host Melanie Hildreth talks with litigators, researchers, and activists to give listeners an in-depth, inside look at cutting-edge legal and policy issues—and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

As the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the country, public health professionals issued dire warning that the nation could face a critical shortage of hospital beds. At the height of the pandemic, no one had the time to stop and ask: “How could one of the world’s most advanced healthcare systems run out of hospital beds?” But now, a new report by the Institute for Justice (IJ) details how a patchwork of decades-old laws hindered healthcare providers’ ability to meet the needs of the nation. https://ij.org/report/conning-the-competition/ In “Conning the Competition: A Nationwide Survey of Certificate of Need Laws,” IJ’s attorneys detail how certificate of need laws, or “CON” laws, in 35 states set hard caps on a variety of medical services—including much-needed ICU beds—in the name of preventing “oversupply.” In reality, the CON laws that remain in place serve only one purpose: to protect existing healthcare providers from competition. They are the vestiges of a discredited attempt to govern healthcare access by formulas and regulators, rather than allowing doctors and patients to work together to best meet the needs of the nation. “It is telling that the majority of institutions that support CON laws are those that benefit from them,” said IJ Attorney Jaimie Cavanaugh, who co-authored the report. “In reality, they only serve to protect existing providers from competition.” The report was released in conjunction with IJ’s “2021 Initiative,” which seeks to take the lessons learned in 2020—including the need to eliminate CON laws—and work with lawmakers at the state and local levels to identify and craft substantive, responsive, and impactful reforms ahead of the 2021 legislative session. https://ij.org/report/conning-the-competition/

With an increasing number of parents desperately seeking educational alternatives for the upcoming school year, teachers’ unions and school districts are doubling down on the status quo. Worse, in many places they are moving to take away options that had been available to parents for years. It has never been more clear that the time has come to move past old ways of thinking about education and put families in control. IJ senior attorney Tim Keller and a special guest, Corey DeAngelis of the Reason Foundation, discuss what a more decentralized, student-centered system would look like, as well as current barriers to change. More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing the fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. In each episode, host Melanie Hildreth talks with litigators, researchers, and activists to give listeners an in-depth, inside look at cutting-edge legal and policy issues—and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court created the so-called Open Fields Doctrine. The result was an exception to 4th Amendment restrictions on the government’s ability to snoop on Americans. With a new case in Tennessee, IJ is pushing forward a strategy to restore those limits and protect basic property rights. Learn more about the state of the law—and where we go from here—in today’s episode. More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing the fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. In each episode, host Melanie Hildreth talks with litigators, researchers, and activists to give listeners an in-depth, inside look at cutting-edge legal and policy issues—and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

After a tree fell on her house, IJ client Sarah Hohenberg’s journey through Memphis’ Environmental Court left her bankrupt, homeless, stripped of her possessions, and a fugitive from the law. We discuss how this happened—and how IJ’s new lawsuit aims to end this kind of abuse. Case page: https://ij.org/case/memphis-environmental-court/ More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing the fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. In each episode, host Melanie Hildreth talks with litigators, researchers, and activists to give listeners an in-depth, inside look at cutting-edge legal and policy issues—and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

In this clip, we talk about what qualified immunity means and how it came to be, as well as what it looks like in practice and why changes to immunity doctrines are essential to protecting individual rights. Watch or listen to the full episode: https://ij.org/podcast/how-government-officials-can-blow-up-your-house-with-grenades-and-get-away-with-it-by-claiming-immunity/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight from freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, giving listeners and inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

For many, talking about dying is—unfortunately—a taboo subject. So, as someone nears the end of their life, getting answers and finding support can be difficult. That’s what end-of-life doulas do—they help families plan and care for someone transitioning from life to death. From helping families plan for the day that someone passes away, to providing emotional and practical support to the dying person and their family along the way, doulas offer a set of unique services rooted in a holistic approach to life and death. But don’t tell that to the regulators in the California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau (CCFB), which—to preserve the funeral director monopoly on end-of-life services—have cracked down on retirees Akhila Murphy and Donna Peizer, two Sacramento-area end-of-life doulas who operate a tiny nonprofit called Full Circle of Living and Dying. In November 2019, the CCFB responded to an anonymous complaint and ruled that Akhila and Donna were engaging in the illegal act of running a funeral establishment without a state-issued funeral-home license. The CCFB said that to continue to help families, Akhila or Donna must obtain a state-issued funeral director’s license, and that Full Circle must operate a full-service funeral home, capable of storing and embalming bodies, neither of which Akhila or Donna do. Without the time, financial resources or desire to obtain the burdensome license and build a funeral home, Akhila and Donna faced a choice: Either they could shut down Full Circle or fight back. They choose the latter. Today, Akhila and Donna—along with the Institute for Justice (IJ) and a group of families who want Full Circle’s services—filed a federal lawsuit to vindicate their right to help those approaching the end of their life. “The Funeral Bureau is silencing free speech and interfering with the ancient right to hold a funeral in a private home,” said Jeff Rowes, a senior attorney at IJ. “California cannot force end-of-life doulas to become funeral directors to carry out their labor of love: providing compassion and guidance to the dying and their families.” Unlike funeral directors, whose primary set of responsibilities is focused on the physical transportation or embalming of a recently deceased body, end-of-life doulas offer families experience and peace of mind throughout the entire process, both before and after death. Part of their post-death work involves helping families hold their own funeral in a private home. Home funerals are legal in all 50 states because they are safe and simple. The remains of a deceased person present no public-health risk in the hours and days following death. Families are increasingly opting for home funerals for a variety of reasons: to care for their loved one personally, to honor the deceased in the familiar comforts of a private home or to observe religious customs, such as the Catholic Wake or Jewish Shemira. Once the home funeral is over, Akhila and Donna rely on a licensed funeral director to take the remains for final disposition. “The goal of Full Circle of Living and Dying has always been to create a community that fully understands options and rights in death and dying. We advocate for the dying and empower families and communities to bring back the tradition of family-led death care through conversation, guidance, education and local resources,” said Full Circle Co-Founder Akhila Murphy. “We asked the Bureau for an explanation of what we did wrong. They told us to get our own lawyers if we wanted to know. That’s when we teamed up with IJ to defend our rights and the rights of consumers to know all their options in end-of-life care.” Akhila, Donna and the other end-of-life doulas that work at Full Circle have a constitutional right to provide advice and aid to families in mourning a loved one. Specifically, the First Amendment protects the right of Americans to speak, and the Supreme Court has held that providing advice or instruction is protected speech. Earlier this month, in fact, a federal appeals court ruled that a Sacramento-area vocational school represented by IJ had a First Amendment right to teach students, regardless of their educational background. The Constitution also requires that governments have a legitimate reason for denying Americans their right to earn an honest living. Here, the government’s only interests appear to be blind economic protectionism for funeral directors and bureaucracy for its own sake. “Akhila and Donna represent a movement that helps families experience the process of dying and death in a way that is unfamiliar to many now, but has been part of American culture since the founding,” said IJ Constitutional Law Fellow Adam Griffin. “This resurgence of interest in home funerals led the CCFB to overreact wildly, trying to shut down Full Circle to protect the funeral industry from the options that end-of-life doulas offer consumers. That is unconstitutional, and we will vindicate our clients’ rights.”

In a recent video, Tucker Carlson defends the doctrine of qualified immunity. But here are 6 things he gets wrong in one minute. Patrick's response on Twitter: https://twitter.com/pjaicomo/status/1276539693543428096 The Institute for Justice’s Project on Immunity and Accountability: https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability/ #qualifiedimmunity

This term the U.S. Supreme Court closely considered eight different petitions dealing with the controversial doctrine of qualified immunity. Ultimately, it denied them all. In this episode, we talk about what the Court’s decision means for IJ’s fight for police and government accountability—and where we go from here. https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing the fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. In each episode, host Melanie Hildreth talks with litigators, researchers, and activists to give listeners an in-depth, inside look at cutting-edge legal and policy issues—and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere.. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

When a court proceeding may result in a person losing their home, the U.S. Constitution demands a fair process with rigorous safeguards against erroneous deprivation. For defendants appearing in the Division 14 of the Shelby County, Tennessee, General Sessions Court, Criminal Division, which hears housing code cases and is known as the Environmental Court, the process they receive is anything but fair. https://ij.org/case/memphis-environmental-court/ Sarah Hohenberg’s journey through the Environmental Court has left her bankrupt, homeless, stripped of her possessions, and a fugitive from the law. In 2009, a tree fell on her home causing significant damage. While she tried to get her insurance to repair her home, Ms. Hohenberg’s neighbors sued her in the Environmental Court, trapping her there for a decade. It is not an overstatement to say that this suit ruined Ms. Hohenberg’s life—she lost her house, the court’s multi-year proceedings caused her to deplete her finances on lawyers, and the court ordered her possessions removed from the house, leaving them to be stolen or carried away. Unable to meet the court’s ever-changing repair goalposts, Ms. Hohenberg lost the home that she owned outright. Humiliated and destitute, she fled to Mississippi as a fugitive because she refused to sign over her home. She is now ill, bankrupt, and homeless. Like Sarah, Joseph Hanson also lost his home in Environmental Court proceedings after a tree fell on it. Despite no valid testimonial or evidentiary basis, the Environmental Court jailed Mr. Hanson numerous times and bulldozed his home and destroyed his possessions. He, too, is now homeless. Ms. Hohenberg and Mr. Hanson arrived at this spot through a woefully constitutionally deficient process that took years to complete. In the Environmental Court, witnesses are not sworn in, nor do they attest that their testimony will be truthful. There is regularly hearsay testimony. Evidence, such as it is, is not authenticated. People “testify” from the courtroom audience. When witnesses testify, there is no foundation laid to determine their ability to provide evidence. The court does not follow the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure or the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. Instead, the Environmental Court’s proceedings are governed by the Shelby County General Session Rules—Criminal Division Rules, which is six pages long and largely concerns courtroom decorum. Worse yet, the Environmental Court is not a “court of record” under Tennessee law, meaning that its proceedings are not transcribed or recorded. Appeals from the Environmental Court go directly to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, meaning that while a person may, in theory, appeal from an Environmental Court decision, there is no record for the Court of Appeals to examine. It is a right to appeal in name only. Now, Sarah and Joseph have partnered with the Institute for Justice to ensure that court procedures involving occupied homes follow stringent procedural protections. This case aims to ensure that the Environmental Court, and similar housing courts across the country, comply with the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution. https://ij.org/case/memphis-environmental-court/

The last thing a sick patient wants to do after a doctor’s appointment is stand in line at a pharmacy for basic treatment like anti-nausea medication—and, in most of the country, they don’t have to. https://ij.org/case/montana-doctor-dispensing/ Forty-four states and the District of Columbia allow patients to purchase medications directly from their prescribing doctor. This practice, known as “doctor dispensing,” is a safe and effective way to increase access to treatment, and is offered by a majority of doctors nationwide. But not in Montana. In Big Sky Country, doctors are banned from dispensing unless they practice more than 10 miles from a pharmacy. Otherwise, doctors can dispense “occasionally,” “in an emergency,” free samples, or when a pharmacy does not have the prescribed medication. These narrow (and often vague) exceptions make it impossible for doctors to offer this beneficial service for all of their patients. Montana’s ban does not sit well with Dr. Carol Bridges, Dr. Todd Bergland or Dr. Cara Harrop, who would like to dispense routine medications to their own patients. All three are family doctors who regularly prescribe medications for common issues like high cholesterol, stomach bugs and seasonal allergies. And all three feel their patients would benefit if they could offer direct access to the medications they prescribe, right when they prescribe them. They have a point. Research shows that doctors and pharmacies are equally safe. Moreover, there is evidence that making routine medications more accessible on the front end has the potential to increase patients’ adherence to their prescribed course of care, which is good for patients, doctors and the broader health care system. Despite these benefits, Dr. Bridges, Dr. Bergland and Dr. Harrop—who work in Missoula, Whitefish and Polson, respectively—are banned from dispensing and for no better reason than that they work within 10 miles of pharmacies. Montana’s ban has nothing to do with protecting patients and everything to do with protecting pharmacies from economic competition. That is unconstitutional. The Montana Constitution forbids government from imposing unreasonable and protectionist restrictions on the right to pursue a chosen business and these protections are no less applicable to licensed doctors than anyone else. That is why Dr. Bridges, Dr. Bergland and Dr. Harrop have teamed up with the Institute for Justice to file a lawsuit challenging Montana’s unconstitutional ban on doctor dispensing.

Today, New Orleans-area resident Marshall Sookram joined Hakeem Meade in a class action lawsuit against a judge on the New Orleans Criminal District Court for violating their right to neutral adjudication. https://ij.org/press-release/new-orleans-area-residents-file-class-action-lawsuit-over-due-process-violations-in-criminal-proceedings/ Judge Paul A. Bonin previously ordered both men to pretrial ankle monitoring by ETOH Monitoring, LLC (ETOH). What the two men and many other New Orleans-area defendants did not know is that both of ETOH’s executives—one of whom is Judge Bonin’s former law partner—had together contributed over $9,000 to Judge Bonin’s judicial election campaigns and had even loaned money to the judge’s campaign. The assessment of fees and deprivation of liberty involving a conflict of interest are violations of due process guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Now, Hakeem and Marshall are fighting back with the Institute for Justice (IJ) and the Law Office of William Most to ensure that ankle monitoring decisions are made without bias or the appearance of bias. This mission is especially vital now that COVID-19 has led many municipalities to monitor defendants with ankle monitors—and make the defendants pay for the monitoring service—instead of placing them in jail. “Hakeem was placed on an ankle monitor with a company that has significant ties to the judge deciding his case. This is a direct conflict of interest and is unconstitutional,” IJ Senior Attorney Bill Maurer said. “Louisianans need to trust that their criminal justice system is free from bias or the appearance of bias. This lawsuit will help hold it accountable.” The personal and financial relationship between Judge Bonin and ETOH was revealed in 2019 in a report by Court Watch NOLA (CWN), a judicial watchdog organization. Pretrial defendants, who were overwhelmingly indigent, had to pay $100 to ETOH for the installation of their monitoring devices and then $10 per day for monitoring. According to the same 2019 report, Judge Bonin also required his staff to “provide the defendant or the defendant’s family members with the contact information for ETOH.” Judge Bonin would sometimes even refuse to release defendants from jail until the family had arranged for ETOH to set up ankle monitoring. While Judge Bonin claims to have stopped the practice, the defendants he oversaw are still being pressured by ETOH to pay their remaining fees to the company. “Fines and fees have become a mechanism for taking property and money from our society’s most vulnerable people and handing it to government agencies and private companies performing government functions,” said IJ Attorney Jaba Tsitsuashvili. “But the purpose of the criminal justice system is to pursue justice and protect the public, not generate revenue.” These principles are especially vital because private companies have become enmeshed in the operation of state judicial systems. When private companies perform government functions, they must conform to constitutional standards. The lawsuit seeks to set boundaries on the proper use of private ankle-monitoring companies and other private companies which play a role in the judicial system. “I’m part of this lawsuit to stop this abuse in the New Orleans court system and to make sure this doesn’t happen to anybody else,” said plaintiff Marshall Sookram. Hakeem and Marshall are asking the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to issue an order declaring that judicial decisions that benefit a private party with direct ties to a judge violate the Constitution. The class action lawsuit also seeks to require the company to disgorge the fees it collected from all defendants appearing before Judge Bonin and to cancel outstanding fees. This case is the latest in IJ’s nationwide initiative to end abusive fines and fees and to ensure that the justice system operates for health and safety, not for profit. To vindicate these principles, IJ is currently litigating fines and fees cases in California (Indio and Norco), Georgia, and Missouri. IJ also launched a nationwide database surveying and grading state laws for their role in facilitating fines and fees abuses. And IJ’s Project on Immunity and Accountability litigates cases to hold government officials and those who act in concert with them accountable for violating peoples’ constitutional rights.

To many Americans, Arizona is the picture of the Wild West. The Grand Canyon, the towering Saguaro cacti, and the ancient petrified forest all bring to mind a wilderness still waiting to be tamed. That idea of Arizona freedom is what drew Joshua Killeen to return to his home state with his wife Emily. Joshua and Emily moved from California and bought undeveloped desert property in Yavapai County, in the heart of the state, envisioning a modest home for themselves and a rustic wellness and wedding retreat. Their goal was to live and run a business on their own land in harmony with the environment and with a minimum of debt. https://ij.org/case/yavapai-free-speech-and-association/ However, their entrepreneurial vision ran into the harsh reality of the Yavapai County’s expansive zoning code. While hearty pioneers may have ventured into the American West to carve out a living with few rules or laws to govern them, today building anything bigger than a shed requires complying with extensive red tape. Naively thinking they could homestead without dozens of government permission slips, Joshua and Emily built their American Dream. But in June 2018, the county told them they were not in code compliance and that they could not open their retreat for events until they acquired the permits. But the county’s punishment didn’t stop there, officials also directed them to pull down any online advertisements saying that their business would be “coming soon” or taking any advanced bookings. The county also banned Joshua and Emily from having friends and neighbors over for yoga and potluck meals, even though those events were free of charge and outside. Zoning codes often micromanage how Americans can use their property, but they cannot do so in a way that violates the U.S. Constitution, especially one’s constitutional rights to free speech and association. Joshua and Emily have teamed up with the Institute for Justice to protect their right to communicate about their future business and to welcome their friends onto their property for food, fellowship and exercise. Zoning authorities can’t punish violations any way they want. They must follow the Constitution.

With more Americans out of work than any time in recorded history, whether or not they will be able to earn a living is top of mind for many people. All too often, however, courts turn a blind eye to laws and rules that arbitrarily and unnecessarily shut people out of work. Recent state supreme court decisions indicate that’s starting to change—and the revolution can’t come fast enough. We discuss what’s happening—and why it matters—in today’s episode. https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing the fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. In each episode, host Melanie Hildreth talks with litigators, researchers, and activists to give listeners an in-depth, inside look at cutting-edge legal and policy issues—and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Today, home baker Cindy Harper joined with the Institute for Justice (IJ) and Husch Blackwell LLP to file a lawsuit challenging the City of Lincoln for bringing back regulations at the local level that were repealed by the state legislature. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://ij.org/press-release/let-them-sell-cake-lincoln-home-baker-files-lawsuit-challenging-citys-unnecessary-regulations/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 2019, the Nebraska legislature passed LB 304 to exempt home bakers from having to satisfy unnecessary permitting and inspection requirements. But within months, the City of Lincoln went rogue by imposing its own permitting and inspection requirements on home bakers. The lawsuit has taken on increased importance during the COVID-19 pandemic as consumers seek access to safe, fresh and convenient food sources more than ever. Cindy is ready to fight back in court and has partnered with the Institute for Justice to defend her right to sell safe and delicious foods from the comfort of her home. “The right to sell home-baked goods in Nebraska shouldn’t depend on what city you happen to live in,” said Cindy Harper. “Lincoln should listen to the Nebraska legislature and leave home bakers alone.” Last year, thanks in part to testimony from Cindy before the state’s legislature, Nebraska unanimously passed LB 304 and joined the vast majority of states allowing individuals to sell shelf-stable foods (such as cookies, breads, and jams) directly from home after they register with the state. Cindy promptly registered as a home baker under LB 304, planning to launch her own home-baking business. “Cindy followed Nebraska law by registering with the state as a cottage food producer,” said IJ Attorney Joshua Windham. “Lincoln should do the same.” In January 2020, the City of Lincoln unveiled its new regulations. The City’s cottage food ordinance requires producers to obtain an additional local permit and pass home inspections (conducted “as frequently as necessary”) to determine compliance with the Lincoln Food Code. The new lawsuit argues that the City cannot enact regulations that restrict rights protected by state laws. When state Senator Sue Crawford introduced LB 304, she emphasized that the shelf-stable goods covered by the law “are simply not risky foods,” and that the law was designed to “make sure that all citizens can participate in the home cottage food industry without imposing . . . overly burdensome regulations,” like permitting and inspections. The City’s ordinance defeats the point of Nebraska’s law. “Lincoln’s ordinance is a solution in search of a problem,” said IJ attorney Keith Neely. “Home-baked goods are just as safe in Lincoln as they are in the rest of Nebraska.” This case is part of IJ’s National Food Freedom Initiative. IJ is currently challenging similar regulations in North Dakota. IJ has won constitutional challenges to Wisconsin’s ban on the sale of home-baked goods and to Minnesota’s restrictions on the right to sell home-baked and home‑canned goods. IJ has also helped pass laws expanding the sale of homemade foods in several states across the country, including in Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia and Wyoming. In addition to IJ, Cindy is represented by Omaha attorney Dave Lopez of Husch Blackwell LLP.

Marc runs a home health agency, and he has watched for years as his patients have been left stranded by the existing non-emergency medical transportation companies. So, Marc responded in the most American way possible—he decided to start his own company and provide better service. After all, Marc and his employees were already driving his patients on countless other errands, so there was no good reason why they couldn’t also take those same patients to the pharmacy and to their checkups. https://ij.org/case/nebraska-con/

We’ve all been watching the unprecedented situation with COVID-19 play out. At IJ, we have a particular interest in what’s happening in the law. This episode discusses the kinds of constitutional litigation we’re seeing, as well as legal avenues that can help make life better now and those that lend themselves to longer term strategic litigation. https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing the fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. In each episode, host Melanie Hildreth talks with litigators, researchers, and activists to give listeners an in-depth, inside look at cutting-edge legal and policy issues—and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Idaho Man Sues Utah For Patently Unconstitutional, Protectionist Licensing Law ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://ij.org/press-release/idaho-man-sues-utah-for-patently-unconstitutional-protectionist-licensing-law/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Barnes learned the hard way how Utah is unlike any other state. A former police officer turned entrepreneur, Jeremy started a private investigation business three minutes from the Utah border in rural Franklin, Idaho, part of the Logan metropolitan area. He did so planning to serve clients in both Idaho and Utah. In Idaho, he does not need a state license, but when he applied for a private investigator license in Utah, he was told not to bother, because he doesn’t live in Utah. But Jeremy lives in an area with few people, and needs to be able to legally serve clients throughout the Logan metropolitan area for his business to succeed. Unable to expand his business without access to an entire state just minutes away, Jeremy was forced to postpone his dream of working on his private investigation business full time. Utah is the only state in the country with a residency requirement for private investigators, and if Jeremy lived in Utah, the licensing board would be required to give him a license because he meets all the requirements for licensure. But Jeremy isn’t giving up. He’s teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a federal lawsuit against the Utah Department of Public Safety, challenging the state’s protectionist unconstitutional residency requirement for violating the U.S. Constitution in three ways. “Utah’s residency requirement for private investigators is blatantly unconstitutional,” IJ Senior Attorney Jeff Rowes said. “States aren’t allowed to hoard jobs for their own citizens by walling off their economies from the rest of the country.” Utah’s private investigator residency requirement violates the Constitution in three ways: the law violates the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against nonresidents; it violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause by not offering the same privileges of state citizenship to nonresidents; and it violates the Commerce Clause by burdening interstate commerce by discriminating against nonresidents. “I looked into it further and saw no other states but Utah did this. I guess I was more surprised than anything.” Jeremy said. “Given where I live, I also have to work in Utah to make my business work.” Until 2011, when Utah overwhelmingly passed the residency requirement into law, Utah’s private investigator license requirements fell in line with every other state’s. What changed? The Private Investigators Association of Utah, the largest private investigator association in the state, stepped in to support this legislation. During committee hearings, Rep. Keith Grover said the requirement “prohibits less qualified out-of-state competitors from taking Utah jobs.” Rep. David Clark said at the same hearing what was obvious: that this was a “self-preservation bill.” In other words, this bill was protectionist, and became law because of special interests. “Our country was founded on the idea that we’re one nation, a United States, and Utah’s law violates this basic American principle,” IJ Constitutional Law Fellow Richard M. Hoover said. “The Supreme Court has condemned this sort of economic protectionism for nearly 200 years.” The Institute for Justice (IJ) is a nonprofit public interest law firm that fights for the right to earn an honest living. IJ is currently litigating lawsuits against protectionist laws in Minnesota, North Carolina and more.

UPDATE: Dipendra lost his case and cannot open a home health agency. The Nepali-speaking community in Louisville continues to suffer. Dipendra even asked the U.S. Supreme Court to help, but the Court denied his petition for review. In it’s opinion, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals announced: “[T]he judgment that [CON laws were] a failed experiment has the ring of truth to it. Were we Kentucky legislators ourselves, we would be inclined to think that certificate-of-need laws should be the exception, not the rule, and perhaps have outlived their own needs.” Nevertheless, that court was required to uphold the challenged certificate of need law under the government-friendly rational basis standard. But the fight is not over. IJ is working with Kentucky legislators to repeal certificate of need laws and increase access to healthcare. If you’re a Kentucky resident, reach out to your legislators and ask them to support certificate of need repeal. Dipendra Tiwari wants to provide home health care to refugees in Louisville in a language they understand. But Kentucky won’t let him because it says that service isn’t needed. How can that be? The answer is a government permission slip called a certificate of need. Nearly 100,000 Nepali speakers have been welcomed to the United States after ethnic tensions forced them out of their homes in the Himalayan country of Bhutan. Thousands of these refugees resettled in Louisville. And, just like anyone else, they need health care as they age. This situation gave Dipendra, a native Nepali speaker, an idea for a valuable service: a home health care agency catering to the refugee population, offering service in their own language. So, last year, Dipendra formed Grace Home Care and paid a $1,000 fee to submit his plan to the state. That’s when things went wrong. A $2 billion health care conglomerate—Dipendra’s future competitor—stormed in to argue that there was no need for another home health agency. Based on some back-of-the-envelope estimates, and ignoring the need for Nepali-language care that Dipendra was trying to address, Kentucky agreed. It refused to issue a certificate of need and rejected Dipendra’s application. And that’s exactly how certificates of need are supposed to work. Originating in a long-debunked effort to control costs, in practice, all they do is prevent new businesses from competing with established ones. They are why in Kentucky’s 120 counties, new home health agencies are allowed in only six. They are why Louisville itself has only nine home health agencies for 26,000 patients. And, to be clear, they have nothing to do with ensuring health or safety (which are covered by other laws). Rather, the whole point of current CON laws is to benefit established providers by stifling competition. But giant health care conglomerates don’t need the government to protect their business. And entrepreneurs shouldn’t lose their shot just because someone else happened to get there first. That’s why Dipendra has teamed up with the Institute for Justice to challenge Kentucky’s CON requirement for home health agencies in federal court. The Constitution protects the right to earn an honest living free from unreasonable government interference. And it is unreasonable for Kentucky to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Beyond Kentucky, 18 other states require CONs for home health agencies. But with health care costs rising, the last thing the government should be doing is imposing fewer choices and higher prices. Patients and providers—not the government—are in the best position to decide what medical services are needed. https://ij.org/case/kentucky-con/

If you trust someone to drive you to a grocery store, would you also trust them to drive you to a pharmacy? Of course. But, unfortunately, such common sense doesn’t rule in Nebraska. Years ago, a handful of transportation companies convinced the Nebraska government that there was something special about taking people to the pharmacy or routine doctor appointments. At these insiders’ request, the Nebraska Legislature created a category of rides called “non-emergency medical transportation” and outlawed anyone else from providing them. https://ij.org/case/nebraska-con/ https://www.platteinstitute.org/research/detail/drive-to-succeed-transportation-law-shuts-out-competition Marc N’Da found this out the hard way. Marc runs a home health agency, and he has watched for years as his patients have been left stranded by the existing non-emergency medical transportation companies. So, Marc responded in the most American way possible—he decided to start his own company and provide better service. After all, Marc and his employees were already driving his patients on countless other errands, so there was no good reason why they couldn’t also take those same patients to the pharmacy and to their checkups. In order to help his patients, all Marc needed was a “certificate of public convenience and necessity” from the government. He went through the application process, and the government expressly found that Marc was “fit, willing, and able” to provide this service. But that wasn’t all he needed. The law also requires Marc to get permission from his competitors before he can begin operating. Not surprisingly, those competitors said “no.” Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity, also known as “Certificates of Need” or “CONs” for short, originated in a long-debunked effort to control costs. But in practice, all they do is prevent new businesses from competing with established ones and allow the existing companies to veto new competition, at the expense of the public. Because CONs intentionally limit the supply of health services, several states have waived certain CON requirements in light of the COVID-19 epidemic. In fact, Nebraska waived its CON to allow hospitals to add beds or convert beds in order to care for COVID-19 patients. Marc’s patients may be stuck with limited options for now, but he’s fighting back. Marc has teamed up with the Institute for Justice to protect his constitutional right to earn an honest living. The good news for Marc and his patients is that what the government and the insiders are doing is not only wrong but unconstitutional—it violates three different parts of the Nebraska Constitution.

Terry Rainwaters and Hunter Hollingsworth own rural properties along the Big Sandy River in Camden, Tennessee. Their properties are their sanctuaries. Terry lives on his property, and both have used their land to farm, camp, and hunt (with state-issued hunting licenses). Neither property is open to the public, and both have “No Trespassing” signs on their front gates. But for years, state officials have treated Terry’s and Hunter’s private lands—along with others’ in the area—as if they were public property. Now, Terry and Hunter are suing to protect Tennesseans’ property and privacy rights. https://ij.org/case/tennessee-open-fields/ Officers from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) routinely enter private land on a whim to search for potential hunting violations. They don’t have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed, and they don’t ask permission from either property owners or a court. Instead, they trespass, wander around as they please, and take photos and videos. They even install cameras so they can keep watching the properties 24 hours a day, seven days a week. TWRA thinks it can get away with such creepy surveillance because the U.S. Supreme Court wrongly held that the U.S. Constitution’s protections against unreasonable searches don’t apply to “open fields.” But the Tennessee Constitution prohibits state officials from barging in whenever they wish. That’s why Terry and Hunter have teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to sue TWRA in Tennessee state court: to vindicate the right of all Tennesseans to be free from unconstitutional searches.

