The Institute for Justice (IJ) is a libertarian public interest law firm that pursues constitutional litigation in support of free-market ideals, school choice, free speech, and private property rights. IJ also runs advocacy programs, research initiatives, and trainings to promote free-market economic policy. ¹

Founded in 1991, IJ has litigated over 290 cases, including eight before the United States Supreme Court. ² IJ has won all but one of its Supreme Court cases, losing the controversial case of Kelo v. New London which sparked restrictions to state-level eminent domain powers in 45 states across the country. ³ IJ has litigated some of the most influential cases of the 21^st century, including Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, a landmark school choice decision; Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, a decision that prevented religious discrimination in publicly-funded scholarship programs; and Timbs v. Indiana, a case which applied the Eighth Amendment protection against excessive fines to state criminal charges. ^{4 5 6} IJ has filed several cases across the United States to challenge the constitutionality of civil asset forfeiture, a practice under which police departments may seize property allegedly implicated in criminal activities without first securing a criminal conviction. ⁷

IJ has received funding from a number of right-of-center donors and organizations since its founding, including Richard Uihlein, the Dunn’s Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and Donors Trust. ⁸ The traditionally left-of-center Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has also contributed to IJ. ⁹

History

In 1991, libertarian activist and former president of the Mountain States Legal Foundation Chip Mellor and current Arizona Supreme Court Judge Clint Bolick founded Institute for Justice with an initial $350,000 from Charles Koch’s private foundation, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Mellor and Bolick founded the organization to represent individuals, often from low-income backgrounds, in constitutional rights cases. ¹⁰

Throughout the 1990s, IJ grew and won cases on behalf of small businesses across the United States, mostly focused on repealing economic regulations and occupational licensing regulations. ¹¹ IJ won its first Supreme Court case in 2002 when it represented the plaintiffs in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, a landmark case for the school-choice movement, in which the Court held that government-funded school vouchers could be used to pay for tuition at private, religiously affiliated schools. ¹²

Since its founding, IJ has litigated over 290 cases, winning 75% of them. IJ also reports having won 155 pro-market legislative reforms. Today, the firm maintains seven offices across the United States, with its headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. ¹³

Litigation

IJ works primarily through constitutional litigation, particularly on issues of private property rights, free speech, school choice, and economic freedom. ¹⁴ IJ has argued eight cases before the United States Supreme Court, winning all but one. ¹⁵ IJ has also filed dozens of amicus briefs in cases that have similar issue focuses. ¹⁶

Qualified Immunity

In late summer 2020, IJ launched a Project on Immunity and Accountability, a project aligned with left-of-center calls to overturn qualified immunity, which grants law enforcement officers immunity from civil suits in most cases. So far, IJ has filed amicus briefs in seven cases in an attempt to end qualified immunity, in addition to bringing four lawsuits of its own. ¹⁷ IJ argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2020, seeking an end to qualified immunity in the case of Brownback v. King. ¹⁸ The case has not been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court as of January 21, 2021. ¹⁹

Economic Freedom

IJ has brought several cases to United States federal courts to expand access to the free market. In February 2000, IJ filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in Swedenburg v. Kelly, challenging provisions that barred individuals from purchasing wine online from out-of-state vineyards. IJ challenged such laws in Michigan and New York, arguing that they violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of IJ’s clients in May of 2005. ²⁰

In June 2019, the Supreme Court again ruled in favor of IJ clients in Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas. IJ challenged the state’s two-year residency requirements for individuals seeking liquor licenses, claiming again that it violated the Commerce Clause. ²¹

School Choice

IJ has won several school-choice cases at the state and federal level. In June 2002, IJ represented the defendants in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program. The program allowed children from low-income, inner-city families to attend private schools of their parents’ choosing, rather than public schools, using public funding. Teachers’ unions and other school choice opponents sued in an attempt to dismantle the program, but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of IJ in the firm’s first Supreme Court case. ²²

In June of 2020, the Supreme Court once again ruled in favor of IJ’s clients in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. ²⁴

IJ has used the Espinoza precedent to file new lawsuits in Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire to challenge state laws around “town tuitioning,” which allow students living in towns without public schools to attend any private or public school of their choice using taxpayer funding, except for religious institutions. IJ filed the lawsuits in September 2020, and the cases had not been heard as of January 2021. ²⁵

