The Institute for Justice ( IJ ) is a non-profit libertarian interest law firm in the United States. He has charged five cases considered by the United States Supreme Court dealing with topics covering leading domains, interstate commerce, election public financing, school vouchers, and tax credits for private school fees. The organization was founded in 1991. In June 2016, it employs 95 staff (including 39 lawyers) in Arlington, Virginia and seven offices across the United States. The 2016 budget is $ 20 million.
Video Institute for Justice
History
William H. "Chip" Mellor and Clint Bolick founded this organization in 1991 with seed money from libertarian philanthropist Charles Koch. Mellor is President & amp; General Counsel until 2015. Bolick is Vice President and Director of Litigation since 1991 until he left the organization in 2004. In March 2015, the organization announced that Mellor will become chairman of the board in January 2016. Senior Attorney Scott Bullock replaces Mellor as President.
The organizational method is modeled as part of the work Bolick has undertaken as director of the Landmark Center for Civil Rights in Washington, DC For example, in the late 1980s Bolick represented the owner of Washington's Ego Brown wine shop in his attempt to overturn Jim Crow-era law against bootblack standing in public road. The law is designed to limit economic opportunities for African Americans, but it is still upheld 85 years after its journey. Bolick sued the District of Columbia on behalf of Brown, and the law was dropped in 1989. In 1991, Bolick joined the former Deputy General of Chel Mellor's Energy Advisory Department to establish the Institute for Justice. Mellor had served as president of the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, a think tank in San Francisco. According to the Institute for Justice, the books commissioned and published by the Pacific Research Institute "form a long-term strategic litigation blueprint of the Justice Institution."
In 2012, the organization employs 65 staff (including 33 lawyers) in Arlington, Virginia and five regional offices across the United States.
Case of the Supreme Court
The organization has charged five cases that reached the Supreme Court, winning four. (Exceptions to Kelo v. New London City .):
- Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) The court ruled in favor of the Cleveland, Ohio school voucher program, enabling the use of public money to pay tuition at private schools and parishes.
- Swedenburg v. Kelly (2005) The court ruled a law in New York and Michigan that made it illegal for consumers to buy wine directly from a wine winery outside of the state. This institution represents small vintners in Virginia and California. (This case was consolidated with Granholm v. Heald before being considered by the Supreme Court.)
- Kelo v. The City of New London (2005) The Court ruled that the state of Connecticut may use a reputable domain to take property from the plaintiff (a group of homeowners) and transfer it to a private business. This institution represents homeowners.
- Garriott v. Winn (2010) The court upholds the Arizona program that provides tax credits for private school fees. (This case was consolidated with the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn before being considered by the Supreme Court.)
- Arizona Free Club Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (2011) The court ruled part of a public finance campaign law in Arizona that provided additional public funds to candidates based on the amount of spending by their opponents. This institution represents some legal challengers. (This case was consolidated with McComish v. Bennett before being considered by the Supreme Court.)
Maps Institute for Justice
Activity
Litigation
This organization provides legal advice and pro bono representation to clients. According to the organization, he chooses cases based on the client's ability to pay (giving preference to clients who have no means of obtaining other representations), and on potential cases to publicize and educate the public on the issues involved.
Commercial rules
IJ opposes many types of business licenses. The organization's first case began in 1991, defending Taalib-Din Uqdah, a Washington, DC businessman who has a hair salon. The local government told Taalib-Din that he would need a cosmetology license to continue his business operations. The institution believes that the licensing requirements do not apply to the Taalib-Din business. Furthermore, the organization claims that the licensing rules in this case are designed to protect existing businesses from competition, with the effect of reducing options and raising prices for consumers. The case was dismissed in 1992, but later that year the city council revoked the cosmic order that prevented Taalib-Din from opening up his business. While institute founders Clint Bolick and Chip Mellor have recognized the need for health protection, safety and consumer protection rules, the organization continues to press charges against what it sees as abuse. He has defended various small business owners across the United States in similar cases involving food carts and street vendors, vendors and coffin makers, florists, interior designers, and independent taxi drivers. In defense of tour guide operators in Philadelphia and Washington D.C., the Justice Institute believes that restrictions on this business summarize First Amendment rights.
In 2005, the organization filed suit on behalf of small wineries in California and Virginia. The case of the institute, Swedenburg v. Kelly , consolidated with Granholm v. Heald and considered by the Supreme Court. The court ruled that laws in Michigan and New York that prohibit consumers from buying wine directly from overseas wineries are unconstitutional.
In 2009, the organization demanded that donors be compensated for bone marrow. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 (NOTA) makes it illegal to compensate donors for organs, but does not prevent payments for other forms of donation (such as human plasma, sperm and egg). Although bone marrow is not an organ or organ component, it is done to pay bone marrow donors who can be punished up to 5 years in prison. By the time the action is passed, donating bone marrow involves painful and risky medical procedures. In the years after the action was passed, a new procedure (apheresis) made it possible to harvest bone marrow cells through a non-surgical procedure similar to donations of blood components such as platelets or plasma. The Lawsuit for Justice believes that apheresis development means that donors who donate bone marrow through blood donors should be allowed to receive compensation. The organization estimates that possible compensation will increase the available set of donors, and claims that 3,000 Americans die each year while waiting for compatible marrow donors. Critics argue that allowing compensation can reduce donations, increase disease risk, and lead to the exploitation of the poor. In December 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal voted unanimously that donors who supply bone marrow through apheresis were eligible for compensation. In November 2013, the federal government proposed a rule that would change the legal definition to cover the bone marrow regardless of how it was obtained. This will have the effect of keeping a ban on compensating donors in place. As of July 2014, the proposal is still under review.