Terry Rainwaters and Hunter Hollingsworth own rural properties along the Big Sandy River in Camden, Tennessee. Their properties are their sanctuaries. Terry lives on his property, and both have used their land to farm, camp, and hunt (with state-issued hunting licenses). Neither property is open to the public, and both have “No Trespassing” signs on their front gates. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- https://ij.org/case/tennessee-open-fields/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- But for years, state officials have treated Terry’s and Hunter’s private lands—along with others’ in the area—as if they were public property. Now, Terry and Hunter are suing to protect Tennesseans’ property and privacy rights. Officers from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) routinely enter private land on a whim to search for potential hunting violations. They don’t have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed, and they don’t ask permission from either property owners or a court. Instead, they trespass, wander around as they please, and take photos and videos. They even install cameras so they can keep watching the properties 24 hours a day, seven days a week. TWRA thinks it can get away with such creepy surveillance because the U.S. Supreme Court wrongly held that the U.S. Constitution’s protections against unreasonable searches don’t apply to “open fields.” But the Tennessee Constitution prohibits state officials from barging in whenever they wish. That’s why Terry and Hunter have teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to sue TWRA in Tennessee state court: to vindicate the right of all Tennesseans to be free from unconstitutional searches.

As we all deal with the many changes in day to day life brought about by the coronavirus pandemic, have you ever wondered just what the government has the power to do to protect public health and safety—and when and how can it exercise that power? In today’s episode, we discuss government police power and the many circumstances in which it is deployed. Prefer audio? Download it here: https://ij.org/podcast/when-can-the-government-lock-you-in-your-house-quarantines-and-the-constitution/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing the fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. In each episode, host Melanie Hildreth talks with litigators, researchers, and activists to give listeners an in-depth, inside look at cutting-edge legal and policy issues—and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

If the government needs to destroy your home to build a freeway or a school, the Constitution entitles you to just compensation. But what if the government needs to destroy your home for some other reason—say, to capture a fugitive who has randomly taken refuge in your house while fleeing the police? Does the government owe you anything? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://ij.org/case/lech-v-city-of-greenwood/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shockingly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held in a ruling this October that as long as the government uses its “police power” to destroy property, it cannot be required to provide compensation for that property under the U.S. Constitution’s Takings Clause. Today, the Institute for Justice, the nation’s premier defender of property rights, announced that it will file a petition for rehearing by the entire Tenth Circuit (known as rehearing en banc). “The simple rule of the Constitution is that the government cannot arbitrarily single out private citizens to bear the costs of something that should rightly be the burden of society as a whole,” explained IJ Attorney Jeffrey Redfern. “If the government requires a piece of property to be destroyed, then the government should pay for it—and that’s just as true regardless of whether the people doing the destroying are the local school board or the local police.” The case was brought by Leo, Alfonsina and John Lech, seeking compensation for the destruction of a home Leo and Alfonsina owned (and in which their son John lived with his own family) in Greenwood Village, Colo. In 2015, an armed shoplifter fleeing the police broke into the home (apparently at random) and refused to come out. After taking gunfire from the shoplifter, the police resorted to more strenuous means of attack, including explosives, high-caliber ammunition, and a battering ram mounted on a tank-like vehicle called a BearCat. The fugitive was apprehended, but the home was totaled. The Lechs’ case, originally brought by Colorado attorney Rachel Maxam, who continues to represent the family alongside IJ, argued that the complete destruction of the house was a “taking” that required compensation under the U.S. Constitution. But a three-judge panel disagreed, ruling that actions by law enforcement officials could never amount to a “taking,” no matter what, and so the appropriate amount of compensation was zero dollars. “The police are allowed to destroy property if they need to in order to do their jobs safely,” said IJ Senior Attorney Robert McNamara. “But if the government destroys someone’s property in order to benefit the public, it is only fair that the public rather than an innocent property owner pay for that benefit.” “This whole affair has quite simply totally destroyed our lives,” said Leo Lech. “My son’s family was very literally thrown out into the street with the clothes on their back, offered $5,000, and told to ‘go deal with it.’” “Property rights are the foundation of our rights,” said IJ President and General Counsel Scott Bullock. “The court’s ruling that government officials can purposefully destroy someone’s home without owing a dime in compensation is not just wrong. It is dangerous, and it is un-American. The Institute for Justice is committed to seeing it overturned, for the Lechs and for the protection of property owners across America.”

Listeners of the podcast who have also listened to IJ’s Short Circuit podcast are probably familiar with the concept of “qualified immunity.” In this episode, we talk about what the term means and how it came to be, as well as what it looks like in practice and why changes to immunity doctrines are essential to protecting individual rights. *Fun fact:  Scott was not quoting Phil Collins.  He was referring to Thunderclap Newman’s “Something In The Air.” Podcast page: https://ij.org/podcast/how-government-officials-can-blow-up-your-house-with-grenades-and-get-away-with-it-by-claiming-immunity/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing the fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. In each episode, host Melanie Hildreth talks with litigators, researchers, and activists to give listeners an in-depth, inside look at cutting-edge legal and policy issues—and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

You probably don’t know it, but federal agents are working closely with police where you live. Over the past few decades, joint task forces staffed by both state and federal police have become common. They now number more than one thousand. As a result of these federal/state partnerships, the government often plays what amounts to a shell game that makes it impossible to hold individual officers to account if they violate someone’s constitutional rights by, for example, engaging in police brutality or other misdeeds. https://ij.org/case/brownback-v-king/ Here’s how it works: The tools an individual can use to hold a government officer to account for violating the Constitution depend on whether the officer was acting under state or federal law. But if an officer acts under both state and federal law—as it does when a joint task force is involved—the question becomes murkier. An officer accused of abusing his federal authority can claim he was actually acting using his state-law authority, and an officer accused of abusing his state-law authority can say he was really acting as a federal officer. Plaintiffs are left guessing and sometimes end up thrown out of court altogether. James King, a law-abiding college student in Grand Rapids, Michigan, was forced to play this game after he was brutally beaten in an unjustifiable case of mistaken identity. Task force members misidentified James as a fugitive; stopped, searched, beat and choked him into unconsciousness; and then—even after it was clear they had the wrong man—arrested James and charged his with a series of felonies to cover their tracks. After fighting a criminal prosecution aimed at preventing James from vindicating his constitutional rights and sending him to prison, James was acquitted. But that was just the beginning. When James filed a lawsuit against the officers to hold them to account for their actions, the officers argued they were entitled to several forms of immunity and persuaded the court to throw out James’ case. An appeals court reversed the worst parts of that decision, but the government has now taken James’ case to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to shield the officers from any accountability for violating the Constitution. James has partnered with the Institute for Justice to protect the rights of all Americans who encounter federal and state task forces. As part of IJ’s Project on Immunity and Accountability, James and IJ are asking the Supreme Court to end the shell game and hold officers to account when they violate individuals’ Constitution rights. https://ij.org/case/brownback-v-king/

Watch a short documentary about this case here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HujPlUyTXRY Case page: https://ij.org/case/brownback-v-king/

Today, a group of parents partnered with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to defend the Tennessee Education Savings Account Pilot Program, an educational choice initiative, against a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality. https://ij.org/press-release/tennessee-parents-stand-up-for-school-choice-and-join-lawsuit-to-defend-esa-program/ By formally intervening in the lawsuit, the parents will ensure that the thousands of Tennessee families benefiting from the program are represented as the lawsuit progresses through the courts. On February 6, the governments of Nashville and Shelby County, along with the Metropolitan Nashville Board of Public Education, challenged the ESA program. “Tennessee’s ESA program is constitutional, and IJ stands ready to defend it in court so that Tennessee families can send their children to the school that best fits their child’s needs,” said Arif Panju, an IJ managing attorney. “The mayor’s lawsuit to block ESA accounts for K-12 students reveals his disregard for the rights of parents and children.” IJ is representing parents who plan to use ESAs to send their children to a school that best fits their child’s needs. The program was signed into law in May 2019 by Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, and qualifying families are able to receive funds for the 2020-2021 school year. The program offers a lifeline to families that would like to leave public schools that do not meet their children’s needs but who lack the financial resources to do so. Under the program, qualifying students will receive a scholarship up to $7,300 for a wide array of educational expenses, including tuition, textbooks and tutoring services. The program is available to lower- and middle-income families whose annual income is less than $66,950 for a family of four. “I am defending the ESA program because it will help me provide a better education for my sons,” said Natu Bah, an IJ client who plans to send her children to Christian Brothers High School in Memphis using the ESA program. Another IJ client, Builguissa Diallo, plans to use the ESA funds to take her kindergartner out of public school because it doesn’t meet her needs and enroll her in Memphis’ Pleasant View School. If they are unable to obtain ESAs because of the lawsuit challenging Tennessee’s ESA program, they would be forced to keep their children in failing public schools or endure tremendous financial hardship in order to try to enroll them in private schools. “The Nashville and Shelby County governments should support families that want to send their kids to different schools when the only option forced upon them isn’t working. Their lawsuit is not about doing what’s best for Tennessee families,” IJ Attorney Keith Neely said. In the lawsuit against the program, the plaintiffs allege that the ESA program violates three provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. “No matter how you look at it, Tennessee’s ESA program is constitutional,” IJ Attorney David Hodges said. “ESA programs are popular throughout the country because they are an innovative way for parents to get the best education for their children. Instead of suing to stop these programs, Nashville and Memphis should be supporting parents.” Since its founding over a quarter-century ago, IJ has successfully defended school choice programs across the country, including three times at the U.S. Supreme Court. This January, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, an IJ case that asks the Court to strike down a government ban on using tax-credit-funded scholarships to attend religious schools.

IJ is committed to defending the right of parents—not politicians, not bureaucrats—to choose the education that best fits their child’s needs. On Saturday, January 25, as in years past, IJ partnered with Serving Our Children to co-host a children’s carnival in conjunction with the OSP’s largest application event of the year. While moms and dads were busy filling out forms, kids enjoyed playing carnival games, winning prizes, and taking home children’s books. https://ij.org/issues/school-choice/

For decades, Detroit police, sheriff’s deputies, and Wayne County prosecutors have systematically abused the constitutional rights of drivers by using a controversial tactic called civil forfeiture to seize and sell thousands of cars—oftentimes from completely innocent owners. Now, the Institute for Justice (IJ)—a nonprofit, public interest law firm—has partnered with a group of Detroit drivers to fight back and file a class action lawsuit in federal court seeking to end the controversial practice once and for all. https://ij.org/case/detroit-civil-forfeiture/

On February 6, the Institute for Justice will ask Maryland’s high court to strike down Baltimore’s 300-Foot Ban and honor the state’s long history of protecting the right to earn an honest living. https://ij.org/case/baltimore-vending/ Joey Vanoni and Nikki McGowan Marks are Baltimore-area mobile vending entrepreneurs. Joey is a Navy veteran and the owner of Pizza di Joey, a New York-style brick oven pizza food truck. The truck gives Joey the opportunity to not only serve delicious slices, but to also hire his fellow veterans. Nikki is the owner of Mindgrub Cafe a health-conscious food truck that allows Nikki to share her love of cooking with Baltimore’s diverse communities. Joey and Nikki are precisely the type of hardworking entrepreneurs that the Charm City should encourage. Instead, Baltimore has made it nearly impossible for mobile vendors like Joey and Nikki to succeed. Since 2014, mobile vendors have been banned from operating within 300 feet of any brick-and-mortar business that sells the same type of food, merchandise or service—including restaurants, cafes and convenience or clothing stores. Vendors that do face $500 in fines for each violation and can have their vendor’s license revoked. The effect is to prohibit mobile vendors from operating in large swaths of Baltimore. The law is especially hard on food trucks, like Pizza di Joey and Mindgrub Cafe, because of the city’s many restaurants and other food establishments. Worse still, the 300-foot rule arbitrarily treats food trucks differently based on what they sell. So while a taco truck would be banned from operating near a Mexican restaurant, a gyro truck could park right out front. This law makes absolutely no sense—and it is unconstitutional. Its sole purpose is to protect brick-and-mortar businesses from competition. That is why on May 11, 2016, two Baltimore-area food trucks—Pizza di Joey and Mindgrub Cafe—filed a lawsuit against the city challenging its 300-foot rule as a violation of the Maryland Constitution. A year and a half later, Pizza di Joey and Mindgrub Cafe struck a blow for food truck freedom in Baltimore. On December 20, 2017, a Circuit Court judge found the 300-foot rule unenforceable. The city’s appeal of the ruling will be heard by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in February 2019. Unfortunately, in May 2019, an appeals court overturned that decision and reinstated the rule. IJ and the food truck owners will appeal to the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court. Pizza di Joey and Mindgrub Cafe are represented by the Institute for Justice, which has won similar fights nationwide as part of its National Street Vending Initiative. A victory will secure the right to economic liberty for all Baltimore mobile vendors and empower entrepreneurs throughout Maryland.

Institute for Justice attorney Richard Komer and client Kendra Espinoza talk in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. https://ij.org/case/montana-school-choice/

Retired railroad engineer Terry Rolin’s life savings were seized by the government, but he hasn’t been charged with any crime. Terry saved up cash and kept it in his Pittsburgh home over many years. But when he moved out of his old house into a new, smaller apartment he didn’t feel safe keeping so much in cash savings. He asked his daughter, Rebecca Brown, to take the money home with her to Boston, deposit it into a new joint bank account, and use the money to replace his teeth and fix his truck, among other needs. https://ij.org/case/pittsburgh-forfeiture/ Concerned about flying with the more than $82,000 her father had entrusted to her, Rebecca checked online to make sure that she didn’t need to do anything to take the money with her on the plane. She found out that flying domestically with any amount of cash is completely legal. So, she packed the money in her carry-on and headed to the airport. But she didn’t make it to Boston with her father’s life savings. Her bag was held by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) after she went through security screening because the money showed up on their X-ray. She was questioned by Pennsylvania State Troopers and then further by a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent. The DEA agent took the money without charging Rebecca with a crime or arresting her. After making them wait for months, the government told Terry and Rebecca that it wants to take that money for good using a legal process called civil forfeiture. Terry and Rebecca didn’t do anything wrong. That’s why they are teaming up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a lawsuit to get the money back from DEA. Furthermore, their lawsuit is a class action against DEA and TSA for practices that violate the constitution and are outside TSA’s legal authority. Finally, the individual DEA agent is being sued for damages because of his violation of Rebecca’s and Terry’s rights.

Help us move mountains for our clients' futures by donating today. https://www.ij.org/give-now

Before he was IJ’s president, Scott Bullock spent 25 years as an IJ attorney. In this episode, he recounts his years in the trenches as a litigator, and the ways his cases and clients helped make him and IJ what they are today. https://ij.org/podcast/ij-in-the-trenches-with-scott-bullock/

From satellites in space to circuits for flashlights, Greg Mills has spent his entire career working as an engineer designing and building electronics. But earlier this year, a group of industry insiders sitting on a government board abruptly put Greg’s career on ice. Now he’s fighting back. https://ij.org/press-release/lawsuit-challenges-arizona-engineering-licensing-law/

We talk with the director of IJ’s Center for Judicial Engagement about a few of the issues the legal community is buzzing about at the moment. https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Elfie Gallun fled communist East Germany for the promise of freedom. Her legacy lives on at the Institute for Justice. https://ij.org/gallun-fellowship/

This discussion is a continuation of our foray into law for non-lawyers. Many people are familiar with the concepts of “due process” and “equal protection,” but where are they found in the Constitution, and what do they look like in practice? https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing the fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. In each episode, host Melanie Hildreth talks with litigators, researchers, and activists to give listeners an in-depth, inside look at cutting-edge legal and policy issues—and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Today, Mississippi made it clear that products labeled “plant-based” or “vegan” won’t be prosecuted when they use common terms like “bacon” or “burger” on their labels. Consumers understand what they are getting when they buy a veggie burger. It’s a victory for common sense and the First Amendment. https://ij.org/press-release/victory-for-vegan-burgers-new-mississippi-labeling-regulations-will-not-punish-plant-based-meat/

What does it mean when courts apply “strict scrutiny” in their review of a law? Why do property, economic, and other vital liberties get only “rational basis” review? And why do these things matter to a constitutional litigator? Learn all this and more in today’s Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice. https://ij.org/podcast/deep-dive-episode-4-law-for-non-lawyers-part-1-standards-of-review/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing the fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. In each episode, host Melanie Hildreth talks with litigators, researchers, and activists to give listeners an in-depth, inside look at cutting-edge legal and policy issues—and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Never heard the term “Blaine Amendments” before? The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear IJ’s educational choice case Ezpinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue is likely to change that. In today’s Deep Dive IJ Senior Attorney Tim Keller and IJ Attorney Erica Smith describe what Blaine Amendments are, why they matter to parents who simply want to direct their own children’s education, and whether these controversial state constitutional provisions can be squared with the protections enshrined in the federal Constitution. https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Two years ago, Norco homeowner Ron Mugar received a notice indicating he had violated the city’s housing code. -------------------------------------------------------------------- https://ij.org/press-release/norco-homeowner-fights-back-with-lawsuit-after-city-attempts-to-take-his-home/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ron had admittedly allowed his home and backyard to become cluttered with hobby machinery. But this time, instead of fining him or asking him to bring his property up to code, the city’s private, for-profit prosecutors—lawyers with the firm of Dapeer, Rosenblit & Litvak LLP—declared they were going to take over ownership of his house using a legal process known as “receivership.” Ron cleaned up his yard, hired a lawyer, and fought back in court—spending his hard-earned savings to defend himself—and won. Ron’s attorney got the receivership halted without a receiver ever doing any work or taking the property. Ron then brought the property into full compliance. Ron also fought the private prosecutor’s demands that he fix things for which he was never actually cited. The court eventually ruled that Ron had brought his property into compliance and it then vacated the receivership order. But that didn’t stop the city’s hired lawyers from seeking more than $60,000 from Ron in attorneys’ fees. Attempting to collect attorneys’ fees for a prosecution that the city lost is patently illegal, which is why Ron has partnered with the Institute for Justice to put an end to the city’s use of private lawyers to enforce municipal code violations once and for all.

When IJ Associate Director of Activism Brooke Fallon started talking to entrepreneurs in Washington, D.C., about their experience doing business in the District, she got an earful about the burdens and challenges they face just trying to get off the ground. The result of those conversations was District Works, an IJ-led project and coalition of small business owners, nonprofits, and community members striving to make it cheaper, faster, and simpler to start a business in D.C. Brooke and Activism Researcher Alex Montgomery talk in this episode about what they learned from entrepreneurs, and how things can change for the better. https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing the fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. In each episode, host Melanie Hildreth talks with litigators, researchers, and activists to give listeners an in-depth, inside look at cutting-edge legal and policy issues—and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

Today, IJ Senior Attorneys Robert McNamara and Paul Sherman discuss amicus briefs: what they are, where they came from, and how IJ—and others—use them for maximum impact. https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/ Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing the fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. In each episode, host Melanie Hildreth talks with litigators, researchers, and activists to give listeners an in-depth, inside look at cutting-edge legal and policy issues—and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7 Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

In early 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear one of the most important education reform cases in the past half century. The case, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, will decide if states may discriminate against religious options in generally available scholarship programs. The U.S. Supreme Court already ruled in 2002 that allowing such options is permissible under the federal Constitution. The question now is whether the state can exclude such options. The case was accepted by the High Court after the Montana Supreme Court struck down that state’s new scholarship tax-credit program in 2018 under its state constitution solely because some of the children receiving scholarships attend religious schools. The Institute for Justice (IJ) appealed the decision on behalf of three parents and their children who wish to use the scholarships to attend a Christian school in Kalispell, Montana, arguing that the Montana Supreme Court’s decision violates the Free Exercise, Equal Protection and Establishment Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The case will be argued in early 2020 and a decision will be announced by the end of June 2020. https://ij.org/case/montana-school-choice/

A city should not be able to force its residents to pay to renovate city property before they can renovate their own homes. But the City of Richland, Washington disagrees. Linda Cameron has been living in the same Richland, Washington home for nearly 40 years. The home, which she purchased with her late husband, has only one small bedroom and bathroom, and with visits from family and friends, it was proving to be too cramped. After consulting with a builder, Linda decided to turn her outdated carport into a garage and add a second bedroom and bathroom. It was all she dreamed for. But her dreams quickly became a nightmare. Although the city building permit and inspection office was prepared to approve the permit, the Richland Public Works Department, which also reviewed Linda’s application, informed her that because her renovations were slated to cost more than $50,000, she’d have to “renovate” the city street adjoining the back of her property. That meant paying to widen 400 feet of pavement, install sidewalks, and add curbs and storm drains to the street. All told, the mandatory street “improvements” added roughly $60,000 to the cost of Linda’s renovation—$60,000 that Linda doesn't have and shouldn’t have to pay. Linda is the victim of unconstitutionally applied “impact fees”—fees municipalities charge when development has an impact on public infrastructure. But adding a bedroom and bathroom to a modest home has no impact on Richland’s streets or sidewalks. These fees amount to an unconstitutional condition on a property owner’s right to use her own property. That’s why Linda has partnered with the Institute for Justice to challenge Richland’s unconstitutional law in federal court. https://ij.org/case/washington-street-fees/

May a state bar parents from selecting a religious school as part of a generally available scholarship program, or does that violate the free exercise clause and the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution? These are the questions the U.S. Supreme Court will consider when it hears Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, a case litigated by the Institute for Justice. The case will have national implications for school choice programs, especially in states that have so-called Blaine Amendments—state constitutional provisions that we imposed in the 1800’s as a means of discriminating against Catholics but are being used today by the teachers’ unions and their allies to discriminate against educational options for parents who might select any religious school for their children. For more information, visit: https://ij.org/case/montana-school-choice/

The problem is that Granite City has what it calls a “crime-free” housing ordinance that amounts to a compulsory eviction law. Under the law, if you rent your home in Granite City and any member of your “household” commits a crime—anywhere in the city and, sometimes, anywhere at all—then your landlord is required to evict you. In fact, your landlord can be fined and even lose his rental license if he fails to evict you. That means Jessica and Kenny are on the hook for this past spring’s burglary, even though no one believes they had anything to do with it or even knew about it. https://ij.org/case/granite-city-compulsory-evictions/

When it comes to occupational regulation, policymakers may see their options as action or inaction: licensing or no licensing. In fact, policymakers can choose from a plethora of alternatives that provide the purported benefits of licensing, without the downsides. This video discusses less restrictive alternatives to licensing that can protect consumers as well as or better than licensing, without shutting people out of work. Before imposing, or continuing to impose, any occupational regulation, policymakers should demand systematic, empirical evidence of harm—and then select the least restrictive and most appropriate option to provide the desired consumer protections. https://ij.org/report/license-work-2/ https://ij.org/report/the-inverted-pyramid/ https://ij.org/support

Mississippi’s ban will have a devastating effect on companies like Upton’s Naturals, an independently owned, Chicago-based manufacturer of vegan foods. Upton’s Naturals markets its foods to consumers who are specifically looking for alternatives to meat. Not surprisingly, then, Upton’s Naturals’ labels proudly state that its foods are 100% vegan, while also using terms that let consumers know what these foods substitute for, such as “burger,” “bacon,” and “chorizo.” But under Mississippi’s new law, which went into effect on July 1, 2019, these and other similar labels are now illegal, with potential fines and even criminal penalties for violations. https://ij.org/case/mississippis-unconstitutional-food-labeling-law/

Charlottesville, Virginia, prides itself on welcoming its large community of writers, artists and other freelance creatives with open arms. But recently, for the first time, some members of this community have been told that they’ve been criminals for years. The city of Charlottesville and Albemarle County have decided to require a business license to write novels, and they have assessed thousands of dollars in back taxes against some of their hardworking freelance writers. Now, two of those writers are fighting back. https://ij.org/case/charlottesville-writer-tax/ Corban Addison Klug and John Hart are bestselling novelists who live and work in Charlottesville and Albemarle County, respectively. Both love being a part of Charlottesville’s creative community and can’t imagine working anywhere else. That’s why they were shocked when they received bills for unpaid “business license taxes.” Both are former lawyers, yet neither imagined that they would need a license when they switched careers to become writers. But Corban and John soon discovered that not everybody has to pay this tax; the Commonwealth exempts many businesses that produce speech: newspapers, magazines, radio and television. Like these businesses, Corban and John also speak for a living, but the city and county have targeted them to the tune of thousands of dollars. Making matters worse, the law is so vague that tax collectors can go after anyone they want. The result is money-hungry municipalities inventing increasingly creative ways to squeeze revenue out of their citizens. Municipalities across the country have similar requirements, and if Charlottesville succeeds at its latest gambit, many others might follow suit. Charlottesville’s money-grab isn’t just wrong, it’s unconstitutional. That’s why Corban and John have teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a lawsuit asking for refunds of their business license taxes and challenging their constitutionality under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This cutting-edge lawsuit will vindicate Americans’ right to speak for a living without being burdened by discriminatory taxes.

By a 7-2 margin, the U.S. Supreme Court today issued a broadside against state-based economic protectionism as it struck down a Tennessee law that had required anyone seeking a retail liquor license to first reside in the state for two years—and 10 years before they could renew it. “To put it mildly, today’s opinion by Associate Justice Samuel Alito and the six justices of the Court who joined with him was an indictment against in-state economic protectionism,” said Anya Bidwell, an attorney with the Institute for Justice (IJ), which litigated the case on behalf of Doug and Mary Ketchum. https://ij.org/press-release/supreme-court-blasts-economic-protectionism-as-it-strikes-down-durational-residency-requirements-for-business-licenses/

We just released our exciting new report, “Fighting Crime or Raising Revenue?” It was designed to ask the question: “Does forfeiture help fight crime, or does it encourage law enforcement to police for profit?” Find out the results by tuning in! https://ij.org/report/fighting-crime-or-raising-revenue/

According to a new Institute for Justice study, forfeiture doesn’t help police fight crime, but police do use it to raise revenue. Read the report at https://ij.org/report/fighting-crime-or-raising-revenue/

For the first time last Friday, Fort Pierce residents enjoyed food truck food in downtown Fort Pierce. Just a few months ago, it was illegal for food trucks to operate within 500 feet of any establishment that sells food. That essentially blocked food trucks from doing business in Fort Pierce, since, no matter where the people are, there is almost always a restaurant or convenience store within 500 feet. But after a lawsuit brought by the Institute for Justice (IJ) on behalf of Taco Trap’s owner Benny Diaz and Creative Chef on Wheels’ owner Brian Peffer, a Florida Circuit Court ordered the city to stop enforcing its unconstitutional ban. Finally, Benny, Brian and other food truck owners are free to do business in Fort Pierce. “I’m excited about the new opportunities for me and other food truck owners,” Benny said. “This change is good for Florida food truck owners and the people of Fort Pierce, who now have so many more food options.” Benny will get the chance to sell his delicious tacos in Fort Pierce for the first time this Friday night, beginning at 6:00 p.m. at Bottom’s Up Public House. He already has heard from fans of his Taco Trap food truck who plan on being there. While the new legal status of food trucks is good for vendors and consumers, their benefits extend to the entire city. According to Upwardly Mobile, an IJ report, food trucks and other vendors help boost the overall economy of cities. “They become an attraction and increase the number of people in your downtown,” said Tom Richards, the city manager of Harbor Springs, Michigan, after his city started allowing food trucks. But it does not take a city official to recognize the innate benefits of food trucks. Al Beltran, the general manager of Public House, expressed excitement about the benefits Taco Trap and other food trucks will be able to provide his business. “Having food trucks being able to operate in Fort Pierce is huge. You want to have the customer leave happier than when they arrive. The more they can enjoy, the better off they are,” he said. https://ij.org/press-release/plaintiff-in-successful-lawsuit-against-fort-pierces-food-truck-law-open-for-business-this-friday/

IJ attorneys Ari Bargil and Andrew Ward announce a lawsuit against the city of Dunedin, Florida. The city is trying to foreclose 69-year-old Jim Ficken’s house because the grass was too long. https://ij.org/case/dunedin-foreclosure/

Jim Ficken could lose his home because of uncut grass. The city of Dunedin authorized the foreclosure of his home in order to collect nearly $30,000 in fines for his unmanicured lawn. IJ is partnering with Ficken to save his home and fight these excessive fines. https://ij.org/press-release/florida-man-could-lose-his-home-for-having-long-grass/

Each year Chicago impounds tens of thousands of cars, imposing harsh penalties and rapidly accruing towing and storage fees on their owners. It is nearly impossible for many Chicagoans to come up with enough money to get their cars back. The system traps even innocent owners in its bureaucratic maze. But a class action lawsuit announced today by the Institute for Justice (IJ), a national civil liberties law firm, and three car owners, seeks to bring an end to Chicago’s unconstitutional impound scheme. The lawsuit challenges two aspects of the city’s impound scheme: that it subjects innocent owners to fines for crimes they did not commit and that the city holds cars as ransom until their owners pay all fines and fees. Imposing any fine on someone who did nothing wrong is an excessive fine and violates due process, in violation of the Illinois and United States constitutions. And holding a car for no other reason than to force payment is an unconstitutional seizure. “No person should be forced to pay for someone else’s offense,” said IJ attorney Diana Simpson. “Chicago imposes harsh penalties on owners of impounded vehicles, even if they did not know that someone used their car to break the law. Moreover, Chicago holds all impounded cars as ransom, sometimes for long periods of time, until an owner pays all fines and fees. This unjust process violates both the Illinois Constitution and the United States Constitution.” The city impounds cars for myriad reasons, including being driven by a person with a suspended license, playing audio that can be heard more than 75 feet away, or littering. As too many Chicagoans know first-hand, getting a car back from the impound is a lengthy and expensive process. In 2017 alone, more than 22,000 cars were impounded under the program being challenged in the new suit. Fines and fees associated with such impounds added to more than $28 million in 2017. What some may not realize, however, is that the city subjects the innocent, as well as the guilty, to this burdensome process. https://ij.org/press-release/class-action-lawsuit-challenges-chicagos-impound-racket-2/

This year marks our Clinic on Entrepreneurship’s 20th anniversary! The Clinic, based out of the University of Chicago Law School, provides free legal services and workshops for Chicago entrepreneurs, fighting for simpler laws and more economic liberty. See what these small business owners have to say about the Clinic’s impact on them as they celebrate this milestone. https://ij.org/ij-clinic-on-entrepreneurship/

IJ senior attorney Robert McNamara sits down with IJ attorney Josh Windham to discuss our recent challenge to the state of Indiana’s ban on using online eye tests to obtain prescriptions. https://ij.org/case/indiana-eyeglasses/

Despite being the nation’s leader in promoting the free market, across Texas anticompetitive laws are choking off competition and preserving monopolies. The Institute for Justice is currently litigating six separate lawsuits in the Lone Star state, with two on their way to the state Supreme Court. https://ij.org/case/texas-craft-beer/ https://ij.org/case/south-padre-island-food-trucks/

http://www.ij.org/donate Captain Matthew Hight thought he would earn a living navigating cargo carriers on the Great Lakes. Instead, an unholy alliance of a federal bureaucracy and a legalized monopoly suddenly rendered him a castaway. Now he’s setting sail with the Institute for Justice to get his job back and ensure that no one else has their livelihood taken away because the government has delegated lawmaking power to a self-interested private organization. Captain Hight sailed the world’s oceans for over twenty years, for eight of them as a ship’s captain. But all that time at sea takes its toll. Many American captains come back to the United States and work as a pilot in one of our many ports and waterways. Captain Hight tried to do just that for one of the most challenging waterways—the St. Lawrence Seaway. It connects the American and Canadian ports of the Great Lakes with the rest of the world. Captain Hight applied to train with the St. Lawrence Seaway Pilots’ Association, was accepted, and then worked in its training program for over two years. He did well in the program, piloting ships on Lake Ontario (where trainee pilots are allowed to work). After two years, the association was about to recommend him to the U.S. Coast Guard (the federal agency that regulates Great Lakes pilots). But after a disagreement with the association president, the association suddenly informed the Coast Guard that they recommended against granting Captain Hight a license. The Coast Guard deferred to the association and suddenly he found himself marooned with no license, no job, and no way to go back to work. The association provided the Coast Guard a couple flimsy reasons why it was not granting Captain Hight its blessing. The first was that Captain Hight used profanity on a job. That’s right, he was charged with swearing like a sailor. The second was that he failed to report a minor accident; an accident he didn’t cause and at first didn’t even know about. The retaliation was possible because the Coast Guard has delegated its authority to the association, giving it an absolute veto over who can become a pilot. There is no other path to becoming a pilot on the St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario other than through the association’s training program. Captain Hight appealed to the Coast Guard to follow its own written rules and regulations (which do not require association approval), but it denied his appeal. He’s now taking his case to federal court in an effort to get back to work and end this unconstitutional system for anyone else who wants to travel in his wake. http://www.ij.org

In a unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, states cannot impose excessive fines. Although this is a momentous victory for our client Tyson Timbs, the journey is far from over. Watch IJ’s Vice President for External Relations Melanie Hildreth interview attorney Sam Gedge as they discuss what happens next. https://ij.org/press-release/u-s-supreme-court-rules-unanimously-that-states-cannot-impose-excessive-fines/

IJ client Charlie Birnbaum, whose family home was targeted for eminent domain abuse, gets to stay put after a New Jersey court ruled in his favor today. Join IJ Senior Attorney, Robert McNamara and IJ's Senior Director of Communications, Justin Wilson as they discuss this important decision. https://ij.org/press-release/piano-man-wins-round-two-in-atlantic-city-eminent-domain-fight/

Attorney Dan Alban sits down with IJ clients Anthonia Nwaorie and Gerardo Serrano to discuss civil forfeiture. Both had their property seized by the federal government and fought to get it back. Learn more at https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/

IJ is teaming up with Benny Diaz and Brian Peffer to defend the rights of small business owners against Fort Pierce's unconstitutional restrictions on food trucks.

Doug and Mary Ketchum moved to Tennessee so they could own and operate a mom-and-pop liquor store there. Doing so would enable them to meet their two main goals: earning a living and doing so in a way that gives them the flexible schedule they need to take care of their severely disabled and ailing daughter, Stacy. Moving from Utah was not merely a matter of choice for the Ketchums; the temperature inversion in Salt Lake’s valley caused one of Stacy’s lungs to collapse, making their move a matter of life and death. And so they moved to Memphis to own and operate Kimbrough Towers Fine Wine, which would allow them to be available 24/7 for their daughter as she needed. But the Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association—a lobbying arm representing the special interest of in-state liquor retailers—had different plans for the Ketchums. When it heard that the staff at the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission recommended the Ketchums be granted their retail liquor license, it threatened to sue the Commission for failing to enforce Tennessee’s liquor laws. In response, the Commission beat the Retailers Association to the punch, filing its own lawsuit and asking a court to declare whether Tennessee’s liquor laws were unconstitutional. According to Tennessee’s law, to qualify for a retail liquor license, one must be a resident of Tennessee for at least two years; and to renew the license, applicants are required to have 10 years of in-state residency. The law blatantly discriminates in favor of in-state residents and against newcomers who move to Tennessee. So egregious are the violations, that even the Office of the Tennessee Attorney General declared the laws unconstitutional. Two federal courts—a trial court and a court of appeals—agreed. The Ketchums’ case will be argued on January 16, 2018, before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Institute for Justice represents Doug and Mary Ketchum. IJ is fighting for their constitutional right to earn an honest living anywhere in America free from arbitrary and excessive government restrictions. https://ij.org/case/tennessee-wine-and-spirits-retailers-association-v-blair/

The IJ Clinic on Entrepreneurship provides free legal assistance, support and advocacy for low-income entrepreneurs in Chicago. The IJ Clinic also trains the next generation of attorneys to be vigorous and creative advocates for entrepreneurs.

Every summer IJ employs the brightest law students from across the nation at all seven of its offices, providing an unparalleled experience in cutting-edge constitutional litigation. Here are a few past clerks explaining why IJ is an excellent summer opportunity.

The town of Yorktown wants to remake a small neighborhood into a downtown area, anchored by a tech firm and featuring new commercial, residential, and public spaces, through the Yorktown Downtown Redevelopment Plan [https://www.yorktownindiana.org/eGov/documents/1481742155_57366.pdf]. Officials have already used eminent domain against our friend and neighbor Janice Ross, allowing the town to take her home for this unnecessary project. Any day, Ruby, the Pucketts and the rest of the neighborhood could be next. We need your help to stop town officials from abusing eminent domain, otherwise there’s no limit on what they can take.

Amanda Spillane was finally getting her life on track. Having gotten hooked on drugs as a teenager, Amanda had committed several crimes and landed in prison for two years. When she got out, Amanda was determined not to waste the rest of her youth. She moved back in with her parents, started working full time at McDonalds, and spent nights attending cosmetology school so she could have a career. Amanda became passionate about cosmetology and even got a job offer at a salon before she finished school. But when Amanda applied for her cosmetology license, the Pennsylvania Board of Cosmetology slammed the door on her dreams. The Board claimed Amanda lacked “good moral character” because of her past offenses and was thus unfit to give facials or tweeze hair. Amanda was shocked, heartbroken, and out of a job. Amanda’s story is not unique. In recent years, dozens of other women have been denied licenses because of criminal convictions irrelevant to the practice of cosmetology. And would-be cosmetologists aren’t the only ones to suffer from this arbitrary standard. Pennsylvania requires “good moral character” for jobs ranging from landscape architect to poultry technician. Nationwide, there are about 30,000 “collateral consequence” laws like this one—laws that limit people’s right to work even after they have paid their debts to society. Pennsylvania’s good-character requirement is not just unfair. It is unconstitutional. The Pennsylvania Constitution guarantees Amanda the right to work in her chosen field free of unreasonable laws. Good character has nothing to do with skincare or hair removal. It isn’t required for barbers. And in the rare case where an applicant’s background suggests she might harm someone, the Board has other authority to deny a license. With help from the Institute for Justice, Amanda and another Pennsylvania woman denied a cosmetology license, Courtney Haveman, are suing to end this unconstitutional law. Requiring individuals to prove their good character to the government before they can work does nothing to protect the public. It just makes it harder for people to pull themselves up and provide for their families. http://www.ij.org/case/pennsylvania-collateral-consequences

State occupational licensing laws force people to spend time and money earning a license instead of earning a living. But these laws also impose real costs on the wider economy—nearly 2 million lost jobs and billions of dollars in losses for consumers and the wider economy, according to a new Institute for Justice study. https://ij.org/report/at-what-cost

When cities make food trucks illegal, IJ fights back! Another victory for entrepreneurs everywhere.

From 2002 to 2012, Dr. Ron Hines—a retired and physically disabled Texas-licensed veterinarian—used the internet to give advice to pet owners across the country and around the globe. This advice was often free. Ron mainly helped people who lived in remote places without access to veterinarians, and who could not afford traditional veterinary care. No one ever complained about Ron’s advice. Then, Ron discovered that he had been on a decade-long crime spree. In Texas, it is illegal for a veterinarian to give advice online without first physically examining the animal. So the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners shut Ron down, suspended his license, and fined him. Texas did this without even an allegation that Ron had harmed an animal. Although Ron fought back in a federal lawsuit with the help of the Institute for Justice (IJ), an appeals court agreed with Texas: even though Ron was giving advice, advice does not count as protected speech if it is part of an occupation. Since then, things have changed. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed what IJ argued in Ron’s first case: The First Amendment fully protects people who speak professionally. States cannot censor them without a compelling reason. And there is no such reason here. Furthermore, in 2017, Texas changed its laws to ensure that medical doctors could practice telemedicine without in-person examinations. If telemedicine is okay for doctors treating humans, it is okay for veterinarians like Ron. Now, Ron and IJ have teamed up again. Based on the Supreme Court’s ruling, Ron has filed another lawsuit to defend his First Amendment right to give veterinary advice to pet owners who need it. But this case is bigger than Ron. It is about protecting innovation, internet freedom, and free speech for Americans everywhere. http://www.ij.org

Can a state impose any fine, no matter how outrageous? Or does the U.S. Constitution prohibit states and local governments from imposing excessive fines, fees and forfeitures, just as it prohibits the federal government from doing so? These questions will soon be answered when the U.S. Supreme Court hears Timbs v. Indiana, a case litigated by the Institute for Justice. The case will have nationwide implications because it raises an unsettled question of constitutional law: Whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to state and local authorities. The answer to this question has serious implications because more and more state and local governments are imposing fines and fees as a means to fund themselves. https://ij.org/case/timbs-v-indiana/

Variety is, as the saying goes, the spice of life. Restaurants have menus because consumer like being able to choose what they eat and where they eat it. In the last decade, consumers have grown to love the choices provided by hard-working food-truck owners, like Michelle Rock, Aaron & Monica Cannon, and Harley Bruce who all operate food trucks in and around Wilmington, North Carolina. The only people who don’t like food trucks are the brick-and-mortar restaurants that are forced to compete with them for diners. Unfortunately, in the nearby beach town of Carolina Beach, restaurant owners were able to convince the town council to pass a law making it illegal to operate a food truck unless the owner also operates a restaurant in town. The law is a quintessential example of the government illegally picking winners—the restaurants—and losers—food-truck entrepreneurs. It is not the government’s job to decide where people eat. That choice belongs to customers—except in Carolina Beach. The town’s protectionist policy locks out out-of-town trucks and forces its own residents to drive for miles just to dine on one of T’Geaux Boys’ delicious muffulettas or a unique taco from A&M’s Red Food Truck, simply because those trucks are not owned by a local brick-and-mortar restaurant. Government-supported monopolies like Carolina Beach’s are plainly unconstitutional under the North Carolina Constitution. That’s why a group of food truck owners have teamed up with the Institute for Justice to fight for their right to earn an honest living. They have filed a lawsuit asking the court to strike down Carolina Beach’s brick-and-mortar ownership requirement and firmly establish that the North Carolina Constitution prohibits local governments from passing such purely protectionist laws. https://ij.org/case/carolina-beach-food-trucks/

What should the government give a small publishing company that is dedicated to bringing long-forgotten books to a broader modern audience? A pat on the back? An award? How about a six-figure fine? https://iam.ij.org/2Mtfihc In the case of Valancourt Books, the government is going with the fine. Valancourt is a small publishing company operated out of the Richmond, Virginia, home of James Jenkins, a former lawyer who found his life’s calling reviving and popularizing rare, neglected, and out-of-print fiction, including 18th century Gothic novels, Victorian horror novels, forgotten literary fiction, and works by early LGBT authors. Founded in 2005, Valancourt has published more than 300 books, all of which they have permission to reprint, winning praise from literature professors and the press alike. It has also, apparently, been breaking the law. On June 11, 2018, James received an email from the U.S. Copyright Office demanding that he provide it with a copy of every single book in Valancourt’s catalog and threatening him with fines that could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars if he failed to comply. What is going on? It turns out a little-known provision of federal law makes it illegal to publish a new book in the United States without providing the federal government with two free copies. The law itself dates back to the former federal copyright system, under which the only way to secure the protections of copyright was to formally register your work with the federal government and publishers were required to deposit copies of their books in exchange for registration. But under modern copyright law, copyright protection applies automatically to anything someone writes. But the deposit requirements is still there, which means the law now requires two free copies of anything copyrightable that is published in the United States. Valancourt’s books (all of which contain at least some new material, like scholarly introductions or footnotes, that is copyrightable) technically qualify. And the federal government—even though the justification for this requirement has long since vanished—intends to collect.

Dr. Gajendra Singh knows first hand how frustrating it can be to find quality, affordable and transparently priced health care. As a surgeon practicing in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, he’s seen countless patients find themselves deep in medical debt after having to pay thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses for medical imaging. Dr. Singh knew he could do better. https://iam.ij.org/2LVQspE In 2017, he founded Forsyth Imaging Center to provide medical imaging services at a fraction of the prices charged by hospitals and other competitors. In addition to X-rays, ultrasounds and other diagnostic imaging services, Forsyth provides MRI scans. On average, an MRI at a North Carolina hospital costs upwards of $2,000. At Forsyth, Dr. Singh charges $500 to $700. But keeping prices affordable is difficult. That’s because North Carolina’s outdated laws prevent Dr. Singh from owning an MRI scanner. Instead, in order to provide MRI scans, Forsyth must spend thousands of dollars each day to rent a mobile MRI scanner. Dr. Singh would like to purchase a fixed MRI scanner to keep costs low, but he cannot because North Carolina prohibits doctors from offering new services or buying new equipment without first obtaining a government permit called a “certificate of need” (CON). Unfortunately, Dr. Singh cannot even start the costly and cumbersome permit process because a board dominated by regulators and industry insiders has determined his community is not in need of any additional MRI scanners. And even if the board did find a “need” for a new scanner—which it has not—that doesn’t guarantee Dr. Singh could eventually purchase one. The law allows other providers, like the hospital down the street from Forsyth, to fight him at every step of the way. When all is said and done, obtaining a permit for an MRI scanner can cost upwards of $400,000. North Carolina’s CON regime has nothing to do with protecting public health or safety. In fact, it is one of the worst laws of its kind in the country. By stifling competition, CON laws prevent innovative medical professionals from offering affordable care to patients who need it. CON regimes are designed to create monopolies for established providers, like large hospitals that charge patients high prices, at the expense of smaller innovators like Dr. Singh. Health care costs and high-deductible insurance plans that charge patients more out of pocket are on the rise. The last thing the government should be doing is standing in the way of doctors who want to invest their own money to provide quality, affordable and transparently priced services. That is why Dr. Singh and Forsyth Imaging Center have joined the Institute for Justice to challenge North Carolina’s CON requirement for MRI scanners in state court.

In Virginia, you can teach anything, except how to earn an honest living. Jon and Tracy McGlothian own a vocational school that teaches project management and sewing, but Virginia bureaucrats have wrapped them up in red tape. Now they’ve teamed up with the Institute for Justice to vindicate their First Amendment right to teach. http://www.ij.org

El sistema educativo de Puerto Rico está en crisis. En años recientes, las escuelas públicas de la Isla han sufrido de una depresión económica, de una población decreciente, de bajos puntajes de exámenes, y, más reciente, de los huracanes Irma y María. Los padres se sienten cada vez más frustrados y desesperados, percibiendo que no hay opciones verdaderas para proveer una educación de alta calidad a sus hijos. Pero ahora, es posible que habrá un cambio. http://ij.org/puerto-rico/

South Side Pitch is a celebration of innovation happening south of Chicago’s skyline. Business owners apply to pitch their ideas at South Side Pitch. South Side Pitch is hosted by the Institute for Justice Clinic on Entrepreneurship at the University of Chicago Law School. https://southsidepitch.com/apply/

For nearly three decades, Mary Jackson has provided hands-on advice to help new mothers learn how to breastfeed. Despite her years of training and experience, on July 1st, she will be out of a job—but not because she has done anything wrong. Rather, on July 1st, a new Georgia law goes into effect requiring that anyone who makes a living helping new mothers breastfeed must obtain an expensive, burdensome and unnecessary certification from a private group, in order to get a license from the state. http://ij.org/case/georgia-lactation-consultants/

http://www.ij.org/donate Law enforcement exists to protect and serve, not tax and spend. But things are different in the city of Doraville, Georgia, a 10,000 person suburb of Atlanta that has become notorious for its revenue-generating speed traps and housing code enforcement cases. Each year, Doraville budgets between 17 and 30 percent of its overall expected revenue to come from fines and fees issued by its police officers and code inspectors. A 2015 Doraville newsletter bragged that “averaging nearly 15,000 cases and bringing in over $3 million annually,” Doraville’s court system “contributes heavily to the city’s bottom line.” By putting fine revenue into its annual budget, Doraville creates a perverse incentive for police, prosecutors, and even its municipal court to police for profit, rather than seek justice and protect the health and safety of the city. Drivers and homeowners know this perversion first hand. A report in a local newspaper found that Doraville issues tickets totaling more than $800 per resident annually, writing upwards of 40 tickets per day. Some residents have been threatened with probation or even jail time for simple code violations. The Supreme Court has made it clear that it is unconstitutional for a justice system to be influenced by perverse incentives to raise municipal revenue. That’s why two Doraville homeowners and two Doraville drivers have partnered with the Institute for Justice to shut down Doraville’s unconstitutional practice of policing for profit. http://www.ij.org/case/doraville-ticketing/

Two million tourists annually come to Wisconsin’s lovely Door County for breathtaking lakeside views, water sports, cherry picking and much more. Unfortunately, one town there—Gibraltar—has recently made Door County a little less lovely. In a fit of anti-competitive pique, Gibraltar has banned restaurants on wheels, to the detriment of the town’s entrepreneurs and their customers. https://ij.org/case/fish-creek-wi-vending/ Lisa and Kevin Howard, along with Jessica and Chris Hadraba, learned this the hard way. The quartet owns a family business named White Cottage Red Door in Fish Creek, an unincorporated area in Gibraltar. After opening their store, they wanted to open a food truck on their property to feed hungry campers. To that end, they got state and county permits for their truck. But the truck’s first customer, Gibraltar’s constable, told them to stop vending. Gibraltar’s board demanded that Door County revoke the truck’s zoning permit. And when the county refused, the board passed a total ban on vending goods from mobile vehicles, including food trucks. The ban makes no sense. White Cottage Red Door can sell cherry pie legally indoors at its brick-and-mortar store, but not at its truck parked a few feet away. The truck meets all of Wisconsin’s requirements for a safe restaurant. Indeed, the state even classifies it as a mobile restaurant. Nonetheless, Gibraltar will not let the truck’s owners use their own property to grow their business. That is because members of the town board fear food truck competition. The board’s chairman owns a brick-and-mortar restaurant in Fish Creek. The board’s principal proponent of its ban works at another. And, after eating a food truck sandwich he called “out of this world,” a third board member cautioned that restaurants “should be up in arms.” But politicians should not be protecting restaurants’ profits from competitors’ sandwiches. Fortunately, the Wisconsin Constitution acts as a check against towns trying to stack the deck in favor of industry insiders, and protects entrepreneurs’ right to earn an honest living. Gibraltar cannot ignore the state Constitution and stop White Cottage Red Door’s owners from supporting themselves on their own property. Moreover, Wisconsin law preempts Gibraltar’s vending ban. Wisconsin courts have struck down far lesser attempts by cities to impose additional requirements on state-licensed businesses. So Gibraltar’s total ban on vending from licensed mobile vehicles definitely flunks state law. Now, Lisa, Kevin, Jessica and Chris are fighting back. They have teamed up with the Institute for Justice to challenge Gibraltar’s vending ban and establish that vendors’ right to earn a living does not depend on whether their businesses have wheels or not.

On October 31, 2017, Anthonia Nwaorie, a registered nurse and grandmother from Katy, Texas, experienced a real-life Halloween horror story at Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH), when Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers seized all of her money as she was boarding an international flight. Anthonia, a U.S. citizen, was traveling with over $40,000 on a trip to her home country of Nigeria. Some of the cash was for family members, but most of it was money she had saved to start a medical clinic for women and children with limited access to health care. Anthonia is teaming up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a federal class action lawsuit to stop CBP from bullying people like her into signing away their constitutional rights. CBP’s behavior violates the federal forfeiture statute and due process of law. IJ is asking the federal court to stop this practice, void any hold harmless agreements signed by class members, and order CBP to return seized property to any class member—including Anthonia—whose property was withheld because they declined to sign an agreement surrendering their constitutional rights.

Any parent who has raised a child knows that it takes a lot of hard work, perseverance and, most importantly, patience. The one thing it doesn’t take is a college degree. But don’t tell that to Washington, D.C.’s Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE), which recently passed a regulation forcing the city’s day care providers to get a college degree, if they want to keep their jobs. The new rules require staff at day care centers and home day cares caring for more than six children to obtain an associate’s degree within the next few years—causing fear and frustration among the passionate, hardworking people who care for D.C.’s children. Day care providers understandably worry about the time and money needed to obtain a college education, especially since many of them work full time to feed their own families. Associate’s degrees are generalist degrees. Students learn college-level reading, writing and arithmetic—in addition to some specialist courses. Many of the courses day care providers will be forced to pay for and pass—such as public speaking and statistics— are completely irrelevant to caring for children. Many immigrants also face a near-insurmountable language barrier to getting a college degree. And for all the time and money they spend on the degree, the new rules will not even help kids. Parents worry too. In D.C., annual costs at a day care center are higher than in any of the 50 states—on average $23,089 ($1,924 per month) for an infant. Waitlists for a spot at a day care center can run over a year. Adding additional education requirements will only drive up costs and reduce the number of day cares. OSSE already requires that day care providers attend ongoing professional development, pre-service training and orientation training. In D.C.—a city with universal pre-kindergarten—the vast majority of children in day cares are under the age of three. Piling on more hours of irrelevant education does not translate into better quality day care; what matters is passion and experience caring for children. D.C.’s college requirement for day care staff is not just bad policy; it is also unconstitutional. The college requirement violates day care providers’ right to earn a living without unreasonable government interference, and OSSE did not have the power to pass these regulations in the first place. D.C. is imposing real burdens on day care staff and parents in pursuit of imaginary benefits. That is why two day care providers and a parent have teamed up with the Institute for Justice to challenge the college requirement in federal court. http://ij.org/case/washington-d-c-day-care-education/

The government does not have the power to change the dictionary, but that is precisely what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is attempting to do to keep American farms from selling wholesome, all-American skim milk. Case info: https://ij.org/case/fda-skim-milk/ Randy Sowers learned this the hard way. He is a lifelong dairy farmer and the founder of South Mountain Creamery in Middletown, Maryland. Randy believes strongly in selling all-natural products, and that belief extends to his skim milk: Randy wants to sell 100-percent pure skim milk with no added ingredients. The only ingredient in his skim milk would be skim milk. But when Randy contacted the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture to sell his delicious product across state lines, he learned that FDA regulations prohibit him from honestly labeling pure skim milk as “skim milk.” The universally recognized definition of skim milk is just milk with the cream skimmed off. Pure, pasteurized, additive-free skim milk is safe to drink and legal to sell. But the FDA requires all-natural skim milk to be called either “imitation skim milk” or “imitation milk product.” The reason is the FDA has shockingly defined “skim milk” as having three ingredients. The first ingredient is pure skim milk. The other two ingredients are artificial vitamin additives that are not naturally found in skim milk. Business owners who insist on selling additive-free skim milk as “skim milk” face fines and even possible incarceration. The First Amendment protects the right to tell the truth. That is why Randy and South Mountain Creamery are teaming up with the Institute for Justice to file a federal lawsuit challenging the FDA’s ban on labelling their products honestly.

There is a new sheriff in town in Indio, California and he’s coming after residents who find themselves caught in the city’s outrageous new code enforcement law. That sheriff is a private, for-profit law firm called Silver and Wright, which was hired by Indio in 2014 to serve as the city’s official prosecutor for code enforcement cases. The firm’s pitch was appealing. It offered “cost neutral or even revenue producing” prosecution services, so long as the city changed its ordinances to allow the firm to bill property owners for its full attorneys fees. http://ij.org/case/indio-fines The consequences of the city’s cost-savings decision have had devastating effects on residents unfortunate enough to get caught up in the system. In 2015, Ramona Morales received a $175 citation in the mail after a city inspector noticed a chicken in the backyard of a home she rents out. Ramona went to court, explained that her tenants were confused about the legality of raising chickens in Indio, and ultimately agreed to pay the nominal fine. She thought the ordeal was over, but it was actually just getting started. Nearly a year later, Ramona received a bill in the mail from Silver and Wright, demanding $3,030 in attorney’s fees. The firm threatened to sell her home, if she refused to pay. Ramona appealed the fees, lost, and was billed an additional $2,628 for the cost of the appeal. In the end, she paid nearly $6,000 in attorneys fees for a minor infraction of the city code. Ramona is not alone. As the Desert Sun reported, residents in Indio, Coachella, and elsewhere in California have been billed thousands of dollars in attorneys fees by Silver and Wright. Since 2014, the firm has signed up dozens of other California cities.

In 2016, D.C. passed new rules that could throw thousands of perfectly qualified daycare workers out of a job simply because they haven’t been to college. D.C. parents already know how expensive quality daycare can be and these new rules threaten to make it even more pricey —and more competitive. It will be impossible for many daycare workers to meet the new requirements once they take effect, thousands of qualified people could lose their jobs without any benefit to D.C.’s children. Now D.C. wants to hear from you. Tell D.C. why this hurts families and daycare workers. www.savedcdaycare.com

New Jersey is the only state in the U.S. to completely ban bakers from selling cookies, cakes and muffins that were made in a home kitchen—foods even the government deems to be “not potentially hazardous.” New Jersey allows home bakers to legally sell their baked goods for charity and nonprofit bake sales. But the second bakers sell a cookie to earn a living, they are breaking the law and face up to $1,000 in fines. In May 2017, the only other state with the same ban—Wisconsin—had it declared unconstitutional by a Wisconsin court. Now, the Institute for Justice and a group of home bakers are asking the New Jersey courts to reach the same conclusion. New Jersey’s home-baked goods ban has nothing to do with safety. There is no report of anyone, anywhere, ever getting sick from improperly baked goods. The ban is instead purely political. There is bipartisan support in the New Jersey Legislature to remove the ban, and bills to do exactly that have passed the Assembly unanimously. However, one man has stood in the way: Senator Joseph Vitale. Senator Vitale has repeatedly refused to allow these bills a vote in the Senate. His reason? Protecting commercial bakers from competition. Protecting businesses from competition is not only un-American, it is also unconstitutional. That is why on December 7, 2017, three New Jersey moms and the nonprofit coalition, the NJ Home Bakers Association, joined with the Institute for Justice in filing a constitutional lawsuit in state court against New Jersey’s Department of Health. The lawsuit will ask the court to strike down the home-baked good ban and allow home bakers to sell home-baked goods—like muffins, cookies and breads—directly to their friends, neighbors and other eager customers. http://ij.org/case/nj-baked-goods-ban/

City officials in Cumberland, MD are destroying the entire Rolling Mill neighborhood to build a chain restaurant and a parking lot. But many of us still live here, and we do not want to go anywhere. Our homes are not for sale, yet we are living with the constant fear that any day the city will knock on our doors and tell us they are taking our homes through eminent domain. Together, the residents of Rolling Mill have formed the Save Our Homes Alliance to stand up against the Mayor and to fight for the homes we love so much. Check out saverollingmill.com and urge the Mayor and City Council to disavow the use of eminent domain for private development. Thank you for Standing With Us! http://www.saverollingmill.com

License to Work: A National Study of Burdens from Occupational Licensing is the first national study to measure how burdensome occupational licensing laws are for lower-income workers and aspiring entrepreneurs. Download the report at http://ij.org/report/license-work-2/ The report documents the license requirements for 102 low- and moderate-income occupations—such as barber, massage therapist and preschool teacher—across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It finds that occupational licensing is not only widespread, but also overly burdensome and frequently irrational. On average, these licenses force aspiring workers to spend nine months in education or training, pass one exam and pay more than $200 in fees. One third of the licenses take more than a year to earn. At least one exam is required for 79 of the occupations. Barriers like these make it harder for people to find jobs and build new businesses that create jobs, particularly minorities, those of lesser means and those with less education. License to Work recommends reducing or removing needless licensing barriers. The report’s rankings of states and occupations by severity of licensure burdens make it easy to compare laws and identify those most in need of reform.

http://www.ij.org/donate Earlier this year, Bob Smith, owner of the Pacific Coast Horseshoeing School, opened his mailbox to find a notice from the state of California threatening to shut him down. The notice said that Bob was violating state law by admitting students to his horseshoeing school who hadn’t first graduated from high school or passed an equivalent government-approved exam. A few months later, Esteban Narez, a ranch hand working odd jobs, applied to attend PCHS’s eight-week course. He’d heard from other PCHS graduates that shoeing horses was a great way to turn his love of working with horses into a stable profession that would help him better support himself and his family. But because Esteban hasn’t graduated from high school, Bob was forced to deny his application. For students with limited education, trade schools like Bob’s are often the best opportunity to learn a skill and join a trade that empowers them to earn an honest living. By denying students’ right to a quality education in a profession of their choice, California’s prerequisite education law hurts the very students it was intended to help. Standing in front of a room of students and teaching a vocational skill is no different than writing a how-to book, publishing a series of newspaper stories, or uploading an instructional video to YouTube. In other words, teaching is a form of Constitutionally-protected free speech. That’s why Bob and Esteban have partnered with the Institute for Justice to file a lawsuit against the state of California to vindicate their First Amendment rights to teach and learn. http://ij.org/case/california-trade-schools/

Do adults have the right to talk to other adults about what to buy at the grocery store? That’s the question raised by a federal lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice on behalf of Florida-based health coach Heather Kokesch Del Castillo. In 2014, Heather left an unfulfilling career to found Constitution Nutrition, a business that specializes in providing one-on-one health coaching for paying clients. As a privately certified health coach, Heather operated successfully and without complaint—first in California and then in Florida—for nearly four years. But in May 2017, Heather was forced to shut down completely, after a licensed dietitian filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Health alleging that Heather was engaging in the unlicensed practice of nutrition/dietetics. Although Heather has never held herself out as a licensed nutritionist or dietitian, the Florida Department of Health slapped her with an order to cease and desist providing nutritional advice and demanded that she pay over $750 in fines and costs. She would have to spend years of her life and thousands of dollars getting a degree and in training to become a licensed dietitian. Without any realistic options, Heather did as the state ordered and shut down. And she has been turning away willing clients ever since. Unfortunately, Heather’s situation is not unique. Occupational licensing boards are increasingly operating as special-interest censors, while licensed practitioners—eager to keep out would-be competitors—often scour advertising spaces in search of people to file complaints against. And this problem is particularly acute for military families like Heather’s, for whom frequent moves often lead to conflict with state licensing boards. But this sort of censorship cannot be squared with the First Amendment. Advice about what people should eat to stay healthy is as old as language and the government has no power to give any group a monopoly on advice about such a common, everyday topic. That’s why Heather is fighting back. On October 3, 2017, Heather joined with the Institute for Justice to file a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida to strike down Florida’s unconstitutional restrictions on who can give safe dietary advice that customers want to buy. Together, Heather and IJ will vindicate her right—and the rights of all Floridians—to offer nutrition advice and health coaching without the fear of being prosecuted or shut down by the government. http://ij.org/case/florida-diet-coaching/

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency has seized and kept Gerardo Serrano’s truck for the past two years because he forgot he’d left five bullets in his center console. Welcome to the upside-down world of civil forfeiture, where law enforcement can seize your stuff without ever charging you with a crime. Five forgotten bullets are all it takes for the government to argue that someone is an international arms smuggler and rob them of their constitutional rights. It all started two years ago when Gerardo was crossing the border into Mexico at Eagle Pass, Texas, in his nearly-new Ford F-250 pickup truck. While he waited to cross, he snapped photos to share with his relatives on Facebook. Two CBP agents stopped him at the side of the road. Gerardo, the agents said, was being detained because he’d taken photos. While detained, Gerardo watched agents search his truck. Finally, one officer gleefully said “we got him” and held up five low-caliber bullets Gerardo had forgotten were in his center console. The agents told him he was free to go, but they were keeping his truck. According to CBP, the truck was subject to civil forfeiture because it was used to transport “munitions of war.“ To get home to Kentucky, Gerardo had to rent a car. For almost two years, the agency held Gerardo’s truck without ever taking its case before a judge. Gerardo had to pay 10% of the value of the truck—around $3,800—just to contest the seizure. No court has ever approved the seizure of Gerardo’s truck, and Gerardo has never had an opportunity to argue that he should get the truck back. The truck presumably continues to sit in a government impound lot while he continues to make monthly payments. Gerardo was never convicted of a crime, let alone charged with one. Indeed, forgetting a few bullets in your car is not a crime. For taking pictures, Gerardo’s truck was seized under a law designed to punish international arms smugglers, not innocent Americans visiting family in Mexico. Now Gerardo is done waiting. He has joined with the Institute for Justice to sue to get his property back. And Gerardo also is filing suit on behalf of a class of other U.S. citizens who have had their vehicles seized by Customs and Border Protection, seeking an order requiring the agency to provide a prompt post-seizure hearing whenever they take vehicles for civil forfeiture. http://ij.org/press-release/civil-forfeiture-lawsuit-challenges-u-s-customs-border-protections-unchecked-power-seize-keep-property-indefinitely/

http://ij.org/press-release/bombshell-documents-reveal-secret-plan-city-charlestown-ind-private-developer/

http://www.ij.org/case/north-carolina-makeup-schools

Jasna Bukvic is a North Carolina-based professional makeup artist who wants to open up a school to teach others how to apply makeup like her. But there is a catch. The state will only give Jasna a license to open her school if she agrees to turn it into a full-fledged esthetics school, forcing her to spend 500 hours teaching things makeup artists do not do— like hair removal and facials— and at least $10,000 on useless equipment. Jasna was surprised to learn about this after receiving a personal visit from a member of the North Carolina Board of Cosmetic Art Examiners, who found Jasna’s Facebook ad for makeup instruction. To the Board, it does not matter that Jasna’s students do not want to learn these unnecessary skills and that Jasna does not want to teach them. She either has to comply with the Board’s demands or she will not be allowed to open. But makeup artistry is not the same as esthetics. Estheticians offer services like microdermabrasion, body waxing and facials. The Board refuses to make this distinction and instead forces makeup artists who simply want to teach others their craft to comply with its 600-hour one-size-fits-all curriculum or face thousands of dollars in fines. North Carolina has no problem with Jasna applying makeup to someone: The state requires almost anyone who applies makeup for a living to become a state-licensed esthetician before working and Jasna went through 600 hours of schooling to get that license several years ago. Yet it has a problem with Jasna teaching people how to apply makeup unless she gets an additional license and turns her makeup school into an esthetics school. It does not make sense to force makeup schools to spend hundreds of hours teaching skills makeup artists do not use. People like Jasna should not need the government’s permission to provide useful information. Jasna only wants to teach makeup and her students only want to learn about makeup. Under the First Amendment, the government cannot require a license just to teach something, including makeup artistry. That is why Jasna and her prospective student Julie Goodall have teamed up with the Institute for Justice to challenge North Carolina’s requirements in federal court. The U.S. Constitution protects the right to speak for a living—whether the speakers are authors, journalists or makeup artists like Jasna— and it protects the rights of listeners to hear from those speakers. http://www.ij.org/case/north-carolina-makeup-schools

Sally Ladd is an entrepreneur who manages vacation properties in Pennsylvania’s Pocono Mountains. Recognizing the exciting opportunities afforded by the rise of the sharing economy in recent years—especially given the emergence of sites like Airbnb and VRBO—Sally saw a real chance to carve out a niche for herself in the world of short-term vacation rentals. In short, Sally saves property owners needless headache and hassle by helping them post, market and book their homes online. She does all of this on her laptop, from the comfort of her own home. But earlier this year, Sally received a call from the Pennsylvania Department of State informing her that she was under investigation for the unlicensed practice of real estate. Sally was shocked and disappointed to learn that, to operate legally, she would have to spend three years working for an established broker, pass two exams, and set up her own brick-and-mortar office in Pennsylvania—where she does not live and has no desire to live. Learn more: http://ij.org/case/pennsylvania-property-management/

Nobody should need their competitors’ permission to operate a business. But the government of Louisville is forcing that very requirement on local food trucks. City law bans food trucks from operating within 150 feet of every restaurant in the city that sells similar food. As a result, large swaths of Louisville have become “no-vending” zones, where food trucks are effectively banned—even on private property—unless they obtain a restaurant’s permission to operate. In other words, the Derby City is using government power to give an unfair leg up to its favorite businesses. Louisville’s 150-foot ban does only one thing: it shuts down food trucks in order to protect restaurants and other eating establishments from competition. To have any chance at vending in these restricted areas, food trucks must first get written permission slips from the very brick-and-mortar competitors the law is designed to protect. Worse still, the 150-foot ban arbitrarily treats food trucks differently based on what they sell. So while a food truck serving burgers would be banned from operating within 150 feet of a burger joint, a pizza truck could park right out front. If that weren’t enough, a restaurant can force a nearby food truck to shut down at any time by simply adding something to its menu that’s similar to whatever food the truck sells. Among the vendors caught in Louisville’s crosshairs are Troy King and Robert Martin. City inspectors forced Troy to shut down his Pollo food truck by threatening to fine him and tow the food truck away simply because he was vending within 150 feet of a restaurant selling chicken. Robert stopped bringing his Red’s Comfort Foods food truck downtown after city inspectors cited him for serving customers while within 150 feet of a restaurant serving sausages, pork, and bread. While these entrepreneurs attempt to operate their vending businesses to support themselves and their families, Louisville shuts them down for no reason other than to protect restaurants from food-truck competition. But the government cannot use its power to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which includes Kentucky, decided in Craigmiles v. Giles that protecting a discrete interest group from economic competition is not a legitimate use of government power. Under the U.S. Constitution, economic liberty—the right to earn a living free from unreasonable government interference—receives meaningful protection. This law makes absolutely no sense and it does nothing to protect health and safety. That is why on June 28, 2017, Troy and Robert filed a lawsuit against the city of Louisville in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the 150-foot ban and vindicate their rights under the U.S. Constitution. They are represented by the Institute for Justice, whose National Street Vending Initiative vindicates the rights of street vendors nationwide. https://ij.org/case/louisville-vending/

https://ij.org/case/iowa-certificate-need/ For more than 20 years, Dr. Lee Birchansky has tried to offer his patients the option of having their cataract and other outpatient eye surgeries in a center right next to his office in Cedar Rapids. But the state of Iowa has stymied his efforts to open his own surgery center, forcing him to perform these surgeries at his competitors’ facilities. How does this scheme work? Iowa makes it a crime for doctors to open up a new location and offer services without obtaining special permission known as a “certificate of need.” Permission is not easy to come by: Dr. Birchansky must persuade state officials that his outpatient surgery center is “needed” in the proposed location through a cumbersome process that resembles full-blown litigation and that allows existing businesses (his competitors) to oppose his application. This process amounts to nothing more than certificates of monopoly. Iowa’s requirement has absolutely nothing to do with public health or safety. Separate state and federal laws govern who is allowed to practice medicine and what kind of medical procedures are permitted. Iowa’s CON program only regulates whether someone is allowed to open a new facility; it is explicitly designed to make sure new facilities are not allowed to take customers away from established healthcare facilities. It ensures that more money flows into the pockets of established businesses and prevents someone like Dr. Birchansky from expanding Iowans’ choices for medical care. Patients and doctors—not state officials—are in the best position to decide what healthcare services are needed. That is why Dr. Birchansky, his patient Michael Jensen and another Iowa medical provider—Korver Ear Nose and Throat LLC—have joined forces with the Institute for Justice to challenge Iowa’s protectionist CON program. The U.S. Constitution protects the right to earn an honest living free from unreasonable government interference, and it protects a patient’s right to seek routine, safe and effective medical treatment from a qualified doctor. The Iowa CON program infringes on those rights, and that is why a federal court should strike it down.

The government tried to stifle the dreams of this entrepreneur for almost two years as he tried to get his business off the ground. Watch what happened when he fought back. http://ij.org/press-release/arkansas-entrepreneur-breaks-taxi-monopoly/

http://www.ij.org/donate Running red lights can get you a ticket. But in Oregon, you can be fined just for talking about it. Mats Järlström learned this first-hand last year when the state of Oregon fined him $500 for publicly suggesting that yellow lights should last for slightly longer to accommodate cars making right turns. Mats is a tinkerer. In the great tradition of American inventors and scientists who got their start working in their garage or basement, Mats saw a problem and set out to fix it—that is, until the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying brought everything to a screeching halt. http://ij.org/case/oregon-engineering-speech/

Learn more here: http://ij.org/case/orange-park-sign/

For Scott Fisher, gaming is not just a passion; it is also how he supports his wife, Lori Fisher, and two children, Kailey and Ryland. Scott runs a video game store called Gone Broke Gaming. To bring in more customers, Scott had displayed a 9-foot inflatable Mario—the classic video game character—in front of his store last summer, with great success. Over the next two months, Mario not only helped customers find the small store, but it quickly became a local attraction for kids and adults alike. http://ij.org/case/orange-park-sign

The Institute for Justice and small farm wineries have filed suit to challenge MN’s restrictions on wine making. http://ij.org/case/minnesota-interstate-shipping/

http://ij.org/case/pottstown-penn-rental-inspections/

A small-town mayor in rural Indiana has made it his personal mission to oust the residents of a tight-knit working-class neighborhood, bulldoze their homes and build a fancy new subdivision for much wealthier people. The only things standing in his way are a plethora of state statutes, the Indiana and U.S. Constitutions and, now, the Institute for Justice, which has filed a lawsuit against the city on behalf of dozens of property owners. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s notorious decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which permitted cities to take private property for “economic development,” the Indiana Legislature enacted sweeping reforms to prevent the use of eminent domain for private gain. To evade this law, city officials in Charlestown, Indiana, working in concert with a private developer named Neace Ventures, have concocted a scheme to destroy the working-class Pleasant Ridge neighborhood through a process that amounts to eminent domain by other means. Their plan is both simple and sinister. Charlestown Mayor Bob Hall has turned the city’s once-benign housing maintenance code into a bludgeon. City inspectors have begun issuing crippling fines for property-code violations—including even trivial ones such as a torn screen, chipped paint or a downed tree limb. The fines accumulate at a rate of at least $50 per day, per violation, quickly leaving homeowners with thousands of dollars in fines and no way to pay. While homeowners try to address each violation, the fines continue to accumulate and the city finds new violations to compound the penalties. Faced with crippling fines, the homeowners find themselves confronted with an offer they cannot afford to refuse. Neace Ventures steps in and offers to buy the property for $10,000. Neace does not have to worry about the fines or repair orders because the city has agreed not to enforce the law against the developer. The inspections regime has been a windfall for Neace Ventures. Not only has it compelled more than 150 property owners to sell—it has also forced them to sell at a considerable loss. The tax assessed value of the homes is between $25,000 and $35,000, and their fair market value was much higher before the city destroyed the market by vowing to demolish every property. The net savings for Neace, so far, is near $2 million. Mayor Hall’s alternative eminent domain scheme is illegal and unconstitutional under local and state statutes, as well as the Indiana and U.S. constitutions. The Institute for Justice has teamed up with residents to file a preliminary injunction asking the court to put an end to the mayor’s mission to destroy their community. http://www.ij.org

What is IJ Activism? http://ij.org/activism

http://www.ij.org/donate Can the government take all of a family’s money based on suspicion that one family member committed a crime? That is exactly what happened to the Slatic family earlier this year, when the San Diego County District Attorney seized over $100,000 in personal bank accounts belonging to James Slatic, his wife Annette, and their two teenage daughters, Lily and Penny, without charging anyone with a crime. LEARN MORE: http://ij.org/case/san-diego-civil-forfeiture/ Using civil forfeiture, the District Attorney seized nearly every penny from the Slatic family following a January 2016 raid on Med-West Distribution—the legal medical marijuana business owned by James. Police accused Med-West of operating a “clandestine” drug lab, even though the business complied with state medical marijuana laws, operated publically for two years, and paid its taxes. The police took everything from Med-West, including $324,000, and shut the business down. Then, a few days later, the District Attorney went after James’ family, seizing nearly every penny in their personal bank accounts. The seizure of the Slatic family’s money has nothing to do with crime fighting; it has everything to do with policing for profit. In the nine months since the raid, the District Attorney has not brought criminal charges against the Slatics or anyone associated with Med-West. The District Attorney has instead left the Slatics’ money in legal limbo, refusing even to begin legal proceedings in which the Slatics could prove their innocence. Now the Slatics have teamed up with the Institute for Justice to demand their money back. The District Attorney’s abuse of civil forfeiture takes the American principle of innocent until proven guilty and flips it on its head, treating innocent property owners like the Slatics worse than criminals. A victory in this case will not only mean the return of the Slatics’ money, it will uphold the principle that no American should lose his or her property without being convicted of a crime.

http://ij.org/case/south-carolina-eyes/

You can help the Institute for Justice help Sung Cho and others like him fight for Constitutional rights: https://ij.org/sungcho. UPDATE: https://ij.org/press-release/class-action-lawsuit-against-nycs-no-fault-evictions-machine-can-proceed/ When undercover NYPD officers offered to sell stolen electronics to customers at Sung Cho’s laundromat, near the northern tip of Manhattan, Sung never imagined the sting operation could be used as a pretext to shut down his business. But that’s exactly what happened. Attorneys for the city threatened Sung with eviction merely because a “stolen property” offense had happened at his business. The city presented Sung with a choice: See his business shut down or sign an agreement giving up constitutional rights—including his Fourth Amendment right to be free from warrantless searches of his business. Faced with the imminent closure of his laundromat, Sung had no real choice but to sign. In New York City today, this experience is all too common. Under New York City’s so-called nuisance eviction ordinance—more appropriately termed a “no-fault” eviction ordinance—residents and business owners can be evicted simply because their home or business was the site of a criminal offense. Under the ordinance, the identity of the criminal offender is irrelevant. You can be evicted because a total stranger (or a friend or family member) decided your home or business was a good place to commit a crime. City attorneys churn out no-fault eviction filings by the hundreds, relying on form templates and little more than NYPD officers’ say-so that the targeted home or business was the site of a crime. In many cases, the “proof” of the alleged criminal offense is an affidavit from an NYPD officer relaying vague allegations from unnamed confidential informants. Moreover, under the ordinance, occupants of the home or business can be evicted without any notice. After being summarily evicted, occupants have just days to put together a case to persuade a judge to undo the eviction order. City attorneys routinely offer to drop these no-fault eviction proceedings if occupants agree to waive their constitutional rights. Some, like Sung, are forced to sign agreements waiving their Fourth Amendment rights. Others are forced to sign agreements barring family members from the home—including family members who have not been accused of any crime. Now, Sung is joining with other victims of the city’s conduct to bring a federal class action lawsuit challenging the city’s no-fault eviction ordinance. If the lawsuit is successful, past waivers of constitutional rights will be declared unenforceable and, going forward, this practice will be put to an end once and for all. http://ij.org/case/new-york-city-evictions/

http://www.ij.org/donate West Haven, Connecticut has always been home for Bob McGinnity. He grew up there and his childhood home remained his base during his time in the U.S. Navy and his career as a conductor for Amtrak. He lives in that home today, enjoying his long-awaited retirement. Bob remodeled the home and his uncle, Michael Perrone, lives in the unit below him. Living so close has been invaluable since his uncle’s recent stroke and heart attack. It allows Bob to help care for his uncle, who gets to stay in his home to recover. This ideal arrangement, however, is under threat from Bob’s own government. The city of West Haven has teamed up with a private company—The Haven Group, LLC—to build a strip mall along the West Haven waterfront, which would include both Bob’s ad Michael’s homes. Bob and Michael do not want to sell and building around them would require the developer to rearrange only six small stores in the overall complex. Except there is one problem. West Haven is in Connecticut, home of Kelo v. New London, the much-reviled 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that allowed government officials to condemn property based on nothing more than a promise to generate more tax revenue. That decision sparked outrage and a nationwide backlash—44 states have passed laws reforming their eminent domain laws to make Kelo-style takings harder and nine state supreme courts have rejected the Kelo decision. The Kelo case is also notable for what it did not spark: development. Twelve years later, the neighborhood destroyed by New London is a vacant lot populated only by grass, weeds and feral cats. The lesson of Kelo is clear: Eminent domain abuse hurts property owners, destroys communities and fails to generate the kind of development its proponents promise. But West Haven officials have taken the opposite lesson from the case. They apparently believe the case means they can take anyone’s property, anytime they want, for any reason. That is not true. The West Haven condemnations are worse than Kelo. Government officials in Kelo wanted to take private property in the hope of realizing their (wrong-headed and fantastical) plans for redevelopment. But government officials in West Haven did not decide their town needed a strip mall and go looking for someone to build it for them. A private developer decided to build a strip mall and has enlisted the city government to take property on its behalf. Simply put, West Haven is not condemning Bob’s property for a public purpose; it is condemning Bob’s property because a private developer told it to. This is exactly the kind of taking that even the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision singled out as unconstitutional. That is why Bob and his family have teamed up with the Institute for Justice to file a lawsuit against the city of West Haven and its redevelopment arm, the West Haven Redevelopment Agency, to put an end to this abuse of public power for private gain. http://www.ij.org/case/west-haven-eminent-domain

When the government gets in your way, have you ever stopped and asked why? Asking such a simple question is easy, but getting the government to answer it is hard—that’s because too many government regulations are nearly impossible to justify. At the Institute for Justice, every day we ask why. And through litigation, activism and research we get answers. We hold government regulators and bureaucrats accountable. We do this because we believe that every American has a constitutional right to earn an honest living. http://www.ij.org

Every year, nearly 3,000 Americans die because they cannot find a matching bone marrow donor. Common sense suggests that offering modest incentives to attract more bone marrow donors would be worth pursuing, but federal law made that a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. That is why in 2009, adults with deadly blood diseases, the parents of sick children, a California nonprofit and a world-renowned medical doctor who specializes in bone marrow research joined with the Institute for Justice to launch a legal fight against the U.S. Attorney General to put an end to a ban on offering compensation for bone marrow donors. The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984 treats compensation for marrow donors as though it were black-market organ sales. Under NOTA, giving a college student a scholarship or a new homeowner a mortgage payment for donating marrow would land everyone—doctors, nurses, donors and patients—in federal prison for up to five years. NOTA’s criminal ban violated equal protection because it arbitrarily treats renewable bone marrow like nonrenewable solid organs instead of like other renewable or inexhaustible cells—such as blood—for which compensated donation is legal. That makes no sense because bone marrow, unlike organs such as kidneys, replenishes itself in just a few weeks after it is donated, leaving the donor whole once again. In 2011, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the cancer patients and their attorneys from the Institute for Justice, holding that the National Organ Transplant Act’s ban on donor compensation does not apply to the most common method for donating marrow. The U.S. Attorney General sought to have that ruling overturned by the full 9th Circuit, but was unsuccessful. The Institute for Justice’s legal victory became final in June 2012, and a new tool in the fight against deadly diseases became available, when the Attorney General declined to appeal its loss to the U.S. Supreme Court. But no sooner was that legal victory established than the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services proposed a new rule that would negate the legal victory and block model research programs designed to examine the effectiveness of compensation. Nearly 500 people—including Nobel Laureates—wrote to HHS discouraging them from adopting the rule. But for nearly 3 years now, HHS has remained silent blocking such research and costing American cancer patients their lives. http://everything.movie

Every year, nearly 3,000 Americans die because they cannot find a matching bone marrow donor. Common sense suggests that offering modest incentives to attract more bone marrow donors would be worth pursuing, but federal law made that a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. That is why in 2009, adults with deadly blood diseases, the parents of sick children, a California nonprofit and a world-renowned medical doctor who specializes in bone marrow research joined with the Institute for Justice to launch a legal fight against the U.S. Attorney General to put an end to a ban on offering compensation for bone marrow donors. The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984 treats compensation for marrow donors as though it were black-market organ sales. Under NOTA, giving a college student a scholarship or a new homeowner a mortgage payment for donating marrow would land everyone—doctors, nurses, donors and patients—in federal prison for up to five years. NOTA’s criminal ban violated equal protection because it arbitrarily treats renewable bone marrow like nonrenewable solid organs instead of like other renewable or inexhaustible cells—such as blood—for which compensated donation is legal. That makes no sense because bone marrow, unlike organs such as kidneys, replenishes itself in just a few weeks after it is donated, leaving the donor whole once again. In 2011, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the cancer patients and their attorneys from the Institute for Justice, holding that the National Organ Transplant Act’s ban on donor compensation does not apply to the most common method for donating marrow. The U.S. Attorney General sought to have that ruling overturned by the full 9th Circuit, but was unsuccessful. The Institute for Justice’s legal victory became final in June 2012, and a new tool in the fight against deadly diseases became available, when the Attorney General declined to appeal its loss to the U.S. Supreme Court. But no sooner was that legal victory established than the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services proposed a new rule that would negate the legal victory and block model research programs designed to examine the effectiveness of compensation. Nearly 500 people—including Nobel Laureates—wrote to HHS discouraging them from adopting the rule. But for nearly 3 years now, HHS has remained silent blocking such research and costing American cancer patients their lives. http://everything.movie

Eyebrow threading is an ancient grooming technique that dates back thousands of years to parts of South Asia and the Middle East. The technique is simple. Threading, as it is commonly known, uses only cotton thread and nothing else to lift unwanted hair from the follicle. Since its arrival in the United States, threading’s popularity has soared, offering threaders countless opportunities for entrepreneurship and a shot at the American dream. But in Louisiana, the government has created pointless barriers that make it virtually impossible for threaders to earn a living. In order to practice the simple skill of threading, Louisiana requires threaders to obtain a traditional esthetician’s license that involves no training in threading. This requirement forces threaders to waste hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars learning cosmetology techniques they do not use. To make matters worse, just across the border in Texas, this exact requirement was declared unconstitutional for eyebrow threaders last year. By forcing threaders into this irrational licensing scheme, the government has placed the American dream out of reach for threading entrepreneurs across the state. That’s why one Louisiana business and two threaders are fighting back. With the help of the Institute for Justice (IJ), the Threading Studio, run by Lata Jagtiani, and threaders Ushaben Chudasma and Panna Shah have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state’s licensing requirement. They are asking why the government is forcing threaders to quit their jobs and waste time and money learning techniques that have nothing to do with threading. Together they are taking a stand for their right—and the right of all Louisianans—to earn an honest living. http://ij.org/case/louisiana-threading

http://www.ij.org/donate http://ij.org/case/connecticut-forfeiture/ In May 2013, the IRS seized more than $68,000 from Vocatura’s Bakery—a third-generation family business located in Norwich, Connecticut—because they claimed the owners violated so-called “structuring” laws by depositing cash in the bakery’s bank account in amounts less than $10,000. Three years later, the government still has the bakery’s money, although it has never brought its case before a judge, and is now threatening to launch a sweeping investigation into practically every aspect of the business’s finances in an effort to find some retroactive justification for taking the money. This is the ultimate example of the abusive law enforcement tactic of seizing first and questioning later—much later.

http://ij.org/case/baltimore-vending/ Joey Vanoni and Nikki McGowan are Baltimore-area mobile vending entrepreneurs. Joey is a Navy veteran and the owner of Pizza di Joey, a New York-style brick oven pizza food truck. The truck gives Joey the opportunity to not only serve delicious slices, but to also hire his fellow veterans. Nikki is the owner of Madame BBQ, a barbeque food truck that allows Nikki to share her love of cooking with Baltimore’s diverse communities. Joey and Nikki are precisely the type of hardworking entrepreneurs that the Charm City should encourage. Instead, Baltimore has made it nearly impossible for mobile vendors like Joey and Nikki to succeed. Since 2014, mobile vendors have been banned from operating within 300 feet of any brick-and-mortar business that sells the same type of food, merchandise or service—including restaurants, cafes and convenience or clothing stores. Vendors that do face $500 in fines for each violation and can have their vendor’s license revoked. The effect is to prohibit mobile vendors from operating in large swaths of Baltimore. The law is especially hard on food trucks, like Pizza di Joey and Madame BBQ, because of the city’s many restaurants and other food establishments. Worse still, the 300-foot rule arbitrarily treats food trucks differently based on what they sell. So while a taco truck would be banned from operating near a Mexican restaurant, a gyro truck could park right out front. This law makes absolutely no sense—and it is unconstitutional. Its sole purpose is to protect brick-and-mortar businesses from competition. That is why on May 11, 2016, two Baltimore-area food trucks—Pizza di Joey and Madame BBQ—filed a lawsuit against the city challenging its 300-foot rule as a violation of the Maryland Constitution. They are represented by the Institute for Justice, which has won similar fights nationwide as part of its National Street Vending Initiative. A victory will secure the right to economic liberty for all Baltimore mobile vendors and empower entrepreneurs throughout Maryland. http://ij.org/case/baltimore-vending/

A group of Karen Christians from Burma and Thailand have partnered with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to challenge the civil forfeiture of more than $53,000 by Muskogee County. The seized assets included cash donations made to a Thai orphanage and funds being raised for a nonprofit Christian school in Burma by the Klo & Kweh Music Team, a Burmese Christian rock band on a five-month tour of Karen churches across the U.S.

https://www.change.org/p/don-t-zone-me-out-of-business

In 2005, the city of Dallas changed the zoning for Hinga Mbogo’s property to prohibit neighborhood mechanic shops. Using a procedure called “amortization,” they gave him a certain amount of time to close up shop to make way for the businesses the city wanted. They’re forcing him to close his business, without paying any money. Sign the petition to help me save my business. http://www.ij.org/hinga

Learn more: http://ij.org/case/little-rock-taxis/

Little Rock, AR has one taxi company, and it’s illegal to start another one. Little Rock’s government has completely forgotten that the right to choose which taxi to hire belongs to customers, and the government does not get to make this choice for them. Yet that is exactly what the Little Rock’s government is doing by intentionally providing a monopoly to the only taxi company in town. Learn more at: http://www.ij.org/case/little-rock-taxis

Tour guides are storytellers, and the government cannot be in the business of deciding what stories are important or who is allowed to tell them. That is why on January 28, 2016, three would-be Charleston tour guides have joined forces with the Institute for Justice to file a federal lawsuit against the city’s tour-guide licensing scheme. The suit seeks to vindicate a basic principle: that the First Amendment protects the right to talk for a living, whether you are a stand-up comedian or a journalist or a tour guide.

Learn more: http://ij.org/case/wisconsin-baked-go...

In Colorado, disgruntled politicians can have their critics hauled into court, with no right to a public defender. In September 2015, Tammy Holland of Strasburg, Colorado, took out two ads in her local newspaper in which she alerted the public to an upcoming school-board election, and urged voters to familiarize themselves with all of the candidates, including the six candidates who would be challenging incumbent school-board members. For doing so, Tammy found herself sued—not once, but twice—by school-board officials. http://ij.org/press-release/politicians-sue-colorado-mom-into-silence-over-newspaper-ads/ This was possible because Colorado has outsourced enforcement of its campaign-finance laws to the public at large—under Colorado law, any person can file a private lawsuit and haul you into court merely by alleging that you have violated the state’s campaign-finance laws. With no oversight by any government official to screen out frivolous or legally insufficient complaints, the system is rife with abuse, with disgruntled politicians or their allies routinely filing complaints to silence or intimidate those who would dare to criticize them. On January 21, 2016, Tammy joined with the Institute for Justice to fight back in federal court. Her lawsuit seeks to ensure that all Coloradans can speak freely about the political issues that matter to them, without the fear of being sued merely for exercising their First Amendment rights.

Anyone with an oven and a recipe should be able to have a baking business—but that is not the case in Wisconsin, where selling baked goods made in your home kitchen is punishable by up to $1,000 in fines or six months in jail. Wisconsin is one of only two states (the other being New Jersey) to ban the sale of home-baked goods. Learn more: http://ij.org/case/wisconsin-baked-good-ban/

Civil forfeiture laws pose some of the greatest threats to property rights in the nation today, too often making it easy and lucrative for law enforcement to take and keep property—regardless of the owner’s guilt or innocence. This updated and expanded second edition of Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture makes the case for reform, grading the civil forfeiture laws of each state and the federal government, documenting remarkable growth in forfeiture activity across the country, and highlighting a worrisome lack of transparency surrounding forfeiture activity and expenditures from forfeiture funds. http://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/

http://www.ij.org/donate Victory release: https://ij.org/press-release/federal-court-approves-historic-consent-decree-ending-policing-for-profit-in-pagedale-mo/ Pagedale specifically budgets to receive a large percentage of its revenue from fines and fees. By targeting a certain amount of revenue from fines and fees from its residents, Pagedale turns policing on its head. Rather than react to conditions to ensure that the public is protected and wrongdoers punished, Pagedale sets a revenue goal and then uses its code enforcement powers to achieve it. http://ij.org/case/pagedale-municipal-fines/ Graph source: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/municipalities-ticket-for-trees-and-toys-as-traffic-revenue-declines/article_42739be7-afd1-5f66-b325-e1f654ba9625.html

Learn more: http://ij.org/case/iowa-hair-braiding/

Nobody should need their competitors’ permission to operate a business. But for over a decade, the city of San Antonio has forced food trucks to do just that. San Antonio bans food trucks from operating within 300 feet of every restaurant, convenience store, and grocer in the city. The law applies whether a food truck vends on private property or public property. This has created thousands of 300-foot “no-vending” zones all over town. The Alamo City is using government power to play favorites.

Learn more: http://www.ij.org/nevada-school-choice

On Sept. 17, 2015, a group of five Nevada families partnered with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to defend Nevada’s Education Savings Account (ESA) program against two lawsuits challenging its constitutionality. By formally intervening into the lawsuits, the families will ensure that the 450,000 students eligible for the program are represented as the lawsuits progress through the courts. The two lawsuits were filed by the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) Nevada branch and Educate Nevada Now (ENN). “Nevada’s school choice program is one of the largest, most innovative programs in the country, which is precisely why it has come under so much fire.” said IJ senior attorney Tim Keller. “It empowers parents and fosters healthy competition in the state’s education system.” Under the new law, which doesn’t go into effect until 2016, families with children in public schools can opt out of the public school system and receive a flexible scholarship to use on a wide variety of educational services—including private school tuition, tutoring, or distance learning, among other other options. They can even take classes a la carte from public schools or pay for courses at community colleges. The program puts parents in the driver's seat of their children’s education, and offers a multitude of choices to find the best fit for their kids. The ACLU’s lawsuit argues that the newly-minted program furthers a religious or sectarian purpose because it allows parents to choose religious educational options for their children. But allowing parents to make the decision about where to educate their own children severs any link between church and state. The ENN lawsuit does not make any claims regarding religion. It argues that the public school system is the exclusive means of paying for education in Nevada, but there is no reason why families should not have more say over how their own tax dollars are spent, especially when it comes to something as crucial as their children’s education. For families, ESAs will help their children escape Nevada’s overcrowded and inadequate public school system. http://ij.org/nevada-school-choice

After the Institute for Justice's landmark victory before the Texas Supreme Court, eyebrow threaders in Texas are free to practice their trade without obtaining a useless state cosmetology license. This case began in 2009, when the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) demanded that eyebrow threaders obtain expensive and irrelevant licenses in Western-style cosmetology. TDLR insisted that threaders (some of them with 20 years of experience) stop working and pay as much as $9,000 to go to private beauty schools for 750 hours. But private beauty schools do not spend even a minute teaching threading. Threaders had to quit their jobs and spend 750 hours learning every beauty technique except the one they actually use in their jobs. Threaders were also required to pass two cosmetology exams, neither of which tests threading. Still, inspectors imposed $2,000 fines on threaders who did not immediately stop working and obtain the state's useless license. This scheme certainly protected licensed cosmetologists from honest competition, but it did nothing to help consumers or small businesses. Happily, the Texas Supreme Court struck down TDLR's actions. Learn more: http://ij.org/case/patel-v-tx-department-of-licensing-and-regulation/

Learn more: http://www.ij.org/new-jersey-headstones

This case is about one of the most blatant violations of economic liberty in America. It vividly illustrates what is wrong with legislatures in New Jersey and across the country: governments passing anti-competitive laws just to line the pockets of industry insiders at the expense of the public. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark, along with parishioners Emilio Mazza and Dennis Flynn, Sr., and the Institute for Justice have filed suit in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of an outrageous new law that makes it a crime to sell monuments, such as headstones, to parishioners. This law targets the Archdiocese, which is the only religious cemetery in the state selling headstones. The New Jersey Legislature passed the law in February 2015, and Governor Christie signed it on March 23, 2015. The Monument Builders Association of New Jersey—the lobbying arm of the headstone-dealer industry—convinced the state legislature to pass this law after losing a lawsuit last spring against the Archdiocese. In 2013, the Monument Builders sued the Archdiocese in state court, arguing that it was “unfair” for private religious cemeteries to sell headstones, but lost because it was not illegal for the Archdiocese to sell headstones to people being buried in its cemeteries. After that ruling, the Monument Builders ran to the legislature begging for the self-serving new law. The Monument Builders lobbied for this law to protect their own revenue at the expense of the Archdiocese and its parishioners. There is no public health or safety reason to limit who can sell headstones. There is no evidence that the Archdiocese harms its parishioners by selling them headstones. A headstone is just a rock (a beautiful rock with great symbolic value, but still just a rock). This law is simply about protecting the financial interests of the Monument Builders. It represents an abuse of public power for private gain. On July 21, 2015, the Institute for Justice, the Archdiocese of Newark, Emilio Mazza, and Dennis Flynn, Sr., filed a federal constitutional lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to defend economic liberty. The objectives of this case are to vindicate the rights of the Archdiocese and its parishioners, and to establish the principle that the government cannot pass a law solely for the private financial benefit of politically connected insiders. The legal precedent from this case will protect entrepreneurs and consumers everywhere.

In February 2012, two government agents came to Randy’s farm. The IRS, they told him, had seized the farm’s entire bank account, containing more than $60,000. When Randy sold milk at farmer’s markets, customers often paid him in cash, and he and his wife, Karen, deposited those cash payments in the account. The government seized the account because the Sowers deposited the cash in amounts under $10,000.

In June 2014, the government seized Ken Quran's entire bank account—more than $150,000. This was money that Ken worked for years to earn, and that he was counting on for his retirement. Ken had no prior warning before the government seized the account. The government told him they were taking the money because he withdrew cash from the bank in amounts under $10,000. Sign the petition to get Ken's money back! https://www.change.org/p/the-government-should-give-back-ken-and-randy-s-money Learn more: http://ij.org/r/structuring-petitions/ Cast: Ken Quran - Kenny Santiago Marrero IRS Agent 1 - Miles Snow IRS Agent 2 - Gregory Whitfield Police Officer 1 - David Berra Police Officer 2 - Ricky Bell Customer - James Merkle

IJ’s Dana Berliner was recently featured on The Blaze to discuss the 10 year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo ruling. Stay updated! http://www.ij.org

Imagine a successful business with a history of innovation, job creation, and consumer satisfaction. Now imagine that this business is actually prohibited from opening in your town—not because the local government has any objection to its business model or its prices, but just because the local government thinks it has enough businesses in town. Sound crazy? Sounds like the story of Green Cab—a nontraditional taxi company that’s making waves in college towns throughout Ohio. http://www.ij.org/bowling-green-taxis Sound design by Tom Hauser.

June 23 marks the 10th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most universally despised opinion in modern memory: Kelo v. City of New London. The decision stripped any protection against eminent domain abuse by the government out of the U.S. Constitution. If a developer merely promises to pay more taxes on your property, the High Court ruled that the government can take your home, your business or your land and hand it over to that private developer for his or her private use. The only thing more outrageous than the decision is what happened to the land since then: nothing. Learn more: http://ij.org/kelo

Learn more: http://ij.org/san-diego-taxis-release-5-1-2015

Vendors in South Florida are being harassed, fined $500 and arrested for simply selling flowers, churros and candy bars. If these vendors are prevented from working, they cannot earn a living to provide for their families. Hear the struggle of three vendors, and then find out what you can do to help by visiting www.unitedvendors.org. Vendedores en el Sur de la Florida han sido acosados, sufriendo multas hasta $500 y arrestado simplemente por vender flores, churros, y bocaditos. Si los vendedores están prohibidos de trabajar, no pueden apoyar a sus familias. Oiga sobre la lucha de estos tres vendedores, y visita www.UnitedVendors.org para aprender lo que puedas hacer para ayudar.

Lyndon McLellan has spent more than a decade running L&M Convenience Mart, a gas station, restaurant, and convenience store in rural Fairmont, North Carolina. Then, one year ago, without any warning, agents from the IRS seized his entire bank account, totalling more than $107,000. http://ij.org/north-carolina-civil-forfeiture

You can go to jail for 30 days in Savannah, Georgia for the terrible crime of…talking without a license. Learn more: http://ij.org/savannah-tour-guides-free-speech

Read the report: http://www.ij.org/seize-first-question-later

Mary Lou just wants to tell the truth, but government orders her to mislead her own customers. Learn more: https://www.ij.org/florida-skim-milk

Learn more at: http://www.ij.org/texas-craft-beer

Learn more: http://www.ij.org/florida-skim-milk

Carole Hinders has worked hard at her family-owned restaurant, Mrs. Lady's Mexican Food, for 38 years. The federal government took her entire bank account using civil forfeiture, even though she did nothing wrong. Now, they are refusing to return her money, so Carole and the Institute for Justice have teamed up to fight back. http://www.endforfeiture.com

Learn more: http://ij.org/philadelphia-forfeiture-national-release-8-12-2014

Civil forfeiture is a little-known legal device that allows law enforcement officials to take your property, sell it and pocket the proceeds—even if you have done nothing wrong. The most terrifying place in Philadelphia is Courtroom 478 in City Hall. This is where property owners enter Philadelphia’s Civil Forfeiture Machine. Philadelphia’s automated, machine-like forfeiture scheme is unprecedented in size. From 2002 to 2012, Philadelphia took in over $64 million in forfeiture funds—or almost $6 million per year. In 2011 alone, the city’s prosecutors filed 6,560 forfeiture petitions to take cash, cars, homes and other property. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s office used over $25 million of that $64 million to pay salaries, including the salaries of the very prosecutors who brought the forfeiture actions. This is almost twice as much as what all other Pennsylvania counties spent on salaries combined. This is how the city’s forfeiture machine works: Property owners who have their cash, cars or homes seized must go to Courtroom 478. But Courtroom 478 isn’t a courtroom at all: there is no judge or jury, just a scheduler and the prosecutors who run the show. Owners who ask for a lawyer are frequently told their case isn’t complicated and a lawyer isn’t necessary, but are then given a stack of complicated legal documents to fill out under oath. Time and time again, property owners must return to Courtroom 478—up to ten or more times in some cases. If they miss a single appearance, they can lose their property forever. Philadelphia’s forfeiture machine stacks the deck against property owners and leads city officials to police for profit instead of justice. To end these unconscionable and unconstitutional practices, the Institute for Justice and a group of property owners have brought a major, class-action lawsuit in federal court. The lawsuit will take the profit incentive out of civil forfeiture and protect innocent people who are caught in an upside-down legal process that treats them like cash machines while violating their constitutional rights. http://www.endforfeiture.com

Learn more: http://ij.org/milwaukee-taxis-release-7-22-14

Learn more about the case: http://ij.org/missouri-hair-braiding

Since the advent of hair braiding more than 5,000 years ago, it has been a simple and safe practice that government has no business regulating. African-style hair braiding uses no dyes or chemicals, and it is safe for braiders to perform and safe for the people getting their hair braided. But in most states, if you want to braid hair for a living, you need to get permission from the government first. http://www.braidingfreedom.com/

Research compares food-safety inspection scores of food trucks, food carts and restaurants in seven major American cities—and finds that street eats are safe eats. http://www.ij.org/vending

New Jersey's CRDA is trying to use eminent domain to seize Charlie Birnbaum's property as part of a "mixed-use development" project. The trouble is that CRDA has no concrete plans to do anything in particular with it. http://ij.org/images/atlantic-city-eminent-domain/

New Jersey's CRDA is trying to use eminent domain to seize Charlie Birnbaum's property as part of a "mixed-use development" project. The trouble is that CRDA has no concrete plans to do anything in particular with it. http://ij.org/images/atlantic-city-eminent-domain/

Can the gov't pass a law saying that only the first 12 people to vote in an election get to vote for every office, or that only the first 12 people who arrive at church get to stay for the entire sermon? But that is exactly what Minnesota law does when it comes to contributions for state political candidates. Contributing to candidates for political office is a well-recognized First Amendment right and that right cannot be dished out on a first-come, first-served basis. To learn more about this case, visit http://www.ij.org/mn-speech-landing?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=description&utm_campaign=MN%20Campaign%20Speech%20Limits

Learn more: http://ij.org/georgia-teeth-whitening-release-4-2-2014

Learn more: http://ij.org/chicago-ridesharing

The Arizona Supreme Court announced today that it will not review a unanimous Court of Appeals' decision that declared Arizona's Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) Program passes constitutional muster. Today's decision removes any lingering uncertainty about the program's constitutionality. "Arizona's ESA Program is changing lives and improving educational outcomes for more than 700 special-needs students currently participating in the program," said Tim Keller, Executive Director of the Institute for Justice Arizona Chapter and the Institute's lead attorney defending the program in court. "The Arizona Supreme Court's decision is a huge victory for the families participating in the ESA Program." Austin Fox is one example of the difference this program is making in students' lives. Now a high school senior, Austin—who has Asperger's syndrome—was ready to drop out of his public high school in 10th grade. But the opportunity to participate in the ESA program, and to choose a school for himself, convinced Austin to stay in school. Austin's new-found academic success and high SAT and ACT scores means he is college bound upon graduation. Austin's mom, Crystal credits the ESA program with "saving Austin's life." The Institute for Justice represented Crystal and Austin in this case. Along with several other parents and children, the Foxes intervened in the lawsuit, filed by the Arizona Education Association and the Arizona School Boards Association, to defend the ESA program, which is the first of its kind in the nation. "Arizona's ESA Program is a publicly-funded education savings program that gives parents more control over their special needs child's education than any other private school choice program in the country," explained Keller. "Arizona's ESA Program differs from traditional publicly-funded scholarship programs by giving parents of special-needs children a full menu of educational options in which to choose to spend the funds." Under the ESA Program, participating parents receive quarterly deposits into an "empowerment account" in an amount slightly less than their child's previous public school would have received to educate their child. Parents can then use those funds for a wide array of educational options, including payment of tuition or fees at a private school, purchasing educational therapies or services from a licensed or accredited provider, hiring an accredited tutor, or even paying for individual classes or extracurricular activities at a public school. "Arizona has always been a national leader in offering families educational choice," said Institute President and General Counsel William Mellor. "Today's decision finally and fully vindicates the ESA Program's constitutionality. The Court of Appeals' decision now joins a growing list of state courts, including Ohio, Wisconsin, and most recently Indiana, to vindicate the parental right to choose the educational environment that best suits their child's unique educational needs." The Institute for Justice is the nation's leading law firm defending educational choice programs and is actively involved in litigation to protect programs in Alabama, Colorado, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. The Institute for Justice previously successfully defended Arizona's popular tax-credit-scholarship programs in the Arizona Supreme Court in 1999 and again in the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009. Learn more! http://www.ij.org/arizona-education-savings

http://iam.ij.org/1l6Y1GG For the first time in over 20 years, Milwaukee will be issuing new licenses for taxicab drivers. This victory for economic liberty is a direct response to a hard-fought case won by the Institute for Justice. Back in 1991, Milwaukee capped the number of cab permits and banned issuing new ones. So if a driver forgot to renew his license, that license would disappear. 100 new licenses were awarded at a lottery at Centennial Hall, 733 N. 8th St. at 11 a.m. CST on Monday, March 17. Each person could have up to two tickets, though each application has a $100 non-refundable fee. For a chance to obtain one of the 100 new permits, the city has received more than 1,800 applications so far. New cabs are expected to hit the streets later this spring. By the mid-2000s, there were only 321 taxis on the streets of Milwaukee, or one cab for every 1,850 residents. That is one of the lowest ratios in the nation, well below Seattle (one per 940 residents), Denver (one per 480 people), Chicago (one for every 424 residents) and Washington, D.C. (one per 90 people). This restriction created artificial scarcity in the transportation market. When IJ filed its lawsuit against the city in 2011, taxi medallions went for $150,000; the average sales price of a Milwaukee home was $100,000. According to a study commissioned by IJ, just two taxi companies owned more than half of all licenses in Milwaukee. Last April, a circuit court judge struck down Brew City's taxi law as unconstitutional. In response, the Milwaukee Common Council voted to add up to an additional 100 taxi licenses, with a lottery determining just who gets these licenses. While allowing more entrepreneurs to legally work is certainly progress, as IJ's lead plaintiff Ghaleb Ibrahim put it, "There should be no lottery on the American Dream." At 420 cabs for the city, Milwaukee will still only have one taxi for every 1,420 residents. Scrapping the cap entirely is necessary to foster small business and enhance consumer choice.

The Ariz. State Veterinary Medical Examining Board wants to throw entrepreneurs who massage animals without a veterinary license into jail and fine them $3,500 per violation. Celeste Kelly is a horse massage therapist who decided to turn her love of horses into a successful business. She spent hundreds of hours learning about horse anatomy and developing massage techniques to obtain private certifications in animal massage. Massage therapists do not need a medical degree to massage humans, but entrepreneurs like Celeste who want to massage animals in Arizona must spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend four years of veterinary school where they are not even required to learn massage. Because of this regulation, Celeste stands to lose everything. That is why on March 5, 2014, the Institute for Justice, the national law firm for liberty, filed suit in Maricopa County Superior Court on behalf of Celeste and other animal massage therapists, challenging Arizona's animal massage regulation as an unconstitutional violation of animal massage entrepreneurs' right to earn an honest living To learn more about this case, visit http://ij.org/AZmassage. Like IJ on Facebook: http://facebook.com/instituteforjustice Follow IJ on Twitter: http://twitter.com/ij Subscribe to our email list: http://ij.org/joinus

With the 2013 passage of the Opportunity Scholarship Program by the North Carolina General Assembly, North Carolina joined the growing list of states providing low-income families with greater school choice. The program will provide up to 2,400 scholarships worth up to $4,200 each to low-income families to send their children to private schools. To be eligible, families must also be eligible for the federal free and reduced-price school lunch program, which means there is an income cap of about $44,000 for a family of four. The program started accepting applications on February 1, 2014, and will begin awarding scholarships on March 1, 2014. More than 3,000 families have already applied, and the applications keep rolling in. In short, North Carolina is about to offer low-income families the same opportunity for school choice that wealthier families already enjoy. The teachers' unions and the school boards, however, are threatened by the opportunity for long-ignored parents to now select the best schools for their children.

Policing for Profit = #YOLO for Cops. Under civil asset forfeiture, police can seize property suspected of involvement in criminal activity. Unlike criminal asset forfeiture, with civil forfeiture, people don't have to be convicted—or even charged—with a crime to permanently lose their cars, homes, or cash. Even worse, in many cases, police get to keep what they seize through asset forfeiture. As long as cops get to keep what they seize, civil asset forfeiture will keep on spawning scandals. Learn about even more crazy things purchased with forfeiture money: http://www.buzzfeed.com/nicks29/the-14-most-ridiculous-things-police-bought-with-a-4y3w SOURCES: #6: http://ij.org/da-s-office-in-georgia-used-asset-forfeiture-funds-on-booze-steak-galas-and-to-see-ceelo-green http://www.myajc.com/news/news/das-spending-of-federal-forfeiture-money-in-questi/nbFGb/ #5: http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/humble-news/article/Montgomery-DA-says-funds-used-for-liquor-at-1757341.php #4: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104065589 #3: http://www.buzzfeed.com/nicks29/the-14-most-ridiculous-things-police-bought-with-a-4y3w http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104065589 #2: http://members.jacksonville.com/news/crime/2011-12-07/story/camden-county-works-way-back-federal-seized-assets-program http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104065589 #1: http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/15/michigan-cops-used-asset-forfeiture-fund http://www.freep.com/article/20120927/NEWS02/309270120/Ex-Romulus-police-chief-wife-5-officers-head-to-trial http://iam.ij.org/assetforfeiture

Last January, a federal court in Massachusetts dismissed a civil forfeiture action against the Motel Caswell, a family-run motel in Tewksbury, handing a complete victory to owners Russell and Patricia Caswell. In one of the most contentious civil forfeiture fights in the nation, Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts concluded, based on a week-long bench trial in November 2012, that the motel was not subject to forfeiture under federal law and that its owners were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing. The Institute for Justice and local counsel Schlossberg, LLC, brought the case to trial to expose the injustices of civil forfeiture laws that allow law enforcement agencies to pad their budgets by taking property from innocent owners who have never been convicted or even charged with a crime. "This is a complete victory for the Caswell family and for the protection of private property rights," said Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. "The Caswells will keep their motel, and private property rights are preserved." The government had sought to take the Motel Caswell from the Caswell family under the theory that the motel allegedly facilitated drug crimes. But the court found that Mr. Caswell "did not know the guests involved in the drug crimes, did not know of their anticipated criminal behavior at the time they registered as guests, and did not know of the drug crimes while they were occurring." "This outrageous forfeiture action should never have been filed in the first place," said Larry Salzman, an IJ attorney. "What the government did amounted to little more than a grab for what they saw as quick cash under the guise of civil forfeiture." Caswell said, "I couldn't have fought this fight without the help of the Institute for Justice. It is hard to believe anything like this goes on in our country, but the government goes after people they think can't afford to fight. But with IJ's help, we put up a heck of a fight and have won. The public needs to stand up against these abuses of power." Learn More: http://ij.org/massachusetts-civil-forfeiture Watch the original case video: http://youtu.be/HGh-7LOzeHw

Institute for Justice co-founder and president Chip Mellor discusses IJ's work as the national law firm for liberty. If you would like to learn more, please visit http://www.ij.org or IJ's page on the Giving Library http://www.givinglibrary.org/organizations/institute-for-justice.

http://ij.org/donate The story of Zina Murray, her innovative business, and how Chicago killed it leaving fifteen entrepreneurs without a home. Local and state governments should not impose barriers on new job creation by small business entrepreneurs through superfluous and anticompetitive business licensing. Learn more at http://ij.org

Find out more about the case: http://www.ij.org/ORMilk

Find out more here: http://www.ij.org/MNCottageFoods

Learn more: http://www.ij.org/FlVeggies Watch the case launch video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avHrPbONTzE

In Oregon, it is perfectly legal for farmers to sell raw—or unpasteurized—milk...so long as they don't talk about it. If they do, they face huge fines and jail time. But a major federal lawsuit filed this morning by the Institute for Justice (IJ), the national law firm for liberty, and Christine Anderson, owner of Cast Iron Farm in McMinnville, Ore., seeks to change that. Oregon flatly bans the advertisement of raw milk, a perfectly legal product for farmers like Christine to sell. That means Christine and other farmers are prohibited from posting flyers at local stores, advertising sales online or via email, or even having a roadside sign at the farm saying "WE SELL RAW MILK." If Christine does advertise that she sells raw milk, she faces a fine of $6,250 and civil penalties as high as $10,000—plus a year in jail. LEARN MORE: http://www.ij.org/ORMilk

May the government prohibit you from peacefully and productively using your own property to feed your family? That is the question the Institute for Justice (IJ) and a Miami Shores couple have taken to state court in their challenge to Miami Shores' unconstitutional ban on front-yard vegetable gardens. The law prohibits homeowners from growing vegetables in their front yards, but trees, fruit, and garden gnomes are just fine. Homeowners who grow front-yard vegetable gardens face fines of $50 per day. http://www.ij.org/FlVeggies

Can the government arbitrarily restrict where home-baking entrepreneurs can sell their treats or how much they can sell? According to a new lawsuit from the Institute for Justice and two Minnesota home bakers and filed in Minnesota Second Judicial District, the answer is no. Minnesota bans home bakers from selling home baked foods like cakes, cookies and breads—foods the state has deemed safe—anywhere other than a farmers' market or community event. Worse, the state prohibits home bakers from making more than $5,000 annually—an average of only $96 per week. Violating these restrictions can lead to fines of up to $7,500 or up to 90 days in jail. LEARN MORE: http://www.ij.org/MNCottageFoods

Buy Terms of Engagement on Amazon now. The Constitution was designed to limit government power and protect individuals from the tyranny of majorities and interest-group politics. But those protections are meaningless without judges who are fully committed to enforcing them, and America's judges have largely abdicated that responsibility. All too often, instead of judging the constitutionality of government action, courts simply rationalize it, as the Supreme Court did in upholding the Affordable Care Act, which represented the largest—and most blatantly unconstitutional—expansion of federal power since the New Deal. The problem lies not with the Constitution, but with courts' failure to properly enforce it. From the abandonment of federalism to open disregard for property rights and economic freedom, the Supreme Court consistently protects government prerogatives at the expense of liberty. The source of this error lies in the mistaken belief on both the left and the right that the leading constitutional value is majority rule and the chief judicial virtue is reflexive deference to other branches of government. This has resulted in a system where courts actually judge the constitutionality of government action in the handful of cases they happen to care about, while merely pretending to judge in others. The result has been judicial abdication, removing courts from their essential role in the system of checks and balances so carefully crafted by our Founders. This book argues that principled judicial engagement—real judging in all cases with no exceptions—provides the path back to constitutionally limited government.