IJ has also blocked legal challenges to school choice programs, including a 2011 challenge to the Arizona Individual Scholarship Tax Credit program that allowed taxpayers to donate to scholarship organizations, in exchange for a tax credit, that then provided private education scholarships to Arizona families. ²⁶

Private Property Rights

In 2005, IJ represented the plaintiffs in Kelo v. New London, one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions of the 21^st century. IJ sued on behalf of 15 residential property owners in New London, Connecticut after the City of New London sought to seize their private homes and transfer them to a new private owner, ostensibly to increase economic development within the city. IJ argued that the measure violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which states that the government may only take private property for “public use.” ²⁷

After a lengthy court battle, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against IJ, claiming in a 5-4 decision that almost any potential public benefit qualifies as “public use.” ²⁸ The decision resulted in public outrage, with 45 states responding to the decision by enacting eminent domain reform laws in response. ²⁹ After retiring, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens admitted in a 2019 memoir that he had misinterpreted the legal precedent for Kelo. ³⁰ Kelo v. New London remains the only Supreme Court case that IJ has lost. ³¹

Excessive Fines

More recently, IJ has pursued litigation against government-imposed excessive fines, winning the case of Timbs v. Indiana before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019. ³² After Tyson Timbs pleaded guilty to a drug crime in Indiana, the state seized his $42,000 vehicle. IJ sued, claiming that the fine violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which bars excessive fines, because the maximum fine for Timbs’s offense was $10,000. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in February of 2019 that the Eighth Amendment applied to all state criminal convictions, not just federal convictions, making excessive fines at the state level a constitutional violation. ³³

Civil Asset Forfeiture

IJ has opposed civil asset forfeiture, a process by which law enforcement agencies can seize property before filing criminal charges against an individual if they suspect the property has been involved in crime. IJ has criticized the practice as providing a financial incentive for police officers to seize private property, given that law enforcement agencies receive all or part of the value of the seized assets. ³⁴ In December 2020, IJ published a report entitled “Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeitures,” arguing that states and the federal government have taken $68.8 billion in private property in the last 20 years. ³⁵

IJ won a civil asset forfeiture case in South Carolina in 2020, which ruled that South Carolina forfeiture laws violated both the Fifth Amendment guarantee to due process and the Eighth Amendment guarantee to be free of excessive fines. ³⁶ The state has appealed the case, and it had not yet been decided as of January 2021. ³⁷

In December of 2020, IJ launched a federal class-action lawsuit against the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the federal government for seizing large amounts of cash from air travelers, despite there being no legal limits on the amount of cash individuals can carry on domestic flights. ³⁸

That same month, IJ filed an appeal with the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Gerardo Serrano, a U.S. citizen whose truck was seized by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) while visiting family in Mexico. Serrano waited two years without a hearing to get his truck back, and CBP returned the truck one month after IJ filed a lawsuit in 2017. ³⁹ IJ’s Supreme Court appeal has alleged that the seizure violated the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process by holding Serrano’s property without a trial or hearing. A federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit have ruled against Serrano, and the case has not been taken before the U.S. Supreme Court as of January 2021. ⁴⁰

IJ has led litigation on local eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, and excessive fines cases around the United States and has nearly 30 cases pending as of January 2021. ⁴¹

Free Speech

IJ has worked on free speech cases, with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of IJ clients in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett in June of 2011. IJ filed on behalf of the plaintiffs to strike down the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, which offered public funding to candidates who agreed to limit personal spending to $500, participate in a debate, and return all unspent money. The law also allowed candidates to receive increased funding based on how much funding was raised by their privately financed opponents. ⁴²

The Supreme Court held that the law violated the First Amendment rights of candidates who chose to raise private money, ruling in favor of IJ’s clients. ⁴³

Legislative and Grassroots Advocacy Work

In addition to litigation, IJ takes on legislative and grassroots advocacy projects across the country to advocate for free market policies regarding private property and occupational licensing reform. IJ has fought in several states across the country to remove barriers to market access, such as removing occupational licensing requirements for hair braiding, home care, interior design, and talk therapy, and removing restaurant-backed restrictions on food truck services. ⁴⁴

