Libertarian public interest law firm
See also:
  • FreedomPedia
  • Institute for Justice

    The Institute for Justice (IJ) is a non-profit libertarian public interest law firm in the United States. It has litigated five cases considered by the United States Supreme Court dealing with topics that included eminent domain, interstate commerce, public financing for elections, school vouchers and tax credits for private school tuition. The organization was founded in 1991. As of 2012, it employed a staff of 65 (including 33 attorneys) in Arlington, Virginia and five regional offices across the United States. Its 2014 budget was $12.8 million.

    Home Page

    Institute for Justice
    Sections include: issues, cases, blog, projects, strategic research, legal and policy studies, conferences and events; issue areas include economic liberty, school choice, private property and the First Amendment

    Address

    Arlington, Virginia

    Staff and Associates

    Clint BolickFounder; Vice President, 1991-2005
    William H. 'Chip' MellorChairman, Founding General Counsel

    Web Pages

    InstituteForJustice - YouTube
    YouTube channel of the Institute for Justice

    Articles

    An End to Eminent Domain Abuse?, by George C. Leef, Future of Freedom, Apr 2005
    Published just two months before the unfortunate Kelo v. City of New London U.S. Supreme Court decision, expressed hope that the court would rectify the 1954 Berman v. Parker ruling
    "The Lakewood [, Ohio] case ... had an unexpectedly happy ending for defenders of property rights. The homeowners managed to fight back successfully. With expert legal and media advice from the Institute for Justice, they were able to cause so much adverse publicity on the proposed seizure that the developer backed off and eventually the designation 'blighted' was removed."
    Arizona Makes It Tougher for Police to Seize People's Money and Stuff for Themselves, by Scott Shackford, 13 Apr 2017
    Discusses a civil asset forfeiture reform law signed by Arizona's governor
    "The property-rights-protecting lawyers of the Institute for Justice praised the passage of the law as 'incremental but important reforms.' They've previously blasted Arizona's asset forfeiture laws and are suing the state over the way the system works. That lawsuit is going to continue because they're challenging the complex bureaucratic process that makes it harder for average citizens to resist having their stuff taken."
    Institute for Justice Publishes New Edition of Policing for Profit, by Adam Bates, 11 Nov 2015
    Describes civil asset forfeiture, which has been exacerbated by the Drug War, and the new edition of the Institute's report on forfeiture practices in the various states
    "Yesterday, the Institute for Justice, which has long been a leader in the fight against the abusive practice of civil asset forfeiture, released a new edition of its important 2010 study Policing for Profit. ... Thanks to the work of organizations like IJ, journalist exposés of numerous egregious abuses, and legislators committed to the rule of law, several states have reformed their forfeiture laws. ... The report also includes updates to IJ's state-by-state assessments of forfeiture laws, with 35 states and the federal government earning grades of D+ or worse."
    The Fight for Free Speech in the Courts, by Paul Sherman, Trevor Burrus, Aaron Ross Powell, Free Thoughts, 18 Mar 2016
    Burrus and Powell discuss with Paul Sherman, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, about freedom of speech issues, particularly political speech, and occupational licensing
    "So SpeechNow.org versus FEC was the case that gave rise to what are popularly known as super PACs. The Institute for Justice co-litigated the case with a group called the Center for Competitive Politics and basically what the case was about was this anomaly that had existed in the campaign finance laws since the 1970s. ... I am totally on your side and I think that when – and this is something that the Institute for Justice argues is that when the government wants to restrict people's liberty, no matter what domain it's restricting in, the burden should be on the government, to justify why it is doing that."
    We Shouldn't Have to Ask the State's Permission to Work, by Robert Fellner, 13 Mar 2017
    Discusses occupational licensing laws, focusing on the onerous requirements imposed by the state of Nevada
    "... excessive fees and extended mandatory training periods make the Silver State one of the most 'onerously licensed' states in the nation, according to a 2012 study by the Institute for Justice. ... Many of the licensing requirements for professions such as interior design and musical therapy should simply be abolished. For those professions where licensing is appropriate, the fees and education requirements should be reduced dramatically to align better with genuine safety risks. The Institute for Justice has designed model legislation to do just that."
    Related Topics: Occupational Licensing, Nevada

    The introductory paragraph uses material from a Wikipedia article, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.