Braiders Aren't Barbers: African Hairbraider Takes Texas to Federal Court Over Economic Liberty. Isis Brantley is a widely recognized expert on African hairbraiding who wants to teach people to braid hair for a living in Dallas. But even with her decades of experience, Texas is telling Isis she must now convert her modest hairbraiding school into a large barber college, and become a state-licensed barber instructor, before she can teach the next generation of African hairbraiders. When the state of Texas began regulating hairbraiders in 2007, it wedged Texas's hairbraiding license into the state's barbering statute. This means that Isis must spend 2,250 hours in barber school, pass four exams, and spend thousands of dollars on tuition and a fully-equipped barber college she doesn't need, all to teach a 35-hour hairbraiding curriculum. Tellingly, Texas will waive all these regulations if Isis goes to work for an existing barber school and teaches hairbraiding for them. But braiders aren't barbers, and braiding instructors shouldn't be forced to build barber schools or take classes from barbers. That is why on October 1, 2013, Isis joined with the Institute for Justice to file a federal lawsuit against Texas. A victory in her case could impact entrepreneurs throughout the state and beyond. http://www.ij.org/texasbraiding

Government bullies are taking the little guy's milk money. Earlier this year, without warning, the federal government seized the store's entire bank account—more than $35,000—and refuses to give it back. The government falsely accused Terry and Sandy of breaking anti-money-laundering laws by making frequent bank deposits of their store's cash receipts. But they did nothing illegal and have been charged with no crime. In July, the government filed a lawsuit to keep the money, not against Terry and Sandy but against the cash itself, which is why the case has the bizarre title of United States v. $35,651.11. Federal civil forfeiture law features an appalling lack of due process: there is no way to quickly get a ruling from a neutral decisionmaker about the validity of the government's seizure, and therefore Terry and Sandy must do battle in federal court against the U.S. Department of Justice to prove themselves innocent and get their money back. Shockingly, the money taken by the government will be used to fund the budgets of the very federal agencies that seized the money in the first place. On September 25, 2013, Terry and Sandy teamed up with the Institute for Justice to fight back. A victory for Terry and Sandy will vindicate not just their right to be free from abusive forfeiture tactics, but the right of every American not to have their property taken from them by government when they have done nothing wrong. Learn more: http://ij.org/case/miforf/

Consumers and entrepreneurs—not the government—should decide how much a ride from a car service should cost. Consumers need the government protecting them from affordable prices as much as they need a government agency protecting them from pillows that are too soft. Government-imposed minimum-fare rules don't help consumers. All they do is increase costs, stifle innovation and protect industry insiders from competition—hardly a wise or constitutional use of government power. Tampa is one of only a handful of places where a minimum fare law like this is imposed, in this case by the Hillsborough County Public Transportation Commission: Most jurisdictions recognize that consumers don't need the government's protection from low prices. It is unconstitutional for Hillsborough County Public Transportation Commission to harm consumers by forcing them to be overcharged. It is also unconstitutional for this county agency to harm small business owners by preventing them from growing their businesses and creating jobs by offering better values to their customers. Learn more: http://ij.org/case/tampafares/

Businesses need to advertise to survive. For small businesses, signs are their most effective and least expensive option. The city of Sacramento, Calif. is threatening the owners of a small independent gym with fines of up to $1000 a day simply for using a sandwich board to advertise their business. Without their sandwich board, the Fears have already lost countless customers. So the Fears and the Institute for Justice are fighting to protect their gym and the First Amendment right of every business to communicate with the public.

In May 2013, John Rosemond—America's longest running newspaper columnist—received an astonishing order from the Kentucky attorney general: Stop publishing your advice column in the Bluegrass State or face fines and jail. The attorney general and Kentucky's psychologist licensing board believe that John's column, which is syndicated in more than 200 papers nationwide, constitutes the "unlicensed practice of psychology" in Kentucky when it appears in a Kentucky newspaper. Kentucky's crackdown is part of a national surge in the abuse of occupational licensing laws to censor advice. On July 17, 2013, John joined the Institute for Justice to fight back in federal court. His First Amendment lawsuit defends freedom of speech and freedom of the press from government officials who believe that it can be a crime in America to express an opinion in the newspaper. John's challenge addresses one of the most important unsettled questions in First Amendment law: Can the government use occupational licensing laws to trump free speech? Learn more: http://ij.org/case/kypsychspeech/

Washington's Public Disclosure Commission, which works to shut down political debate, is now seeking to drastically restrict free civil rights advocacy—advocacy that has guided our nation to live up to its ideals of freedom and justice. A first-of-its-kind legal battle over the agency's actions is now raging in Washington state and will answer important questions about the limits of government power, the right of free speech and political participation, and the ability of civil rights advocates to represent their clients against a government agency when that agency is violating constitutionally enshrined rights. Learn more: http://ij.org/case/ijvspdc/

http://www.ij.org/teethwhitening

Teeth-whitening services are popular and increasingly available at spas, salons and shopping malls. This has been a boon for consumers because these businesses offer whitening services at a much lower cost than dentists do, often charging less than 25 percent of what a dentist would charge for similar results. Teeth-whitening products are regulated by the FDA as cosmetics, which mean anyone—even a child—can purchase them and apply them to his or her own teeth without a prescription and without supervision or instruction.

http://savedcfoodtrucks.org/video D.C. is one of the best food-truck cities in the country. That's something city officials should be proud of. But unfortunately, city leaders are considering new restrictions on food trucks that could be used to ban them from serving their customers in many parts of the city. If passed, these restrictions would make D.C. one of the worst cities for food trucks. In addition to reducing options for customers, these restrictions could force many food trucks to lay off employees, relocate to other cities with better laws, or go out of business altogether. Let's work together to Save DC Food Trucks!

Milwaukee Taxi entrepreneurs protest an unconstitutional law capping the number of cabs at only 321 for the entire city, which violates their right to earn an honest living. The rally featured a press conference on the steps of the Milwaukee County Courthouse before the summary judgment hearing in the case. After the hearing, the judge ruled from the bench that the law was unconstitutional because economic protectionism is not a legitimate government interest. http://www.ij.org/milwaukee-taxis-release-4-16-2013 Speakers: Katelynn McBride, Institute for Justice Attorney Anthony Sanders, Institute for Justice Attorney John F. Weishan, Jr., Milwaukee County Supervisor, 16th District Jatinder Cheema, Institute for Justice Client Ghaleb Ibrahim, Institute for Justice Client Ishmael Harun, President, Southeast Wisconsin Taxi Driver's Association

Can the government silence and shut down licensed professionals for giving advice online?  This Institute for Justice lawsuit involves free speech and Internet freedom while centering on one of the most important unresolved issues in First Amendment law: When does occupational licensing trump the First Amendment?  The outcome will have widespread implications for medicine, law, psychology, investment advice, and many other occupations that often involve nothing but speech in the form of advice. The facts make it an ideal lawsuit for eventual consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Dr. Ron Hines is a highly regarded licensed veterinarian who's never had any complaints against him. Being a disabled and retired senior citizen, the Internet allows him to remain productive in his golden years. Yet he's been fined and shut down for giving advice on the Internet, often for free, to people around the planet who have no other access to veterinary care for their animals.  http://www.ij.org/TXVetSpeech

Apply for IJ's acclaimed law student conference this summer, July 25-27 (travel paid). There is no cost to attend, but space is limited. Applications are due March 21, 2014. http://iam.ij.org/107udgV IJ's law student conference is like boot camp for future freedom fighters. You'll learn cutting edge constitutional theory, how to sue bureaucrats and winning in the court of public opinion. Past participants have filed their own lawsuits taken on big government and help make America a little more free.

http://www.ij.org/legislation Civil asset forfeiture is one of the greatest threats to private property rights in our nation today. Law enforcement can take your property without even charging you with a crime. According to reports from the Institute for Justice, law enforcement agencies frequently fail to disclose what they seize or how they use the proceeds. Failure to report only makes this already bad problem worse. State legislatures must enact comprehensive forfeiture reform to protect private property by (1) requiring that individuals be convicted of a crime before title to their property is transferred to the state, (2) ensuring that forfeiture proceeds do not become a slush fund for law enforcement, and (3) protecting innocent owners by shifting the burden to prosecutors to prove that a third-party did not consent or have actual knowledge about a crime before he loses his property. Police and prosecutors should be chasing criminals, not profits, but allowing the law enforcement to keep the proceeds of forfeited property gives them a direct financial incentive to abuse their power. Fair and impartial law enforcement cannot exist as long as policing for profit is allowed. Going to court to get your property back is no simple task. The state forces you to enter an upside down legal world where you must prove your property is innocent instead of requiring the government to prove you are guilty of a crime. The legal process is so rigged that even an innocent owner needs a lawyer and must wait months for a hearing to get back seized property. The laws need to be changed to protect property owners who are wrongly dragged into the forfeiture process through no fault of their own.

Learn more: http://www.ij.org/irs As part of a sweeping new licensing scheme, the IRS won't let tax preparers continue to prepare your tax returns in 2013 unless they first get a special permission slip from the government by paying for and completing 15 hours of continuing education by the end of this year. They will also have to pass an IRS-mandated exam by the end of next year. These new regulations threaten the livelihoods of as many as 350,000 tax return preparers, many of them independent mom-and-pop businesses, and could waste up to 5 million man hours. But the IRS says it will not extend the deadline.

http://www.ij.org/vending

Should the city of Chicago be in the business of protecting a few politically connected restaurateurs from competition? That is the question to be answered by a major lawsuit filed Wednesday, November 14, 2012, in Cook County Circuit Court by the Institute for Justice (IJ)—a national public interest law firm—and three Chicago-area food truck entrepreneurs. Cities nationwide are experiencing the benefits of food trucks. But for years Chicago had not embraced that movement. For example, Chicago did not allow cooking on food trucks and it told food truck entrepreneurs that they must stay more than 200 feet from brick-and-mortar restaurants. So in June 2012, when the city announced it would be revising its vending laws, food fans were excited. The law that passed in July, however, continues to make it illegal for food trucks to operate within 200 feet of any fixed business that serves food. The fines for violating the 200-foot rule are up to $2,000—ten times higher than for parking in front of a fire hydrant. Further, the city is forcing food trucks to install GPS tracking devices that broadcast the trucks' every move. According to the Chicago Tribune, "the ordinance doesn't serve the needs of the lunch-seeking public. It benefits the brick-and-mortar eateries, whose owners don't want the competition." The Institute for Justice is the nation's leading legal advocate for the rights of entrepreneurs. For more on the lawsuit, visit www.ij.org/vending.

http://pghmobilefood.com/ Pittsburgh law makes it nearly impossible for the city's popular food trucks to operate. Councilman Bill Peduto has introduced legislation that would allow food trucks like Franktuary, the Pittsburgh Pierogi Truck and BRGR to serve their delicious food to eager customers. Watch this video to learn more, then show your support for food trucks by signing the petition at http://www.pghmobilefood.com.

UPDATE: The Caswell's won the case! Watch a behind the scenes video about the case here: http://youtu.be/oJrM44GwiTg The most contentious civil forfeiture fight in the nation will be the subject of a week-long trial starting Monday, November 5, 2012, in Boston. Throughout the week, the Institute for Justice, which represents the property owners in the case, will expose the ugly practice of civil forfeiture—where law enforcement agencies can pad their budgets by taking property from innocent owners who have never been convicted or even charged with a crime. The trial will start at 10 a.m. at the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way in Boston. The case of Tewksbury, Mass., motel owner Russ Caswell and his wife will be presided over by Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein in Courtroom 15. At the heart of the trial will be the protections afforded innocent owners, like the Caswells, when faced with the loss of their property. All Russ and his wife want is to peacefully operate their motel. But because their property was worth one million dollars and carried no mortgage, and because a handful of drug crimes had taken place on the property over 20 years (which represent less than .05 percent of the 125,000 rooms the Caswells rented over that period of time), the federal government is trying to take the Caswell's property through civil forfeiture, sell the land and keep the money. Under a process known as "equitable sharing," the federal government would keep 20 percent of what they net and the local police department would pocket 80 percent. Russ and his wife stand to lose everything they worked their lives to build. "The Caswell case epitomizes everything that is wrong with our nation's civil forfeiture laws," said Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. "People who are never even charged let alone convicted of criminal wrongdoing can face the loss of their homes, cars, cash, or, like with the Caswells, their entire business and livelihood." "This outrageous forfeiture action should never have been filed in the first place," said Larry Salzman, an IJ attorney. "What the government is doing amounts to little more than a grab for what they saw as quick cash under the guise of civil forfeiture. Our goal in this case is to not only spotlight the inevitable abuse that transpires when law enforcement agencies are allowed to use civil forfeiture, but to set a precedent that will end this nightmare for the Caswells and stop an abuse of power that has ruined the lives of too many innocent Americans." Russ said, "I think it is quite obvious why the federal government has come after us and not other businesses. We own a million-dollar property with no mortgage, so anything they get here, they get to keep for themselves. This case took a huge financial toll on our family before the Institute for Justice stepped up to defend us. And it continues to put a huge personal strain on both me and my wife. At this point in our lives, we should be thinking about our retirement. Instead, we have to take on this fight to save our business and make sure that it won't happen again to the next generation that comes along." http://www.ij.org/massachusetts-civil-forfeiture-release-3-15-2013

Should the government be allowed to search and seize your possessions based on nothing more than a positive "alert" from a drug-sniffing dog? The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires police, in most situations, to have what is known as a "probable cause" (a reasonable belief based on sufficient facts) before they can search or seize property. Increasingly, however, police have been using drug-sniffing dogs to establish probable cause to seize, and ultimately keep through civil forfeiture, cash, cars and other property on the grounds that the property may be linked to a drug crime. IJ attorneys Darpana Sheth and Scott Bullock explain IJ's new amicus brief about civil forfeiture. Learn more at this link: http://www.ij.org/florida-v-harris-amicus Read the brief here: http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/amicus_briefs/fl-v-harris-amicus.pdf

Ever wonder why it's so hard to get a taxicab? IJ's Jeanette Petersen explains that government-imposed barriers like caps on permits and minimum fare laws are designed to protect entrenched transportation companies at the expense of enterprising drivers and consumers alike. http://www.ij.org/portlandsedans

http://www.ij.org/4509 Thursday, June 7, 2012, the Bradley Foundation presented the Bradley Prize to IJ President and General Counsel William H. "Chip" Mellor during a ceremony at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. "Chip Mellor has led the fight for freedom in America's courts by challenging laws that stifle constitutional rights," said Michael W. Grebe, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Bradley Foundation. "Thanks to Chip, the Institute for Justice has become an influential public interest law firm securing major victories for economic liberty, property rights, school choice and the First Amendment. Prior to co-founding the Institute for Justice, Mr. Mellor served as President of the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. He also served in the Department of Energy during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Mr. Mellor earned his undergraduate degree from Ohio State University and his J.D. from the University of Denver School of Law. The selection was based on nominations solicited from more than 200 prominent individuals across the country and chosen by a Selection Committee, which included Terry Considine, Pierre S. du Pont, Robert P. George, Michael W. Grebe (Bradley Prizes Committee Chair), Alan Charles Kors, Charles Krauthammer, Dianne J. Sehler, Shelby Steele and George F. Will. "Through the Bradley Prizes, we recognize individuals like Chip Mellor who have made outstanding contributions, in hopes that others will strive for excellence in their respective fields," said Mr. Grebe.

Across the country, government is dealing a one-two punch to property rights and free speech. Using sign codes, cities are demanding large signs protesting eminent domain abuse be taken down. Free speech rights are essential to protect our other rights, including our property rights. If victims of eminent domain abuse can't speak out against it, who can? IJ is working to defend individuals' property rights and free speech rights when they come under attack.

http://www.ij.org/nevadamakeup

In Nevada, teaching others how to apply makeup without a government-issued license can subject you to up to $2,000 in fines. http://www.ij.org/nevadamakeup

http://www.ij.org/vacon Ordinarily, if you want to start a new business or offer a new service there is a simple test to find out whether your new business is needed: You open the doors and tell the world. If people need your business, you will have customers. If they don't, you won't. That experience—of learning what people need and how new types of services can fit in—is familiar to anyone who has ever been an entrepreneur. Indeed, it is familiar to anyone who has ever been a customer. It is also an experience that the state of Virginia turns entirely on its head for people who want to offer new healthcare services. If you want to offer new healthcare services, even something as routine as opening a private clinic, you have to obtain special permission from the state government. And permission is not easy to come by: Would-be service providers have to persuade state officials that their new service is "necessary"—and they have to do so in a process that verges on full-blown litigation in which existing businesses (their would-be competitors) are allowed to oppose them. Not surprisingly, this process can be incredibly expensive, and it frequently results in new services being forbidden to operate at all. To be clear, this requirement (called a certificate-of-need or CON program) has nothing to do with public health or safety. Separate state and federal laws govern who is allowed to practice medicine and what kind of medical procedures are or are not permitted. Virginia's CON program only regulates whether someone is allowed to open a new office or purchase new equipment; it is explicitly designed to make sure new services are not allowed to take customers away from established healthcare services. In short, Virginia's CON program is nothing but a government permission slip to compete. It ensures that more money flows into the pockets of established, politically connected businesses, and it accomplishes this by trampling entrepreneurs' economic liberty and reducing Virginians' choices for medical care. But patients and doctors—not state officials—are in the best position to decide what healthcare services are needed. That is why Colon Health Centers of America, headed by Dr. Mark Baumel, MD, and Washington Imaging Associates Maryland, LLC, headed by Dr. Mark Monteferrante, MD, have joined forces with the Institute for Justice to challenge Virginia's protectionist CON program. The Constitution protects individuals' right to earn an honest living free from unreasonable government interference, and it prevents states from putting up unnecessary barriers to interstate commerce. The Virginia CON program does both, and that is why the federal courts should strike it down.

https://ij.org/case-intake/certificate-of-need-faq/ Medical professionals join forces with Institute for Justice, file major federal health care lawsuit. Laws limit medical options for patients, funnel millions of dollars to politically connected businesses. For more: http://www.ij.org/VACON

http://www.ij.org/paleospeech Can the government throw you in jail for offering advice on the Internet about what food people should buy at the grocery store? That is exactly the claim made by the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition. In December 2011, diabetic blogger Steve Cooksey started a Dear Abby-style advice column on his popular blog (www.diabetes-warrior.net) to answer reader questions. One month later, the State Board informed Steve that he could not give readers advice on diet, whether for free or for compensation, because doing so constituted the unlicensed, and thus criminal, practice of dietetics. The State Board also told Steve that his private emails and telephone calls with readers and friends were illegal, as was his paid life-coaching service. The State Board went through Steve's writings with a red pen, indicating what he may and may not say without a government-issued license. But the First Amendment does not allow the government to ban people from sharing ordinary advice about diet, or scrub the Internet—from blogs to Facebook to Twitter—of speech the government does not like. North Carolina can no more force Steve to become a licensed dietitian than it could require Dear Abby to become a licensed psychologist. That is why on May 30, 2012, Steve Cooksey joined the Institute for Justice in filing a major free speech lawsuit against the State Board in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division. This lawsuit seeks to answer one of the most important unresolved questions in First Amendment law: When does the government's power to license occupations trump free speech?

http://ij.org/norfolksigns IJ clients Bob Wilson and Kelly Dickinson are being blocked by the city of Norfolk, Va., from displaying a banner protesting eminent domain abuse. IJ filed a suit in federal court May 2, 2012, defending the First Amendment right to protest government action on behalf of Central Radio Company and its owners.

http://ij.org/licensetowork License to Work: A National Study of Burdens from Occupational Licensing is the first national study to measure how burdensome occupational licensing laws are for lower-income workers and aspiring entrepreneurs. The report documents the license requirements for 102 low- and moderate-income occupations—such as barber, massage therapist and preschool teacher—across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It finds that occupational licensing is not only widespread, but also overly burdensome and frequently irrational. On average, these licenses force aspiring workers to spend nine months in education or training, pass one exam and pay more than $200 in fees. One third of the licenses take more than a year to earn. At least one exam is required for 79 of the occupations. Barriers like these make it harder for people to find jobs and build new businesses that create jobs, particularly minorities, those of lesser means and those with less education. License to Work recommends reducing or removing needless licensing barriers. The report's rankings of states and occupations by severity of licensure burdens make it easy to compare laws and identify those most in need of reform.

George Mason Law Professor, Neomi Rao Moderates CJE Symposium's Panel 2. Law Professors, Stephen Presser, Sanford Levinson, and Douglas Kmiec discuss the role of Judicial Engagement in Enforcing Limits on Government Power. Read more about the symposium speakers: http://ij.org/center-for-judicial-engagement-symposium-bios

The Institute for Justice presents a symposium discussing the current need for courts to remain active in preserving individual liberties. IJ's President, Chip Mellor begins the symposium by discussing the responsibilities of the courts, the objectives of CJE, and introduces the first speaker, Randy Barnett. Read more about the symposium speakers: http://ij.org/center-for-judicial-engagement-symposium-bios

Attorney, Steve Simpson, from the Institute for Justice, moderates Panel 3: IJ attorney, Clark Neily, Harvard Law Professor, Mark Tushnet, and George Mason Law Professor, Nelson Lund. The Panel focuses on the differences between Judicial Activism and Restraint versus Judicial Engagement. Read more about the Symposium Speakers: http://ij.org/center-for-judicial-engagement-symposium-bios

Can the government bar entrepreneurs from offering competitive prices, online discounts and prompt service merely to protect politically powerful insiders from competition? That is the question the Institute for Justice (IJ) and its clients seek to answer though a federal lawsuit they have filed challenging Portland, Oregon's anticompetitive limousine and sedan regulations. In 2009, the Portland City Council passed two measures designed to protect the city's taxicab companies from competition at the expense of both consumers and limousine and sedan services. Not surprisingly, Portland's taxicab companies requested these regulations. What is surprising is that Portland agreed to impose higher transportation costs on Portlanders and put strict limits on limo and sedan entrepreneurs, just to make it easier for the city's taxicab companies to make more money. Recently, the city's Revenue Bureau clamped down on Groupon.com promotions offered by two Portland limo and sedan companies, Towncar.com and Fiesta Limousine. When the companies offered discounted fares to their customers city enforcers immediately threatened the companies with a combined $895,000 in fines and suspension of their operating permits. In response to the controversy, the city has publicly stated that its job is to protect taxicab companies from competition by enforcing anti-consumer rules. Portland cannot constitutionally seek to protect taxicab businesses from competition at everyone else's expense.

Panel 1 of CJE's Judicial Engagement Symposium. Institute for Justice's, Elizabeth Price Foley, moderates panel of distinguished Professors, David Bernstein, Kurt Lash and Eric Claeys as they each discuss the role of the Courts in Enforcing Property Rights. Read more about the symposium speakers: http://ij.org/center-for-judicial-engagement-symposium-bios

Learn more: http://www.ij.org/CJE

For more visit http://www.ij.org/IRS Congress never gave the IRS the authority to license tax preparers, and the IRS can't give itself that power. But last year the IRS imposed a sweeping new licensing scheme that forces tax preparers to get IRS permission before they can work. This is an unlawful power grab that exceeds the authority granted to the IRS by Congress. The burden of compliance will fall most heavily on independent tax return preparers and small businesses. Unsurprisingly, big firms such as H&R Block and Jackson Hewitt support the licensing scheme. As The Wall Street Journal explained: "Cheering the new regulations are big tax preparers like H&R Block, who are only too happy to see the feds swoop in to put their mom-and-pop seasonal competitors out of business." These regulations are typical government protectionism. They benefit powerful industry insiders and at the expense of entrepreneurs and consumers, who will likely have fewer options and face higher prices. But tax preparers have a right to earn an honest living without getting permission from the IRS. And taxpayers—not the IRS—should be the ones who decide who prepares their taxes. That is why on March 13, 2012, three independent tax preparers joined the Institute for Justice in filing suit against the IRS in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This lawsuit challenges the IRS's statutory authority to impose this licensing scheme, and seeks to overturn regulations that would affect an estimated 350,000 tax return preparers, forcing many of them to stop working in the occupation of their choice.

The California legislature recently dissolved the state's redevelopment agencies, notoriously the nation's worst abusers of eminent domain—when the government condemns perfectly fine properties not for public use, but for private development. California should stand firm in its decision to eliminate these rogue agencies, which have siphoned billions in taxpayer dollars away from schools and local infrastructure, and destroyed lives for ill-conceived projects, that often never meet expectations or even come to fruition. Watch this video to learn more about redevelopment in the Golden State.

Listen to an in-depth podcast about this subject here: http://ij.org/freedomcast/4336-mutual-consent-how-the-individual-mandate-runs-counter-to-the-history-contracts-in-america If government-mandated health insurance is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) case is argued in March 2012, the Institute for Justice warns in its amicus brief that there will be dire and predictable threats to individual liberty and voluntary relations that have been the foundation of American contract law for centuries. Constitutional law professor Elizabeth Price Foley, who is the executive director of the Institute's Florida Chapter and who co-authored IJ's brief, said, "The individual mandate violates a cardinal rule of contract law—to be enforceable, all agreements must be voluntary. The Framers understood this, and would never have given the federal government the power to force individuals into lifelong contracts of insurance. The Court should not allow the government to exercise this unprecedented and dangerous power." As IJ's brief shows, the principle of mutual assent, under which both parties must consent for a contract to be valid, is a fundamental principle of contract law that was well understood during the Founding era and is still a cornerstone of contract law today. Indeed, contracts entered under duress have long been held to be invalid. Yet the mandate forces individuals to enter into contracts of insurance that would never be valid under this longstanding principle. (For a copy of IJ's brief, visit: www.ij.org/PPACAbrief.) If the U.S. Supreme Court fails to strike down the individual mandate, there will be nothing to stop Congress from forcing people into other contracts against their will—employment contracts or union membership, for example. If we still have a constitutional republic in which the federal government's powers are limited, then the Court should strike down this law. The Institute for Justice's brief is the only amicus brief filed with the Court that examines this case in the context of the history of contract law. The brief illustrates how the Supreme Court has recognized the principle of consent in commercial relations in its Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment cases, and it explains why the U.S. Supreme Court has a key role in acting as a check against this unconstitutional power grab by the federal government.

Court Rejects Challenge to Indiana Choice Scholarship Program Release: http://www.ij.org/schoolchoice/4258

SpeechNow.org case page: http://www.ij.org/1219 IJ Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/instituteforjustice IJ on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/IJ

http://www.ij.org/Verlin Verlin Stoll is a 27-year-old entrepreneurial dynamo who owns Crescent Tide funeral home in Saint Paul, Minn. Verlin has built a successful business because he offers low-cost funerals while providing high-quality service. His business is also one of the only funeral homes that benefits low-income families who cannot afford the high prices of the big funeral-home companies. Verlin wants to expand his business, hire new employees and continue to offer the lowest prices in the Twin Cities, but Minnesota refuses to let Verlin build a second funeral home unless he builds a $30,000 embalming room that he will never use. Minnesota's law is irrational. Embalming is never required just because someone passes away and the state does not even require funeral homes to do their own embalming. In fact, it is perfectly legal to outsource embalming to a third-party embalmer. Minnesota's largest funeral chain has 17 locations with 17 embalming rooms, but actually uses only one of those rooms. Why is Minnesota forcing Verlin to waste $30,000 on a useless embalming room as a condition of expanding his thriving business? So that the big, full-amenity funeral-home businesses can benefit from a law that drives up prices for consumers and operating expenses for competitors such as Verlin. Verlin's basic services fee is only $250, which is about 90 percent lower than the $2,500 that the average Twin Cities' funeral home charges. Verlin's business model is built on minimizing fixed costs, which is why he does not have a hearse or chapel, and this law—to the advantage of his competitors—stands in the way of him expanding his low-cost, high-quality approach. The government should not force Minnesotans to do useless things. That is why on January 19, 2012, Verlin and the Institute for Justice challenged the law in state court. The Minnesota Constitution protects every Minnesotan's economic liberty, which means that it protects entrepreneurs from being burdened by legal requirements that are either useless or designed to suppress honest competition. A victory here will not only free Verlin from an unconstitutional restraint on his economic liberty, but protect entrepreneurs across the state from pointless laws and bureaucracy.

Food trucks have hit the streets of Buffalo, NY. But a few brick-and-mortar restaurants are trying to put them out of business through the force of government. Meet three of Buffalo's popular food truck owners: Pete Cimino of Lloyd Taco Truck; Renee Allen of R&R BBQ; and Christopher Taylor of the Roaming Buffalo. Then contact the Buffalo Common Council to express your support for the food trucks: http://www.wnyfta.com.

http://www.ij.org/nolatours In New Orleans, it is a crime to charge people for a talking tour without first getting permission from the government. City officials require every tour guide to pass a history exam, undergo a drug test and an FBI criminal background check every two years merely for speaking. People who give tours without a license face fines up to $300 per occurrence and five months in jail. The First Amendment does not allow the government to be in the business of deciding who is—and who is not—allowed to speak about various topics. That is why four New Orleans tour guides have joined with the Institute for Justice in a federal lawsuit seeking to secure their free speech rights. Vindicating this principle will help protect the rights of countless people across the country that speak for a living—whether they speak as news reporters, stand-up comedians or tour guides. This lawsuit was filed on December 13, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

http://www.ij.org/economicliberty/4149

http://www.ij.org/CtTeeth Teeth-whitening services are popular and increasingly available at spas, salons and shopping malls. This has been a boon for consumers because these businesses offer whitening services at a much lower cost than dentists do, often charging less than 25 percent of what a dentist would charge for similar results. There is one group that is not smiling about these new, low-cost teeth-whitening services: the Connecticut Dental Commission. In June, the Commission ruled it is a crime punishable by up to five years in jail or $25,000 in civil penalties for anyone but a licensed dentist to offer teeth-whitening services, even if the customers apply the product to their own teeth. Teeth-whitening products are regulated by the FDA as cosmetics, which mean anyone—even a child—can purchase them and apply them to his or her own teeth without a prescription and without supervision or instruction. The Dental Commission's ruling has nothing to do with public health or safety and everything to do with protecting licensed dentists from honest competition

If you created an institution, an American institution, what would you want it to do? You'd want it to make the world around you a better place. You'd want it to defend the ideals that make America so unique and inspire others to join in that cause. This is the story of that institution. This is the story of the Institute for Justice and its first 20 years.

Clark Neily explains the concept of judicial engagement and shows why judicial abdication is a far greater danger than Ed Whelan's concerns regarding so-called judicial activism.

Jim and Cliff Courtney have had their plans to launch a ferry service on Lake Chelan sunk by a nearly one-hundred year old Washington State law designed to protect the existing ferry provider from competition. No new business can pick up and drop off passengers along the Lake unless they either get the consent of the current operator or prove in a trial-like proceeding that the "public convenience and necessity" requires additional service. The current provider gets to participate in the proceeding and argue why competition should be kept out. It's no wonder the law has resulted in a government-imposed monopoly on Lake Chelan ferry service since the 1920s. The Courtney brothers have joined with the Institute for Justice in filing a suit in federal court to have the law struck down as an unconstitutional violation of their economic liberty and of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. Learn more: http://www.ij.org/LakeChelan

http://www.ij.org/about/4088

In October 2011, the newly created Institute for Justice Florida Chapter filed a lawsuit in state court on behalf of street vendors. These vendors are challenging a law passed by the city of Hialeah, Fla. (located near Miami), that not only makes vendors' work more dangerous by forcing them to constantly be on the move rather than vend in one location, but also is purposefully anticompetitive—making it impossible for vendors to compete against politically powerful brick-and-mortar businesses. The heart of the Institute for Justice's challenge is that, under the state of Florida's constitution, the government must protect the rights of individuals to pursue an honest living free from unnecessary and arbitrary government-imposed restrictions. Likewise, it is not the government's place to put in place anticompetitive restrictions that arbitrarily protect one business while harming another. Street vendors are a core part of the American Dream. Whether it is selling newspapers in New York City or hot dogs in Chicago or cheesesteaks in Philadelphia, the image of a hard-working street vendor climbing his way up the economic ladder is familiar to Americans from coast to coast. Vending provides a perfect means of entering the economic mainstream, especially for the poor and newcomers to our nation, because vending doesn't require a great deal of financial capital or formal education; it merely requires a dream for a better life and hard work. Unfortunately, local governments are making it all but impossible for street vendors to earn an honest living. That is what is happening in Hialeah. Although street vending is legal in Hialeah, city laws designed to protect brick-and-mortar businesses from competition make it illegal to be an effective street vendor. In an effort to fight these anticompetitive laws, local vendors are teaming up with the Institute for Justice's new Florida chapter to stand up for their economic liberty. http://www.ij.org/4090

The Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868 to empower the federal government -- including particularly federal courts -- to stamp out a culture of lawless tyranny and oppression in the South by enforcing basic civil rights of newly freed blacks and their white supporters. This culture of oppression took many forms, including widespread censorship, the systematic disarmament of freedmen and white unionists, and the wholesale denial of economic liberty. At the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment was the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which the Supreme Court effectively deleted from the Constitution in the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases. Today, that judicial error continues to take its toll on important freedoms like private property and the right to earn an honest living, which receive virtually no protection from courts despite their obvious importance to ensuring the economic autonomy of the freedmen following the Civil War and all Americans today. http://www.ij.org/cje

Imagine you own a million-dollar piece of property free and clear, but then the federal government and local law enforcement agents announce that they are going to take it from you, not compensate you one dime, and then use the money they get from selling your land to pad their budgets—all this even though you have never so much as been accused of a crime, let alone convicted of one. Learn more: http://www.ij.org/massforf

http://www.ij.org/MKETaxis

Private companies cannot use governmental power to outlaw competition, yet this is what the city of Milwaukee does for its established taxi cartel. Milwaukee allows only 321 taxicabs on its streets—almost half of which are owned by a single owner. That is about one cab for every 1,850 residents, one of the highest ratios in the country. This cap on taxi permits has sent permit costs skyrocketing, from $85 to $150,000—putting the dream of owning a taxi business out of most people's reach. Ghaleb Ibrahim is a Milwaukee entrepreneur who simply wants to own and drive his own taxicab. He has the means to operate safe and insured taxis, but the cap on the number of cabs means his dream cannot become a reality. For now if he wants to drive a cab he must do it for someone else at a hefty rental price. It does not have to be that way. Milwaukee's taxicab cap violates Ghaleb's right to earn a living, protected by Wisconsin's Constitution. That's why on September 27, 2011, Ghaleb and two fellow drivers teamed up with the Institute for Justice to file a major civil rights lawsuit in the Milwaukee County Courthouse against the city.

Please visit http://www.ij.org for more information.

http://www.ij.org/mystreets Chicago laws make it nearly impossible to sell tasty food on the go. The City Council is considering a freer regime, but the proposed law still bans entrepreneurs from selling in the morning or stopping anywhere near a building where food is sold. Food trucks and carts would be banned from business districts with the most customers.

Chicago laws make it nearly impossible to sell tasty food on the go. The City Council is considering a freer regime, but the proposed law still bans entrepreneurs from selling in the morning or stopping anywhere near a building where food is sold. Food trucks and carts would be banned from business districts with the most customers. Call your alderman today to say, "Get mobile food rolling all over Chicago!"

For generations, street vending has been a classic way to succeed with only a strong work ethic and a desire to succeed. It is a path that cities should encourage, particularly in these tough economic times. But rather than fostering entrepreneurship and opportunity, Atlanta is doing its best to smother it. Larry Miller and Stanley Hambrick own two well-known vending businesses outside the Atlanta Braves stadium. Their businesses create jobs, offer inexpensive snacks and souvenirs to visitors, and make the sidewalks safer by keeping an eye out for fans who need help. But two years ago, Atlanta handed over all public-property vending to a single company—the first program of its kind in the country. Now that company wants to throw Larry and Stanley out of the spots they have worked for decades to build kiosks that rent for almost $20,000 a year. If it does so, Larry and Stanley's businesses will be destroyed. Unfortunately, many American cities put up roadblocks that keep would-be vendors from climbing that ladder. In Streets of Dreams, the Institute for Justice reviewed vending laws in America's 50 largest cities. It found that of those 50 cities, 45 have one or more anticompetitive restrictions on vending. Atlanta has some of the most onerous burdens in the country, and the monopoly Atlanta has created has cost vendors their jobs and threatens to kill vending as a way for ordinary Atlantans to succeed. To protect the economic liberty of all Georgians, Larry and Stanley have joined with the Institute for Justice to challenge Atlanta's vending monopoly. This lawsuit, filed on July 28, 2011 in the Superior Court for Fulton County, Georgia, is the second case in the Institute's National Street Vending Initiative. It argues that Atlanta lacks the power to grant an exclusive vending franchise and that its actions violate the Georgia constitution. A victory will not only free Atlanta's vending community; it will make other cities think twice before entering into similarly anti-competitive arrangements.

Learn more about the case: http://ij.org/about/3922

CHANDLER, Ariz. -- Eyebrow threading dates back centuries but it has become more and more popular in the Valley. In fact, the service is offered at kiosks in most malls. Kerrie Fender says she's had her eyebrows shaped by threaders a few times. "I can't do waxing. I've tried it a couple of times but my eyes would actually swell shut. I seem to react to the wax or heat or something, so this is a great alternative for me." The business is now in jeopardy. The Arizona Board of Cosmetology recently put threaders on notice explaining how being unlicensed and untrained puts the public at risk for infections and injuries. The letter goes on to tell them to cease the practice immediately. http://www.azfamily.com/news/health/Eyebrow-Threaders-Fights-against-Government-Regulations-124799044.html

Eyebrow threading is a natural and safe method of hair removal that uses a single strand of cotton thread to remove unwanted hair, most commonly from the eyebrows, with no chemicals, dyes, hot wax or sharp objects. But state bureaucrats have decided that threaders cannot practice their trade without first obtaining an unnecessary and expensive government license. The Arizona Board of Cosmetology is now requiring skilled threaders to obtain an aesthetician license, which requires at least 600 hours of classroom instruction—not one hour of which teaches or tests threading—and that can cost over $10,000. But threaders do not need full-blown cosmetology training. http://www.ij.org

They're a group known for their simplistic, peaceful lifestyle, yet today they were at federal court taking on the state. WGNO's Vanessa Bolano has been following this one for months. The fate of the St Joseph Abbey Woodworks now lies in the hands of a New Orleans Federal Judge. Since 2007, Benedictine Monks, like Brother Emmanuel Labrise, have been crafting caskets in St Tammany Parish, but this morning they were in federal court downtown standing behind those defending their job. "We have as much right to sell our caskets in the state as anybody who sells caskets anywhere," says Brother Labrise. http://www.abc26.com/news/local/wgno-news-monks-at-federal-court,0,2471284.story

http://www.ij.org/epvending Should the city of El Paso, Texas, have been allowed to turn itself into a No-Vending Zone in order to protect brick-and-mortar restaurants from competition? See how the Institute for Justice protected the right to earn an honest living for El Paso's Mobile Vendors.

Policing for Profit Report: http://www.ij.org/policingforprofit

Did you know that the Institute for Justice tangled with Donald Trump in the 1990s when he was working with a government agency to take away a widow's home through eminent domain for his private gain? http://www.ij.org/1002

Legislation to deregulate interior design in Florida will be voted on tomorrow, May 6. Senate Republicans promised to shrink government, create jobs and cut red tape and unnecessary regulations, and this is a perfect opportunity for them to demonstrate their commitment to those principles. Will they stand by their promises—or abandon them under pressure from a small group of industry insiders and their team of high-priced lobbyists? Visit http://www.ij.org/DeregulateFlorida for more information on what you can do to fight economic protectionism and support liberty in Florida.

A case argued Tuesday, May 3, 2011, before the Minnesota Supreme Court may ensure that you not only get your day in court, but you get that day in court before the government violates your rights. The case will also set an important precedent that could be noted in other jurisdictions nationwide (including California, Illinois and New Jersey among many other states) where rental inspection laws are set up to violate the constitutional rights of both landlords and tenants.

http://www.ij.org/UTHairbraiding Jestina Clayton, a college graduate, wife, mother of two and refugee from Sierra Leone's civil war has been braiding hair for most of her life. Now she wants to use her considerable skills to help provide for her family while her husband finishes his education. But the state of Utah says she may not be paid to braid unless she first spends thousands of dollars on 2,000 hours of government-mandated cosmetology training—not one hour of which actually teaches her how to braid hair. In the same number of class hours, a person also could qualify to be an armed security guard, mortgage loan originator, real estate sales agent, EMT and lawyer—combined. Such arbitrary and excessive government-imposed licensing on such an ordinary, safe and uncomplicated practice as hairbraiding is not only outrageous, it is unconstitutional. Jestina pled her case to the Utah's licensing board and to Utah legislators but to no avail. That is why on April 26, 2011, the Institute for Justice (IJ) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Utah to challenge Utah's hairbraiding regulations.

IJ's Christina Walsh tackles deregulation of interior designers in Florida and shows there is not a shred of evidence to support the interior design cartel's (lead by the ASID) most cherished myths about the supposed effects of deregulation. Less government red tape means greater opportunities for interior designers and more choices for consumers. Christina explains why. UPDATE: In response to IJ's myth-busting video, the interior design cartel has modified its false claim that "26 states believe the health, safety and welfare of their residents requires that Interior Designers be regulated." The cartel now asserts that "While only 3 States, plus Washington DC and Puerto Rico license designers, 26 other states believe the health, safety and welfare of their residents requires that Interior Designers be regulated through various means." But this is just the same old myth dressed up in more ambiguous language. For a detailed explanation of why this new claim is just as false as the cartel's old claim, visit http://www.ij.org/about/3757

The Institute for Justice and the Goldwater Institute have teamed up to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a decision of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding Arizona's punitive system of funding campaigns with taxpayer money. The consolidated cases, Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (No. 10-238) and McComish v. Bennett (No. 10-239), which the Supreme Court will hear argued on March 28, 2011, involve the "matching funds" provision of Arizona's so-called "Clean Elections" Act. The cases seek to vindicate the rights of independent political groups and candidates who do not take taxpayer funds to speak freely during political campaigns without having the government attempt to "level the playing field." Under the Arizona law, if a group makes an independent expenditure in favor a privately financed candidate, the unelected bureaucrats at the Clean Elections Commission dole out an almost dollar-for-dollar amount of "matching funds" to the publicly funded candidate. That means that for every dollar a group or individual spends to support the candidate of their choice, over the publicly funded candidate's initial government subsidy, the government pays an equal amount of money to the political competition. The Ninth Circuit, in conflict with controlling Supreme Court precedent and contrary to decisions from other federal appellate courts, found this system to be constitutional. IJ and Goldwater are now asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit's decision and hold that the Constitution does not permit the government to place its thumb on the scales in favor of taxpayer financed candidates in elections. The Supreme Court has already taken the unusual step of staying the Ninth Circuit's decision while it considers the case. To learn more about the case, please visit: http://www.ij.org/azcleanelections

DIGG: http://iam.ij.org/fELRWI http://www.ij.org Civil forfeiture threatens the property rights of all Americans. These laws allow the police to seize your home, car, cash or other property upon the mere suspicion that it has been used or involved in criminal activity. Georgia has some of the worst civil forfeiture laws in the country. But, in an attempt to at least ensure civil forfeiture is subject to public scrutiny, state law requires local law enforcement agencies to annually itemize and report all property obtained through forfeiture, and what they did with it, to their local governing authorities. Amazingly, many, perhaps most, local law enforcement agencies simply fail to issue these forfeiture reports. For these agencies, their forfeiture proceeds are "off budget" slush funds shielded from public view. The Atlanta Police Department, Fulton County Police Department, and Fulton County Sheriff all regularly fail to produce mandated forfeiture reports. This concerns Georgia citizens, including Ryan Van Meter, Anna Cuthrell, Joseph Kidd, Josiah Neff and Tsvetelin Tsonevski, all taxpaying residents of Atlanta and Fulton County. They have filed a lawsuit to force the head officers of these three local law enforcement agencies to disclose all of the property they have seized under applicable Georgian forfeiture statues along with how they have utilized that property, preventing that property from becoming a slush fund. The issue of the case is not complicated: Law enforcement should follow the law.

IJ's Clark Neily debunks three myths spread by the Texas Veterinary cartel to promote an anticompetitive campaign against Texas horse teeth floaters. H.B. 3637 would keep teeth floating legal in Texas and protect horses and horse owners' freedom to choose. http://www.ij.org

http://www.ij.org/cyac

The death of a Chandler police officer during an undercover investigation has sparked an investigation. The operation had the potential to net the Chandler Police Department a quarter of a million dollars. For more information go to www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeituretoemail.pdf

Learn more: http://www.ij.org/firstamendment/2919 The city of Dallas, Texas, changed its laws in 2008 to ban virtually all business window signage. Yet it is not the government's place to demand, as Dallas does, that shop owners keep ads off the top two-thirds of their window or demand that 85 percent of a window be free from ads. The government's job is to protect the rights of business owners, including their right to free speech.

The township of Mount Holly, N.J., has been systematically destroying the Gardens—a close-knit community of over 300 garden-style row homes—for the past decade. Officials want to hand the property over to Keating Urban Partners, for luxury townhomes and apartments. This is what happens when eminent domain is abused for private gain.

A San Diego-area boxing gym that serves at-risk kids is showing what it takes to fight for what is right and to win. The Community Youth Athletic Center (CYAC) has had to endure a series of low blows by National City's local government in a case that time and again demonstrated how difficult it is for California property owners to defend themselves against tax-hungry governments and land-hungry developers bent on eminent domain for private gain.

Can you DIGG it? http://iam.ij.org/ht6aQJ Forfeiture abuse in action: Cops caught on tape discussing on how much property they can take from a house due to tiny amount of marijuana found. Read the report: http://www.ij.org/3114 IJ on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/instituteforjustice

On February 15, 2011, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in a constitutional challenge against the U.S. Attorney General to change the part of the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) that makes compensating bone marrow donors a federal crime. Every year, nearly 3,000 Americans die because they cannot find a matching bone marrow donor. Minorities are hit especially hard. Offering modest incentives to attract more bone marrow donors would be worth pursuing, but federal law makes that a felony punishable by up to five years in prison even though bone marrow is just a form of blood and it is legal to compensate people for blood donation. Following the hearing, Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Jeff Rowes joined Akiim Deshay, a leukemia survivor and founder of www.blackbonemarrow.com , and Kumud Majumder, whose 11-year-old son recently passed away waiting for a bone marrow transplant, for a press conference to discuss the urgency of this case.

http://www.ij.org/dogmural

http://www.ij.org IJ's Chip Mellor explains what an engaged judge does, and what the limits of precedent are.

CASE PAGE: www.ij.org/bonemarrow FACEBOOK PAGE: www.facebook.com/instituteforjustice On Tuesday, February 15, 2011, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in a constitutional challenge against the U.S. Attorney General to change the part of the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) that makes compensating bone marrow donors a federal crime. Every year, nearly 3,000 Americans die because they cannot find a matching bone marrow donor. Minorities are hit especially hard. Offering modest incentives to attract more bone marrow donors would be worth pursuing, but federal law makes that a felony punishable by up to five years in prison even though bone marrow is just a form of blood and it is legal to compensate people for blood donation. Flynn v. Holder

An 80-year-old barber cutting hair for 50 years now is told he has to go back to school. He says the state never warned him his license was about to expire. Americans have a constitutional right to earn a living in the occupation of their choice, free from unreasonable government interference. What happened to this man is the very definition of unreasonable. A properly engaged judiciary, is one that takes rights seriously, including the right to earn a living. And it says to government officials you have to treat people reasonably, you have to respect their constitutional right to earn a living. The Institute for Justice created the Center for Judicial Engagement to educate the public about the importance of an engaged judiciary that will protect our constitutional rights including the right to earn a living. And when we succeed, what you saw in this case the State of Oregon putting a man out of business who's been cutting hair for 50 years, That will never happen again.

http://www.ij.org

http://www.ij.org/epvending Should the city of El Paso, Texas, be allowed to turn itself into a No-Vending Zone in order to protect brick-and-mortar restaurants from competition? That is the question to be answered by a major federal lawsuit filed January 26, 2011 by the Institute for Justice and four El Paso mobile food vendors. The lawsuit launches a National Street Vending Initiative, a nationwide litigation and activism effort to vindicate the right of street vendors to earn an honest living. Practiced since ancient times, street vending is more popular than ever. The Economist magazine predicted that in 2011 "some of the best food Americans eat may come from a food truck." Vendors are the darlings of many food critics, and they even have their own reality show on the Food Network. But El Paso, Texas, has recently made it illegal for mobile food vendors to operate within 1,000-feet of any restaurant, convenience store, or grocer. The city even prohibits vendors from parking to await customers, which forces vendors to constantly drive around town until a customer successfully flags them down--and then be on the move again as soon as the customer walks away. Thus, while people across the country embrace mobile vendors for the vitality and creativity they bring to a local restaurant scene, El Paso has decided to threaten vendors with thousands of dollars in fines and effectively run them out of town. El Paso's No-Vending Zone scheme is in place for one reason: to protect brick-and-mortar restaurants from honest competition. But economic protectionism is not a valid use of government power. That is why four mobile venders teamed up with the Institute for Justice to file a federal lawsuit in the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division, against the city of El Paso challenging the constitutionality of its economic protectionism and fighting for their right to keep vending on the streets of El Paso.

http://www.ij.org

www.ij.org IJ Senior Attorney Clark Neily explains the difference between judicial engagement and judicial abdication, and how widespread judicial abdication poses a serious danger to the constitutional rights of all Americans.

IJ's Matt Miller launches it's challenge of El Paso's unconstitutional mobile vending prohibition that prevents food trucks from operating within 1000 of brick-and-mortar competition. http://www.ij.org/epvending

Should the city of El Paso, Texas, be allowed to turn itself into a No-Vending Zone in order to protect brick-and-mortar restaurants from competition? That is the question to be answered by a major federal lawsuit filed January 26, 2011 by the Institute for Justice and four El Paso mobile food vendors. The lawsuit launches a National Street Vending Initiative, a nationwide litigation and activism effort to vindicate the right of street vendors to earn an honest living. Practiced since ancient times, street vending is more popular than ever. The Economist magazine predicted that in 2011 "some of the best food Americans eat may come from a food truck." Vendors are the darlings of many food critics, and they even have their own reality show on the Food Network. But El Paso, Texas, has recently made it illegal for mobile food vendors to operate within 1,000-feet of any restaurant, convenience store, or grocer. The city even prohibits vendors from parking to await customers, which forces vendors to constantly drive around town until a customer successfully flags them down--and then be on the move again as soon as the customer walks away. Thus, while people across the country embrace mobile vendors for the vitality and creativity they bring to a local restaurant scene, El Paso has decided to threaten vendors with thousands of dollars in fines and effectively run them out of town. El Paso's No-Vending Zone scheme is in place for one reason: to protect brick-and-mortar restaurants from honest competition. But economic protectionism is not a valid use of government power. That is why four mobile venders teamed up with the Institute for Justice to file a federal lawsuit in the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division, against the city of El Paso challenging the constitutionality of its economic protectionism and fighting for their right to keep vending on the streets of El Paso.

http://www.ij.org/ The Institute for Justice launches the Center for Judicial Engagement to educate the public about the importance of fully engaged judges who will protect our constitutional rights and limit the size of government.

http://www.wusa9.com/rss/local_article.aspx?storyid=123516 ARLINGTON, Va. (WUSA) -- A dog mural is at the center of a controversial dispute between a small business owner and Arlington County officials. The 1,000-square foot mural depicts cartoon dogs chasing bones. Kim Houghton, the owner of a doggie day care business called Wag More Dogs, designed it and had it commissioned for $4,000. Houghton had it painted on the side of her business that faces Shirlington Dog Park. But now it's covered by large blue tarps. Houghton says the county was holding her permit and prevented her from opening her new business if she didn't comply. http://www.ij.org/dogmural

CASE PAGE: http://ij.org/firstamendment/2198 PHILLY CITY STUDY: http://ij.org/citystudies/philadelphia ALL THINGS CONSIDERED ~ NPR: http://n.pr/gmz65n MARKETPLACE ~ AMERICAN PUBLIC RADIO: http://bit.ly/hAXAhf WALL STREET JOURNAL: http://on.wsj.com/f6RgSl Tait v. City of Philadelphia In 2008 the city of Philadelphia passed a law making it illegal to give a tour of the city without first passing a test and obtaining a special government license. The Institute for Justice filed a constitutional challenge to that law because the First Amendment protects your right to communicate for a living, and that's true whether you're a journalist or a stand up comedian or a tour guide. In 2009, though, the city asked a federal district judge to dismiss that case without considering the constitutional argument because it said it didn't have the money allocated in its budget to start enforcing the law right then. The law was important and they intended to enforce it, they just hadn't allocated the money to enforce it immediately. And that's why on Tuesday January 11, 2011, we'll be having an argument in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, making the simple point that the city's budget priorities cannot trump the Constitution. Government officials simply can't be allowed to hide in the bushes until they feel like jumping out and taking away your rights. Philadelphia's tour guides have the right to speak freely without having to worry whether the city is going to start enforcing its licensing requirement in six weeks, six months or a year. And that's why the Institute for Justice is determined to vindicate the First Amendment rights of ordinary Philadelphians to talk to each other about their city and its history. And to make clear to city officials, in court, that they do not have the power to fine people for unauthorized talking. Institute for Justice Staff Attorney Robert McNamara

An Important Message From The Staff of Camp Politics: Our mission is to train your son or daughter to win political office and then stay there - mainly by using campaign finance laws to suppress political speech that threatens their reelection. But, unfortunately, many in the public have the absurd idea that free speech should receive the full protection of the First Amendment. One of the chief proponents of this view is the Institute for Justice. It just launched its "Citizen Speech Campaign," which it calls "a multi-state effort to restore full protection to political speech about candidates and ballot issues." If you truly care about your children's future as successful incumbent politicians, please do not allow the Institute to dissuade you from sending them to Camp Politics. Learn more about the Institute for Justice's Citizen Speech Campaign. http://www.CampPolitics.org Buy your Camp Politics T-shirt today: http://iam.ij.org/bTNbXY Cast: Narrator: Steve Izant Counselor: Nick Hanson Kids: Sophia Cabana, Zachary Cabana, Nicky McBroom, Sam McBroom, Julia Simpson, Kate Simpson, Natalie Simpson

http://www.ij.org/dogmural Arlington, Va., entrepreneur Kim Houghton, owner of Wag More Dogs canine boarding and grooming facility in Arlington, wasn't looking for a fight. All she wanted to do was build goodwill with dog owners by creating a fun and whimsical mural on the back wall of her business, which faces the Shirlington Dog Park. Kim spent $4,000 to commission an outdoor mural of cartoon dogs, bones and paw prints to be painted on the back wall of her business. As a long-time user of the park herself, Kim saw the mural as her gift to the community. But now Arlington County officials are trying to turn Kim's mural into their government-issued sign. Represented by the Institute for Justice, she has filed a First Amendment lawsuit to defend her rights and the rights of all entrepreneurs to express themselves.

http://www.ij.org/DogMural Arlington, Va., entrepreneur Kim Houghton, owner of Wag More Dogs canine boarding and grooming facility in Arlington, wasn't looking for a fight. All she wanted to do was build goodwill with dog owners by creating a fun and whimsical mural on the back wall of her business, which faces the Shirlington Dog Park. Kim spent $4,000 to commission an outdoor mural of cartoon dogs, bones and paw prints to be painted on the back wall of her business. As a long-time user of the park herself, Kim saw the mural as her gift to the community. But now Arlington County officials are trying to turn Kim's mural into their government-issued sign. Represented by the Institute for Justice, she has filed a First Amendment lawsuit to defend her rights and the rights of all entrepreneurs to express themselves.

http://www.ij.org/ForfeitingJustice On 11-22-10, the Institute for Justice released a new report called Forfeiting Justice, which shows how Texas law enforcement agencies increasingly profit from the power of "civil forfeiture." Civil forfeiture http://www.ij.org/about/3292 is the power to take property suspected of involvement in a crime. But unlike criminal forfeiture, police and prosecutors never have to convict the owner of any crime to take away cash, cars, homes and more.

PRESS RELEASE: http://ij.org/about/3576 CASE PAGE: https://www.ij.org/1227 The Institute for Justice is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse a decision of the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals, which upheld Arizona's system of financing campaigns that uses taxpayer money to punish traditionally funded candidates and independent speakers. The case involves the "matching funds" provision of Arizona's so-called "Clean Elections" Act. The case (Arizona Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett) seeks to vindicate the rights of independent political groups and candidates who do not take taxpayer funds to speak freely during political campaigns without having the government attempt to "level the playing field."

http://ij.org/about/3572 On 11-09-10, a judge in Austin, Texas struck down an effort by the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners to put horse teeth floaters out of business and leave the state's approximately one million horses without proper dental care. The court ruled that the Board violated state law when it changed its policy on horse teeth floating. Click here to learn more: http://ij.org/about/3572

http://www.ij.org/​about/​3570 Steve Simpson bio: http://ij.org/staff/608 A federal appellate court today held that six neighbors in the tiny subdivision of Parker North, Colo., should not have been forced to register with the government and comply with burdensome campaign finance laws simply for opposing a ballot issue involving the annexation of their neighborhood.

IJ CITY STUDIES: http://ij.org/citystudies PAUL SHERMAN: http://ij.org/staff/627 POWER OF ONE: http://ij.org/about/3425 NEWS ARTICLE: http://bit.ly/ddqEGA Police in Orange County, Florida, have been conducting warrantless raids of barbershops, and arresting barbers for cutting hair without a license. As a result, barbers with years of experience and lots of satisfied customers are subject to hundreds of dollars in fines, simply because they cut hair without having gotten permission from the government. Institute for Justice economic liberty expert Paul Sherman explains that under Florida law, before you're allowed to cut hair, you must first take 1,200 hours of instruction that can cost thousands of dollars and pass a written exam. The economic effects of laws like this are well documented—by restricting entry into the market consumers are forced to pay more for fewer options. When we lose the right to work in common occupations without first asking government permission, the loss of other civil liberties soon follows. In the 1950s only one in twenty Americans needed a government license to work in their chosen occupation. Today, that number is almost one in three. Those who want to prevent a repeat of these raids should take a hard look at deregulating safe, common occupations like barbering and cosmetology.

Read the report: http://www.ij.org/citystudies/philadelphia The city of Philadelphia is governed by the ordinary things one finds in American cities: a mayor, a city council, various bureaucracies. But it is also governed by something else: the word "no." At nearly every level, Philadelphia's city government and related bureaucracies operate with a one-word vocabulary; whatever the question is, the answer is "No." In field after field after field—from zoning to permitting to occupational licensing—would-be entrepreneurs hear that answer time and again. But as anyone who has ever spent time around a toddler can attest, a one-word vocabulary quickly wears thin—and in this (as in many things) what is tolerable in a toddler makes for terrible public policy. Saying nothing but "no" eventually yields exactly what one would expect: nothing. And nothing, unfortunately, is what Philadelphia has to look forward to unless it begins to reshape its approach to entrepreneurship.

Despite the need for job creation, Chicago wraps local entrepreneurs in so much red tape that even the most savvy entrepreneurs can have trouble navigating their way through complicated rules and codes. In this interview, IJ Clinic Director Beth Milnikel explains just how tangled it gets. For more stories of entrepreneurs held back by local laws, read the IJ Clinic's updated barrier study online: http://bit.ly/chicitystudy

For more information: http://www.ij.org/citystudies

For more information: http://www.ij.org/citystudies

For more information: http://www.ij.org/citystudies

http://iam.ij.org/9uFUX3 How can Americans create private sector jobs? The solution to America's jobs problem lies not with budget-busting federally mandated "stimulus" programs. Instead, what is needed are specific reforms that wouldn't cost taxpayers, would create a broader tax base for cash-strapped cities and states, and would provide opportunity for millions of Americans who worry where their next paycheck is coming from. As demonstrated by a series of eight new reports issued in October 2010 by the Virginia-based Institute for Justice, one of the principal obstacles to creating new jobs and entrepreneurial activity in cities across the country is the complex maze of regulations cities and states impose on small businesses. IJ's "city study" reports are filled with real-world examples of specific restrictions that often make it impossible for entrepreneurs to create jobs for themselves, let alone for others. Chip Mellor, the president and general counsel of the Institute for Justice, said, "If the nation is looking to the federal government to create jobs in America, it is looking in the wrong place. If we want to grow our economy, we must remove government-imposed barriers to honest enterprise at the city and state levels. Remove those barriers, and you will see a return to the optimism and opportunity that are hallmarks of the American Dream." IJ's eight reports document how irrational and anti-competitive regulations block entrepreneurship. More often than not, these government-imposed restrictions on economic liberty are put in place at the behest of existing businesses that are not shy about using government force to keep out competition. The Institute for Justice's city studies examine regulations imposed on a wide range of occupations in Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Newark, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.

Update: In a major legal victory for school choice, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a frivolous legal challenge to Arizona's innovate private school scholarship tax credit program. (April 4, 2011) http://www.ij.org/about/3751 On November 3, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the oral arguments in the case Garriot v. Winn. Arizona, like many states, offers tax credits to individuals and businesses for donations to fund scholarships for students to attend private schools. The goal of these programs is to give as many students as possible the resources they need to get a good education. The Dennard family has benefited from this program. Hear their story. http://www.ij.org/winn

On 9-9-10, John Stossel featured the Institute for Justice on his "Entrepreneurs Under Attack" show. This is the trailer. Please visit this link to view the entire episode: http://www.hulu.com/watch/182345/stossel-thu-sep-9-2010#s-p1-so-i0

Tallahassee, FL. For more information about our Citizen Speech Campaign, please visit http://www.ij.org/citizenspeech

For more information about our Citizen Speech Campaign, please visit http://www.ij.org/citizenspeech

An Important Message From The Staff of Camp Politics: Our mission is to train your son or daughter to win political office and then stay there - mainly by using campaign finance laws to suppress political speech that threatens their reelection. But, unfortunately, many in the public have the absurd idea that free speech should receive the full protection of the First Amendment. One of the chief proponents of this view is the Institute for Justice. It just launched its "Citizen Speech Campaign," which it calls "a multi-state effort to restore full protection to political speech about candidates and ballot issues." If you truly care about your children's future as successful incumbent politicians, please do not allow the Institute to dissuade you from sending them to Camp Politics. Learn more about the Institute for Justice's Citizen Speech Campaign. http://www.CampPolitics.org Buy your Camp Politics T-shirt today: http://iam.ij.org/bTNbXY Cast: Narrator: Steve Izant Counselor: Nick Hanson Kids: Sophia Cabana, Zachary Cabana, Nicky McBroom, Sam McBroom, Julia Simpson, Kate Simpson, Natalie Simpson

For more information on the case, please go to : http://www.ij.org/DCtours

For more information about this case, please go to: http://www.ij.org/DCTours

In Washington, D.C., talking without a license can land you in jail for 90 days. http://www.ij.org/dctours Tonia Edwards and Bill Main are lawbreakers. Nearly every day, they teach a group of people how to ride Segways, and then take them around Washington, D.C., to talk about local sights and attractions. Their business is located near the National Archives, so one of the things they tell their customers is where the Bill of Rights is located. For this, the city government could throw Tonia and Bill in prison for three months. In Washington, D.C., it is illegal for anyone to give a tour of the city for compensation without first obtaining a special license—quite literally, a license to describe. D.C.'s tour-guide licensing scheme is unconstitutional. Simply put, the government is not allowed to require people to get a license in order to talk. That is why Tonia and Bill have teamed up with the Institute for Justice to file a federal First Amendment challenge to the city's tour-guide licensing scheme. Tonia and Bill's lawsuit, filed on September 16, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, will vindicate their right to earn an honest living by speaking as well as establish a very simple and important legal principle: The Constitution does not allow the government to be in the business of deciding who is—and who is not—allowed to speak about various topics. Vindicating this principle will help protect the rights of countless people across the country that communicate for a living—whether they do so as news reporters, stand-up comedians or tour guides.

To learn more about this case, please visitt: http://www.ij.org/economicliberty/784

News 8 Austin (August 20, 2010)

www.IJ.org Please visit our website for more information on how the Institute for Justice combats eminent domain abuse. Christina was interviewed on 9-03-10

8-20-10 Austin, Texas Horse owners and horse teeth floaters rally against proposed rule change in Texas. For more information on the case: http://www.IJ.org

http://www.IJ.org The Institute for Justice believes that parents, not bureaucrats should choose what school kids attend. Learn more at http://www.IJ.org

www.IJ.org For more information on this case, please go to http://www.IJ.org/LAcaskets

An IJ press conference announcing a lawsuit defending the right of everyone, including monks, to earn an honest living. The monks of St. Joseph Abby use casket sales to pay for health care, food, and education. There is no one who is so removed from the need to earn money that economic liberty doesn't matter to them. Entrepreneurship is the original stimulus package. With the U.S facing record unemployment, the best way to help put people back to work is to cut out the red tape facing small business owners.

Under Louisiana law, it is a crime for anyone but a licensed funeral director to sell "funeral merchandise," which includes caskets. To sell caskets legally, the monks of Saint Joseph Abbey would have to abandon their calling for one full year to apprentice at a licensed funeral home, learn unnecessary skills and take a funeral industry test. They would also have to convert their monastery into a "funeral establishment" by, among other things, installing equipment for embalming human remains. Read more: http://www.ij.org/lacaskets

www.IJ.org On 8-5-10, IJ Senior Attorney Scott Bullock talked about asset forfeiture with David Asman. You can learn more about asset forfeiture here: http://www.ij.org/3114

www.MakeNoLaw.org On 6-24-10, IJ's Steve Simpson and Cato's Ilya Shapiro debated Loyola's Richard Hasen and AU's Jamin Raskin at the American University Washington College of Law. They discussed various aspects of the Citizens United decision.

This is a video of health inspectors destroying the property of IJ Clinic client Flora Lazar. Click here for more information: http://www.ij.org/3375

http://ij.org/KeloAt5Video Kelo was the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that became the property rights shot heard 'round the world. Wednesday marks its fifth anniversary. In the merely five years since that infamous ruling, the vast majority of state legislatures, many state supreme courts and the public itself have acted to limit Kelo, which took away the homes of seven New London, Conn., families for private development and sparked a nationwide backlash against eminent domain for private gain.

http://www.ij.org/mnfarms Farmers should not be threatened with 90 days in jail and $1,000 in fines for selling pumpkins or Christmas trees grown outside city limits. Yet that is the law in Lake Elmo, Minn. On December 1, 2009, the Lake Elmo City Council declared that it would begin enforcing a law that forbids farmers from selling products from their own land unless they were grown inside city limits. The citys politicians argue that they are protecting Lake Elmos rural character. In fact, they are destroying that character by making it impossible for their farmers to earn an honest living and making it more likely that family farms will fail.

For more information on the case, please click here: http://www.ij.org/3350

http://www.ij.org/mnfarms Farmers should not be threatened with 90 days in jail and $1,000 in fines for selling pumpkins or Christmas trees grown outside city limits. Yet that is the law in Lake Elmo, Minn. On December 1, 2009, the Lake Elmo City Council declared that it would begin enforcing a law that forbids farmers from selling products from their own land unless they were grown inside city limits. The citys politicians argue that they are protecting Lake Elmos rural character. In fact, they are destroying that character by making it impossible for their farmers to earn an honest living and making it more likely that family farms will fail.

Learn more about the case here: http://www.ij.org/3106

Learn more at http://www.ij.org

On 4-22-10, IJ's Scott Bullock spoke to John Stossel about our recent report on civil forfeiture abuse. You can view the report here: http://ij.org/3291

http://www.ij.org/3114 Texas has some of the worst civil forfeiture laws and practices in the country, but a constitutional challenge filed today looks to change that. A Texas property owner is fighting back by challenging the governments forfeiture of his Chevy truck and in so doing, he aims to protect the property rights of all Texans.

Arlington, Va.—Texas has some of the worst civil forfeiture laws and practices in the country, but a constitutional challenge filed today looks to change that. A Texas property owner is fighting back by challenging the governments forfeiture of his Chevy truck and in so doing, he aims to protect the property rights of all Texans.

Learn more at http://www.ij.org/PolicingForProfit Civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today. With civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your property and use it to fund their budgets—all without charging you with a crime. Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but with civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent—and law enforcement has a huge incentive to police for profit, not justice. If police suspect that you committed a crime, they can arrest you and put you on trial. At that trial, prosecutors must prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But if police suspect your car was involved in a crime, they can take it, sell it and, in most places, pocket the proceeds to pad their budgets. They need not prove you committed any crime—or even arrest you—to take your property away. Welcome to the upside-down world of civil asset forfeiture. With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent to get it back. And because most state and federal laws allow police and prosecutors to pocket the proceeds, they have a big incentive to pursue profits, not justice. How big? In 1986, the Justice Departments forfeiture fund took in 94 million dollars. Now it has more than a billion. State and local agencies receive forfeiture funds, too—but we don't know how much because most states don't publicly report on forfeiture. No surprise—abuse is rampant. One New York police department spent forfeiture funds on food, gifts and entertainment. In Georgia, forfeiture funds paid for football tickets for a DAs office. In Louisiana, cops used funds to pay for ski trips to Aspen. And a DA in Texas used forfeiture dollars to buy TV ads for his re-election campaign. Meanwhile, citizens are seeing cash, cars and other property taken away for the flimsiest of reasons. Carrying too much cash? Police can accuse you of selling drugs or laundering money and seize it, no conviction or even arrest required. An Institute for Justice study grades state laws on how well they protect people from wrongful forfeitures. Only three states receive a B or better. The rest range from mediocre to awful—and so does federal law. Worse, a federal legal loophole allows police and prosecutors to bypass state protections and keep pocketing forfeiture money. IJ's research shows that the easier and more profitable these laws make forfeiture, the more it is used and abused. Its time to end civil forfeiture. People shouldn't have their property taken away without being convicted of a crime. And law enforcement shouldn't be policing for profit Learn more at http://www.ij.org/PolicingForProfit

IJ President Chip Mellor talks with John Stossel about pointless goverment-mandated licensing requirements for florists, yoga teachers and other harmless professions. Subscribe to IJ's channel to get notified when the next two parts are available. Learn more about absurd flower regulations at: http://www.ij.org/la_florists

IJ President Chip Mellor talks with John Stossel about pointless goverment-mandated licensing requirements for florists, yoga teachers and other harmless professions. Subscribe to IJ's channel to get notified when the next two parts are available. Learn more about absurd flower regulations at: http://www.ij.org/la_florists

IJ President Chip Mellor talks with John Stossel about pointless goverment-mandated licensing requirements for florists, yoga teachers and other harmless professions. Subscribe to IJ's channel to get notified when the next two parts are available.

http://www.ij.org/la_florists Should the government have the power to say who may or may not become a florist? Or do Americans have the right to pursue the occupation of their choice free from such excessive and arbitrary government roadblocks? To arrange and sell flowers in Louisiana, aspiring florists must first obtain a government-issued license by passing a subjective examination that is judged by their future competition—florists who hold a government-issued license. Louisiana is the only state in the nation that requires would-be entrepreneurs to pass a licensing exam before they can create and sell floral arrangements. If Louisiana can license florists, there is no limit to what it can license or to the burdens it can impose on honest, productive livelihoods On March 4, 2010, the Institute for Justice filed a civil rights lawsuit, Chauvin v. Strain, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the Commissioners of the Louisiana Horticulture Commission seeking to have Louisianas anti-entrepreneur, anti-competitive, and anti-consumer florist licensing scheme declared unconstitutional. Among our sacred rights as American citizens is the ability to earn a living in the occupation of our choice free from arbitrary or unreasonable government interference. By presuming to determine who is good enough to work in a harmless occupation like floristry, Louisiana violates that right.

Learn more about the Institute for Justice's lawsuit at http://www.ij.org/la_florists Aired March 5, 2010

Learn more about the Institute for Justice's lawsuit at http://www.ij.org/la_florists Aired March 5, 2010

http://www.ij.org/DallasSignBan WFAA in Dallas, Texas followed IJ-TX Executive Director Matt Miller as he visited various local businesses asking if they would like to participate in the Free Speech Protest IJ launched on February 24th.

http://www.ij.org/DallasSignBan Under a Dallas law enacted in 2008, businesses are prohibited from putting signs in the upper two-thirds of any window or glass door, and no more than 15 percent of any window or glass door may be covered by signs. The only way to comply with the new ordinance is by putting tiny signs at peoples feet—which is not an effective way to advertise. The law also bans signs that cover more than 25 percent of a buildings façade. Failure to take down the signs means you are at risk to be hit with a fine up to $2,000. The law only targets commercial messages. Businesses are free to put anything except a commercial message in their windows. For example, a business could paint a giant Dallas Cowboys helmet on its window—but not advertise that it offers Cowboys merchandise for sale inside. Businesses can paint their windows black or put coolers or other items in front of them. In fact, businesses are not even required to have windows at all. What they cannot do is put messages in their windows that tell customers about the products and services offered inside.

Veterinarians in Oklahoma are trying to cartelize the equine dentistry field. In a nutshell, the animal doctors want to pass a law that would put the animal dentists out of work, giving the doctors all of the dentists' clients. Horse owners, equine dentists and activists from around the state have been fighting back. This news clip is in reference to a large rally held in Oklahoma City on 16 FEB 2009.

NBC-TV Washington DC (WRC-TV) feature on the desperate need to increase donors to the bone marrow registry. Interviews with football star Jordan Culbreath and Institute for Justice attorney Jeff Rowes.

Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Steve Simpson debates Monica Youn on January 21, 2001, the day that the Supreme Court handed down their landmark ruling protecting free speech in the Citzen's United case. Jim Lehrer moderates this nine minute debate on the PBS NewsHour.

http://www.ij.org/FENA They're at it again. The same special interests who for decades have called for government-funded political campaigns—what amounts to welfare for politicians—are again pushing something called the Fair Elections Now Act . . . a proposal that would create anything but fair elections. Here is their bait and switch: They promise that if politicians can get the government to fund their campaigns with tax dollars—rather than having to actually convince voters to support them—politicians will somehow become "more accountable," elections will be "more balanced," and "new political voices will be heard." But what kind of results has this program actually created where it has been tried at the state level? It failed to lower the impact of special interests, it protects incumbents from challengers, it created a more extreme and partisan legislature and it excluded political minorities. That's what you get with government-funded political campaigns. The bottom line if you care about free speech and don't want a bailout for politicians is this: you don't need four letters to describe FENA. You only need two. http://www.ij.org

Eyebrow threading is a booming industry in Texas. But state bureaucrats are making it impossible to continue practicing this ancient art. Ash Patel shouldn't need to close his business to take 1,500 hours of beauty school classes that don't even teach threading.

Eyebrow threading is a booming industry in Texas. But state bureaucrats are making it impossible to continue practicing this ancient art. Ash Patel shouldn't need to close his business to take 1,500 hours of beauty school classes that don't even teach threading. Please subscribe to our YouTube channel. We appreciate you watching, rating and sharing our videos.

In Virginia, you can teach anyone anything—except how to earn an honest living. http://www.ij.org/vayoga Anyone in Virginia can do yoga, and anyone can teach yoga. But, incredibly, it is illegal to teach people to teach yoga. Yoga-teacher training is just the latest target of vocational school licensing laws that require countless entrepreneurs to ask the governments permission before opening their mouths. Vocational-school licensing burdens both economic liberty and freedom of speech. The cost of compliance is typically thousands of dollars and over a week of full-time administrative work. For owners of small schools, these costs can make the difference between viability and closing down. Vocational-school laws arent just bad policy—theyre unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects the right of individuals to decide for themselves what is worth saying and who is worth listening to. States cant require writers to get permission before publishing a book, nor can they force filmmakers to seek permission before making and selling a movie. Similarly, it is unconstitutional for state governments to demand that speakers ask the governments permission before lecturing to a room of willing listeners, regardless of whether the subject is how to do something useful. This case seeks to vindicate the right of all Virginians to speak and earn an honest living. That is why, on December 1, 2009, yoga-teacher trainers Julia Kalish, Suzanne Leitner-Wise, and Beverly Brown teamed up with the Institute for Justice to challenge the constitutionality of Virginias vocational-school law as applied to yoga-teacher trainers.

In Virginia, you can teach anyone anything—except how to earn an honest living. http://www.ij.org/vayoga Anyone in Virginia can do yoga, and anyone can teach yoga. But, incredibly, it is illegal to teach people to teach yoga. Yoga-teacher training is just the latest target of vocational school licensing laws that require countless entrepreneurs to ask the governments permission before opening their mouths. Vocational-school licensing burdens both economic liberty and freedom of speech. The cost of compliance is typically thousands of dollars and over a week of full-time administrative work. For owners of small schools, these costs can make the difference between viability and closing down. Vocational-school laws arent just bad policy—theyre unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects the right of individuals to decide for themselves what is worth saying and who is worth listening to. States cant require writers to get permission before publishing a book, nor can they force filmmakers to seek permission before making and selling a movie. Similarly, it is unconstitutional for state governments to demand that speakers ask the governments permission before lecturing to a room of willing listeners, regardless of whether the subject is how to do something useful. This case seeks to vindicate the right of all Virginians to speak and earn an honest living. That is why, on December 1, 2009, yoga-teacher trainers Julia Kalish, Suzanne Leitner-Wise, and Beverly Brown teamed up with the Institute for Justice to challenge the constitutionality of Virginias vocational-school law as applied to yoga-teacher trainers. Please subscribe to our YouTube channel. We appreciate you watching, rating and sharing our videos.

Institute for Justice Attorney Jeff Rowes and IJ client and leukemia survivor Akiim DeShay make the common sense case for allowing compensation for bone marrow donors on MSNBC's Dr. Nancy.

Local news segment on the Institute for Justice and its clients' challenge to the federal ban on compensating bone marrow donors.

After a six-year-long battle, homeowners in Long Branch, New Jersey prevailed and protected their homes from government seizure for private development.

Press conference at the National Press Club. Media Contact: John E. Kramer (703) 682-9320 (DVD of press conference is available for TV-News outlets) Every year, 1,000 Americans die because they cannot find a matching bone marrow donor. Minorities are hit especially hard. Common sense suggests that offering modest incentives to attract more bone marrow donors would be worth pursuing, but federal law makes that a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. That is why on October 28, 2009, adults with deadly blood diseases, the parents of sick children, a California nonprofit and a world-renowned medical doctor who specializes in bone marrow research joined with the Institute for Justice to launch a legal fight against the U.S. Attorney General to put an end to a ban on offering compensation for bone marrow donors. The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984 treats compensation for marrow donors as though it were black-market organ sales. Under NOTA, giving a college student a scholarship or a new homeowner a mortgage payment for donating marrow would land everyone—doctors, nurses, donors and patients—in federal prison for up to five years. NOTAs criminal ban violates equal protection because it arbitrarily treats renewable bone marrow like nonrenewable solid organs instead of like other renewable or inexhaustible cells—such as blood—for which compensated donation is legal. That makes no sense because bone marrow, unlike organs such as kidneys, replenishes itself in just a few weeks after it is donated, leaving the donor whole once again. The ban also violates substantive due process because it irrationally interferes with the right to participate in safe, accepted, lifesaving, and otherwise legal medical treatment. The only thing the bone marrow provision of NOTA appears to accomplish is unnecessary deaths. A victory in this case will not only give hope to thousands facing deadly diseases, but also reaffirm bedrock principles about constitutional protection for individual liberty. This is the first time NOTA has ever been the subject of a constitutional challenge.

FOR MORE ON THIS CASE, VISIT http://www.ij.org/bonemarrow Press conference at the National Press Club. CHIP MELLOR: 00:15 - 01:05 JEFF ROWES: 01:05 - 03:03 04:03 - 04:37 [Akiim intro] 06:40 - 07:06 [Shaka intro] 08:53 - 09:43 [Wagner inro] 14:18 - 15:12 [wrap up] DOREEN FLYNN: 03:04 - 03:57 AKIIM DESHAY: 04:37 - 06:37 DR. WAGNER: 09:44 - 14:16 Media Contact: John E. Kramer (703) 682-9320 Every year, 1,000 Americans die because they cannot find a matching bone marrow donor. Minorities are hit especially hard. Common sense suggests that offering modest incentives to attract more bone marrow donors would be worth pursuing, but federal law makes that a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. That is why on October 28, 2009, adults with deadly blood diseases, the parents of sick children, a California nonprofit and a world-renowned medical doctor who specializes in bone marrow research joined with the Institute for Justice to launch a legal fight against the U.S. Attorney General to put an end to a ban on offering compensation for bone marrow donors. The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984 treats compensation for marrow donors as though it were black-market organ sales. Under NOTA, giving a college student a scholarship or a new homeowner a mortgage payment for donating marrow would land everyone—doctors, nurses, donors and patients—in federal prison for up to five years. NOTAs criminal ban violates equal protection because it arbitrarily treats renewable bone marrow like nonrenewable solid organs instead of like other renewable or inexhaustible cells—such as blood—for which compensated donation is legal. That makes no sense because bone marrow, unlike organs such as kidneys, replenishes itself in just a few weeks after it is donated, leaving the donor whole once again. The ban also violates substantive due process because it irrationally interferes with the right to participate in safe, accepted, lifesaving, and otherwise legal medical treatment. The only thing the bone marrow provision of NOTA appears to accomplish is unnecessary deaths. A victory in this case will not only give hope to thousands facing deadly diseases, but also reaffirm bedrock principles about constitutional protection for individual liberty. This is the first time NOTA has ever been the subject of a constitutional challenge.

FOR MORE ON THIS CASE, VISIT http://www.ij.org/bonemarrow Every year, 1,000 Americans die because they cannot find a matching bone marrow donor. Minorities are hit especially hard. Common sense suggests that offering modest incentives to attract more bone marrow donors would be worth pursuing, but federal law makes that a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. That is why on October 28, 2009, adults with deadly blood diseases, the parents of sick children, a California nonprofit and a world-renowned medical doctor who specializes in bone marrow research joined with the Institute for Justice to launch a legal fight against the U.S. Attorney General to put an end to a ban on offering compensation for bone marrow donors. The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984 treats compensation for marrow donors as though it were black-market organ sales. Under NOTA, giving a college student a scholarship or a new homeowner a mortgage payment for donating marrow would land everyone—doctors, nurses, donors and patients—in federal prison for up to five years. NOTAs criminal ban violates equal protection because it arbitrarily treats renewable bone marrow like nonrenewable solid organs instead of like other renewable or inexhaustible cells—such as blood—for which compensated donation is legal. That makes no sense because bone marrow, unlike organs such as kidneys, replenishes itself in just a few weeks after it is donated, leaving the donor whole once again. The ban also violates substantive due process because it irrationally interferes with the right to participate in safe, accepted, lifesaving, and otherwise legal medical treatment. The only thing the bone marrow provision of NOTA appears to accomplish is unnecessary deaths. A victory in this case will not only give hope to thousands facing deadly diseases, but also reaffirm bedrock principles about constitutional protection for individual liberty. This is the first time NOTA has ever been the subject of a constitutional challenge. 'Actual Bone Marrow Donation' photo reproduced under a Creative Commons license from flickr user limowreck666.

Florida is ground zero in the nationwide battle to cartelize the interior design industry. http://www.ij.org/economic_liberty/fl_interiordesign A small group of well-funded industry insiders led by the American Society of Interior Designers has been relentless in its pursuit of ever more restrictive laws. Studies have shown that interior design regulations result in higher prices, less variety, and fewer employment opportunities, especially for minorities and older mid-career switchers. On May 26, 2009, the Institute for Justice joined with three interior designers—Eva Locke, Pat Levenson and Barbara Gardner—and the National Federation of Independent Business to file a lawsuit in federal court in Tallahassee challenging Floridas interior design law. The Institute for Justice is the nations leading legal advocacy group for economic liberty—the right to earn an honest living free from excessive and arbitrary regulation. IJ has successfully challenged anti-competitive interior design laws across the country. Floridas suit promises to be the biggest fight yet in the battle against the interior design cartel, and may finally put an end to restrictive interior design laws nationwide. More on IJ's interior design cases: http://www.ij.org/interiordesign

The Texas Association for Interior Design (TAID) wants to make it illegal to practice interior design in Texas without a government license. Over the past 20 years they have spent tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of dollars on lobbyists, claiming that unregistered interior designers present a danger to the public health and safety. On June 6, 2007, Marilyn Roberts, president of TAID, e-mailed the group's membership the following request for information: "We must get cases of harm in Texas!!!!!!! Any jobs you have had that you have corrected something potentially or proven harmful to your clients (harmful physically or emotionally). Any contacts you have with building plan reviewers, Registered Accessibility Specialists inspectors, fire marshalls, inspectors of any kind that would have found violations that hopefully a registered interior designer corrected. Would help to have cases from residential, commercial-large or small projects, medical facilities, nursing homes, etc. Remember, not just fire code related issues, but using materials that are not antimicrobial where needed, not having areas accessible, anything..........." Two years later, KXAN TV-Austin asked Ms. Roberts to name one example of an unregistered interior designer harming a member of the public. Her answer to this important question? "Actually, there are not things that I can document right now." Regulating interior design has nothing to do with protecting the public and everything to do with protecting a small cartel from fair competition. Its about cutting out fair competition. It would destroy jobs and raise prices. Thats wrong for Texas.

http://www.ij.org/freedomflix Think you have a right to speak out freely in elections? As IJ client Karen Sampson will tell you, you better think again! Video by the Institute for Justice: http://www.ij.org Be sure to click "watch in high quality" just below the video. You can learn more about this case here: http://www.ij.org/first_amendment/parkernorth_free_speech/index.html

Let us briefly take you through IJ client Susette Kelo's historic fight against eminent domain abuse.

http://www.ij.org/freedomflix Wanna cheer for a regular guy who became a national champion for freedom? Watch brakeshop owner and IJ client Randy Bailey fight for his (and all of our) property rights. Video by the Institute for Justice: http://www.ij.org Be sure to click "watch in high quality" just below the video. You can learn more about this case here: http://www.ij.org/private_property/arizona/index.html

http://www.ij.org/freedomflix Your home is your castle, right? Well, maybe not, as IJ client Lori Ann Vendetti explains. Video by the Institute for Justice: http://www.ij.org Be sure to click "watch in high quality" just below the video. You can learn more about this case here: http://www.ij.org/private_property/longbranch/index.html

http://www.ij.org/freedomflix Why is school choice important? Let school choice mom and IJ client Andrea Weck tell you in her own words. Video by the Institute for Justice: http://www.ij.org Be sure to click "watch in high quality" just below the video. You can learn more about this case here: http://www.ij.org/schoolchoice/az_specialneeds/index.html

http://www.ij.org/freedomflix The Saga of San Tan Flat: Music Written and Performed by Lee Alexander: http://www.azwesternsinger.com/ Video by the Institute for Justice: http://www.ij.org How arbitrary has government power grown? Take a listen to the Saga of San Tan Flat—the Arizona steakhouse where the government tried to ban outdoor dancing. Be sure to click "watch in high quality" just below the video. You can learn more about this case here: http://www.ij.org/economic_liberty/az_santanflat/

http://www.IJ.org/KeloDay Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that my little pink cottage in New London, Connecticut, could be handed over to a private developer. It was just one of 10,000 instances of eminent domain abuse to occur in the United States over a 5-year period. Just one instance—yet a tipping point that sparked a national revolution. On this, the third anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's dreadful decision, I'm asking for 10,000 people to join me in donating to the non-profit legal foundation that stood by me all the way to the Supreme Court, and continues to stand by heroic individuals fighting to keep the homes that are rightfully theirs. By donating to the Institute for Justice on the anniversary of the ruling—June 23, 2008—you will become a Founding Member of the Susette Kelo Liberty Club. Every single dollar raised during this special event will be used to fight eminent domain abuse across the nation. And while all donations are appreciated, I hope you'll consider giving your most generous gift of $25, $50, $100, or more. Even a $5 contribution will send a message to those in power that our homes are important to us and must be protected. Yours in Freedom, Susette Kelo

The Institute for Justice holds its acclaimed Law Student Conference at the George Washington University each July. Forty students from the nation's top law schools take part in this four-day conference on shaping the world through the IJ way of public interest litigation. The annual conference covers the Institute for Justice's four litigation pillars: First Amendment rights, school choice, economic liberty and private property rights. These topics are taught alongside others rarely discussed in law school, such as: natural rights theory, public interest litigation tactics, cutting-edge constitutional theories, media skills, and the use of social science research. The faculty combines IJ attorneys and staff members with leading law professors and legal experts including Douglas W. Kmiec, Randy Barnett, Roger Pilon, and Todd Zywicki. The conference's keynote speaker is always a distinguished jurist, who offers a view of public interest law from the bench. After attending this crash course in public interest law, the IJ Way, participants are able to recognize and seize public interest opportunities in the future. Sign up at http://www.IJ.org/students