In 2017, IJ released the second edition of its “License to Work” report, detailing burdensome occupational licensing laws across the country. The report recommends repealing licensing requirements in all industries in which there is not a direct threat to the public in the absence of regulations. ⁴⁵ In 2020, the IJ released its “Barred from Working” report, arguing that former convicts also should not be barred from obtaining occupational licenses. IJ has worked to repeal such laws across the country, succeeding in Ohio and Washington, D.C. in January of 2021. ⁴⁶

In the private property space, IJ has frequently advocated against government abuse of eminent domain, especially for so-called “redevelopment” projects in which states seize private property on the grounds of eminent domain to sell it to private developers. IJ has challenged such projects in California, Missouri, and Indiana. ⁴⁷

In addition to advocacy work, IJ frequently publishes research reports in its core policy areas, while also supporting clinics and conferences on entrepreneurship and economic liberty. ⁴⁸ IJ has also made grants to a number of right-of-center organizations, providing grants to the State Policy Network (SPN) and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2019. ⁴⁹

People and Funding

William “Chip” Mellor has worked as chairman and general counsel of IJ since he founded the organization in 1991. Under Mellor’s guidance, IJ won four Supreme Court cases. Before working at IJ, Mellor worked as president of the right-of-center Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy and worked in the Reagan administration as Deputy General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations in the Department of Energy. ⁵⁰

In 2019, IJ reported $24,164,577 in revenue, over $21 million of which came from contributions and grants. ⁵¹ IJ also reported $90,872,807 in net assets. ⁵² While IJ was founded with an initial $350,000 donation from Charles Koch, it has been credited by even the left-leaning New York Times for not soliciting money from corporate partners, and no individual donor provides more than eight percent of IJ’s budget in a given year. ^{53 54}

IJ has received funding from a number of right-of-center donors and organizations since its founding, including Richard Uihlein, the Dunn Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Robert W. Wilson Charitable Trust, Donors Trust, the David H. Koch Foundation, and the John Templeton Foundation. ⁵⁵ The traditionally left-of-center Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has also contributed to IJ. ⁵⁶

1. “Issues.” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/issues.
2. “About Us.” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/about-us/.
3. Somin, Ilya. “Justice Stevens Admits Error in the Kelo Case-but Also Doubles Down on the Bottom Line.” Reason.com. Reason, November 16, 2020. https://reason.com/volokh/2019/06/08/justice-stevens-admits-error-in-the-kelo-case-but-also-doubles-down-on-the-bottom-line/.
4. “Cleveland, Ohio, School Choice (Federal Case).” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/case/zelman-v-simmons-harris/.
5. “Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/case/montana-school-choice/.
6. Lopez, German. “Why the US Supreme Court’s New Ruling on Excessive Fines Is a Big Deal.” Vox. Vox, February 20, 2019. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/20/18233245/supreme-court-timbs-v-indiana-ruling-excessive-fines-civil-forfeiture.
7. Mangino, Matthew T. “Mangino: Asset Forfeitures Provide a $70 Billion Windfall for Law Enforcement.” The Times. Beaver County Times, December 23, 2020. https://www.timesonline.com/story/opinion/columns/2020/12/23/mangino-asset-forfeitures-provide-70-billion-windfall-law-enforcement/3970455001/.
8. Beachum, Lateshia. “Kochs Key among Small Group Quietly Funding Legal Assault on Campaign Finance Regulation.” Center for Public Integrity, November 15, 2017. https://publicintegrity.org/politics/kochs-key-among-small-group-quietly-funding-legal-assault-on-campaign-finance-regulation/.
9. Beachum, Lateshia. “Kochs Key among Small Group Quietly Funding Legal Assault on Campaign Finance Regulation.” Center for Public Integrity, November 15, 2017. https://publicintegrity.org/politics/kochs-key-among-small-group-quietly-funding-legal-assault-on-campaign-finance-regulation/.
10. Rosen, Jeffrey. “The Unregulated Offensive.” The New York Times. The New York Times, April 17, 2005. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/magazine/the-unregulated-offensive.html.
11. Rosen, Jeffrey. “The Unregulated Offensive.” The New York Times. The New York Times, April 17, 2005. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/magazine/the-unregulated-offensive.html.
12. “Cleveland, Ohio, School Choice (Federal Case).” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/case/zelman-v-simmons-harris/.
13. “About Us.” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/about-us/.
14. “Issues.” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/issues.
15. “Supreme Court Cases.” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/cases/supreme-court-cases/.
16. “Amicus Briefs.” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/cases/amicus-briefs/.
17. “Project on Immunity and Accountability.” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability/.
18. Kramer, John. “After Police Brutally Beat & Hospitalized James King, The Government Closed Ranks and Is Using a Legal Shell Game To Avoid Accountability.” Institute for Justice, February 14, 2020. https://ij.org/press-release/after-police-brutally-beat-hospitalized-james-king-the-government-closed-ranks-and-is-using-a-legal-shell-game-to-avoid-accountability/.
19. “Brownback v. King.” Oyez. Cornell Law School. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-546.
20. Stout, David. “Supreme Court Strikes Down Bans on Wine Shipments.” The New York Times. The New York Times, May 16, 2005. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/16/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-bans-on-wine-shipments.html.
21. Hosmer, Kyle, and Aaron Van Oort. “Supreme Court Decides Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas.” JD Supra, June 27, 2019. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/supreme-court-decides-tennessee-wine-75722/.
22. “Cleveland, Ohio, School Choice (Federal Case).” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/case/zelman-v-simmons-harris/.
24. “Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/case/montana-school-choice/.[/note] IJ sued the Montana Department of Revenue after the state refused to allow scholarships provided by donations for which individuals received tax credits to be used at religious schools. The Supreme Court held that the provision that barred the tax credit from applying to religious schools discriminated against religious schools and families, allowing scholarships paid for by tax-credited donations to apply to religious institutions. ²³Walsh, Mark. “Court Backs Religious-School Student’s Participation in Vermont Dual-Enrollment Program.” Education Week. Education Week, January 18, 2021. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/court-backs-religious-school-students-participation-in-vermont-dual-enrollment-program/2021/01.
25. Posik, Jacob. “Maine School Choice Lawsuit Replicated in New Hampshire, Vermont.” The Maine Wire, September 17, 2020. https://www.themainewire.com/2020/09/maine-school-choice-lawsuit-replicated-in-new-hampshire-vermont/.
26. “Arizona Individual Tax Credit Scholarships (Federal).” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/case/winn-v-garriott/.
27. Somin, Ilya. “Justice Stevens Admits Error in the Kelo Case-but Also Doubles Down on the Bottom Line.” Reason.com. Reason, November 16, 2020. https://reason.com/volokh/2019/06/08/justice-stevens-admits-error-in-the-kelo-case-but-also-doubles-down-on-the-bottom-line/.
28. Somin, Ilya. “Justice Stevens Admits Error in the Kelo Case-but Also Doubles Down on the Bottom Line.” Reason.com. Reason, November 16, 2020. https://reason.com/volokh/2019/06/08/justice-stevens-admits-error-in-the-kelo-case-but-also-doubles-down-on-the-bottom-line/.
29. Somin, Ilya. “Justice Stevens Admits Error in the Kelo Case-but Also Doubles Down on the Bottom Line.” Reason.com. Reason, November 16, 2020. https://reason.com/volokh/2019/06/08/justice-stevens-admits-error-in-the-kelo-case-but-also-doubles-down-on-the-bottom-line/.
30. Somin, Ilya. “Justice Stevens Admits Error in the Kelo Case-but Also Doubles Down on the Bottom Line.” Reason.com. Reason, November 16, 2020. https://reason.com/volokh/2019/06/08/justice-stevens-admits-error-in-the-kelo-case-but-also-doubles-down-on-the-bottom-line/.
31. “Kelo Eminent Domain.” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/case/kelo/.
32. “Timbs v. Indiana.” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/case/timbs-v-indiana/.
33. Lopez, German. “Why the US Supreme Court’s New Ruling on Excessive Fines Is a Big Deal.” Vox. Vox, February 20, 2019. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/20/18233245/supreme-court-timbs-v-indiana-ruling-excessive-fines-civil-forfeiture.
34. “Editorial: It’s Time to End ‘Policing for Profit’ in Tennessee.” timesnews.net. Kingsport Times News, October 10, 2020. https://www.timesnews.net/opinion/editorials/editorial-its-time-to-end-policing-for-profit-in-tennessee/article_5f70cefe-07ff-11eb-b0f3-37473d9190fb.html.
35. Mangino, Matthew T. “Mangino: Asset Forfeitures Provide a $70 Billion Windfall for Law Enforcement.” The Times. Beaver County Times, December 23, 2020. https://www.timesonline.com/story/opinion/columns/2020/12/23/mangino-asset-forfeitures-provide-70-billion-windfall-law-enforcement/3970455001/.
36. Altman-Devilbiss, Alexx. “South Carolina Supreme Court to Hear Appeal Case Striking down Civil Forfeiture.” WCIV. WCIV, January 12, 2021. https://abcnews4.com/news/local/south-carolina-supreme-court-to-hear-appeal-case-striking-down-civil-forfeiture.
37. Gross, Daniel J. “SC Justices Considering Civil Forfeiture Accuse Attorney of Avoiding Truth.” The Greenville News. Greenville News, January 14, 2021. https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/local/south-carolina/2021/01/14/sc-justices-weighing-civil-forfeiture-accuse-attorney-avoiding-truth/4157984001/.
38. McGivern, Kylie. “Critics Say More Needs to Be Done in Florida to Close ‘Policing for Profit’ Loophole.” WFTS. WFTS, December 15, 2020. https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local-news/i-team-investigates/critics-say-more-needs-to-be-done-in-florida-to-close-policing-for-profit-loophole.
39. Sullum, Jacob. “This Forfeiture Victim Waited 2 Years Without a Hearing. Is That Due Process?” Reason.com. Reason, December 2, 2020. https://reason.com/2020/12/02/this-forfeiture-victim-waited-2-years-without-a-hearing-is-that-due-process/.
40. Sullum, Jacob. “This Forfeiture Victim Waited 2 Years Without a Hearing. Is That Due Process?” Reason.com. Reason, December 2, 2020. https://reason.com/2020/12/02/this-forfeiture-victim-waited-2-years-without-a-hearing-is-that-due-process/.
41. “Private Property Archives.” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/pillar/private-property/?post_type=case.
42. Liptak, Adam. “Justices Strike Down Arizona Campaign Finance Law.” The New York Times. The New York Times, June 27, 2011. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/politics/28campaign.html.
43. Liptak, Adam. “Justices Strike Down Arizona Campaign Finance Law.” The New York Times. The New York Times, June 27, 2011. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/politics/28campaign.html.
44. “Activism.” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/activism?pillar=economic-liberty.
45. Carpenter, Dick M., Lisa Knepper, Kyle Sweetland, and Jennifer McDonald. “License to Work: A National Study of Burdens from Occupational Licensing, 2nd Edition.” Institute for Justice, November 2017. https://ij.org/wp-content/themes/ijorg/images/ltw2/License_to_Work_2nd_Edition.pdf.
46. Sibilla, Nick. “New Laws In Ohio, Washington, D.C. Eliminate Barriers To Work With A Criminal Record.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, January 12, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2021/01/12/new-laws-in-ohio-washington-dc-eliminate-barriers-to-work-with-a-criminal-record/?sh=565e546f68ed.
47. “Activism.” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/activism?pillar=private-property.
48. “Research.” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/research/.
49. Institute for Justice. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990), 2019, Schedule I, Part II.
50. “William H. Mellor.” Institute for Justice. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://ij.org/staff/william-h-mellor/.
51. Institute for Justice. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990), 2019, Part I, Line 12.
52. Institute for Justice. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990), 2019, Part I, Line 22.
53. Rosen, Jeffrey. “The Unregulated Offensive.” The New York Times. The New York Times, April 17, 2005. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/magazine/the-unregulated-offensive.html.
54. Beachum, Lateshia. “Kochs Key among Small Group Quietly Funding Legal Assault on Campaign Finance Regulation.” Center for Public Integrity, November 15, 2017. https://publicintegrity.org/politics/kochs-key-among-small-group-quietly-funding-legal-assault-on-campaign-finance-regulation/.
55. Beachum, Lateshia. “Kochs Key among Small Group Quietly Funding Legal Assault on Campaign Finance Regulation.” Center for Public Integrity, November 15, 2017. https://publicintegrity.org/politics/kochs-key-among-small-group-quietly-funding-legal-assault-on-campaign-finance-regulation/.
56. Beachum, Lateshia. “Kochs Key among Small Group Quietly Funding Legal Assault on Campaign Finance Regulation.” Center for Public Integrity, November 15, 2017. https://publicintegrity.org/politics/kochs-key-among-small-group-quietly-funding-legal-assault-on-campaign-finance-regulation/.