Eminent domain and civil forfeiture
Prominent domain cases pursued by organizations involve events where the government attempts to condemn a property and transfer it from one private owner to another (as opposed to using it for roads, buildings, parks or other public property). The organization gained national attention in 1996, defended small business owners in a case involving Trump Casino (Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Coking), and again in 2005, by arguing Kelo v. City of New London before the Supreme Court. In the casino case, the state agency of New Jersey (the Agency for Reinvestment Development of Mining) attempted to condemn Vera Coking's boarding house, along with two other businesses in Atlantic City, to transfer property to a business owned by Donald Trump. In 1998, a New Jersey High Court judge ruled that the state was not allowed to confiscate the property. However, the decision does not oppose the right of the state to take property from one private owner in order to grant it to another. The judge bases the decision on the fact that the state is not guaranteed that the Trump organization will use the property for a new parking area (as promised), instead of using the property for other purposes such as expanding the Trump casino.
According to the Institute for Justice, organizations receive "flood" requests to participate in other cases of leading domain abuse after winning in the Coking case. In 2008, organizational president Chip Mellor stated:
Frankly, we have not realized how widespread this phenomenon is until [the Coking case]... Once we realize it, we form a strategic plan to increase it to national attention and finally to the Supreme Court, which we did in the course of the next seven years.
In 2005, the organization represented the plaintiff in the case of the Supreme Court Kelo v. City of New London . In this case, the state of Connecticut is trying to take on property owned by citizens and give it to private companies for use in development. In decision 5 to 4, the Supreme Court decides to support the state, asserting the right of the state to transfer property from one private owner to another in this way. The ruling prompted what is widely termed "reaction" to the activity of this leading domain. In 2006 (on the first anniversary of Kelo's decision), President George W. Bush issued an executive order limiting how federal agents can use leading domains. Between Kelo's decision and June 2008, 37 countries passed legislation to increase restrictions on the use of leading domains. In 2006, the organization won a leading domain case in Ohio Supreme Court, the first leading domain decision by the state supreme court after Kelo. In later years, the institute continued its efforts to reform the dominant domain laws.
The organization also works to publish what it sees as abuse of civil civil law. Civil deprivation is a process whereby law enforcement agencies in the United States can take property from citizens, based on the suspicion that the property is used in such crimes, without criminal charges or convictions. Depending on state laws, law enforcement agencies may keep part or all of the money and property confiscated, and apply them to their budgets. State agencies can also seize property under federal statues, and through a program called "fair share" keep up to 80% of the property. The Institute for Justice and other critics argue that these direct financial rewards provide incentives for law enforcement agencies to abuse the protection of civilian assets. In this case, the organization sometimes works with other advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), The Heritage Foundation, and the American Bankers Association.
Campaign funds
In 2011, the organization challenged Arizona law in the United States Supreme Court ( Free Club Freedom Club Arizona PAC v. Bennett ). The law provides increased public campaign funding based on the amount spent by the candidate opponents. The Institute believes that the law violates the right of the First Amendment of independent groups and candidates who do not receive public financing. In decision 5-4, the court dropped a section of law that provides increased escort funds. Writing for the majority, Chief Judge John Roberts writes that legislation forces an independent group to face a choice: "trigger matching funds, change your message, or not speak." Other institutions for Justice cases involve rules on political activities related to elections.
Education
The organization has filed lawsuits relating to several cases related to education reform and school vouchers, including two successful cases submitted to the Supreme Court: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) and Garriott v. Winn (2010). In the case of Zelman, the Supreme Court ruled that parents could use public money (in the form of school vouchers) to pay tuition at private schools, including parochial schools. This institution represents the parents in the case. In Garriott's case, the court rejected the challenge for a program in Arizona that provided a state tax credit for the payment of private tuition. The institute believes in favor of dismissal.
Activity and Coalition
It maintains training programs, activism networks, and partnerships with other organizations.
The IJ Clinic on Entrepreneurship is a joint project of the Institute for Justice and The University of Chicago Law School. The clinic provides free legal services for beginners and other entrepreneurs in economically disadvantaged communities in the Chicago area.
The organization provides educational opportunities for law students, such as the annual conference for law students at George Washington University. According to the Institute for Justice, conference participants, along with former clerks and apprentices of organizational law, may join the agency's "Human Action Network". The institute offers to match network members with voluntary and pro-bono opportunities in their local communities. The organization also recruited volunteers for the "Liberty in Action" project, to support activism by non-lawyers. The institute founded Castle Coalition in 2002 to provide more specific tools for activists in the field of leading domain misuse.
Finance
IJ operates as a tax-free nonprofit 501 (c) (3). Charity Navigator has given this institution four-star ratings (out of four) for financial transparency and efficiency every year since it began evaluating charities in 2001.
According to the agency, 85 percent of contributions in 2012 come from individuals, with 14 percent coming from the foundation and 1 percent coming from business. In 2005, IJ did not actively ask for corporate donations. According to information provided to the Internal Revenue Service, the organization spends about $ 12.8 million in the fiscal year ending June 2013. That year, 83.2% of the money spent goes to programs and services provided by the agency, with the rest going to administrative costs (9.4%) and fundraising costs (7.2%).
See also
- Dana Berliner, Director of Litigation at the Institute for Justice
- Libertarian legal theory
References
External links
- Official website
- Institutional Profiles for Justice in Charity Navigator
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments