Liberty & Law: IJ's BImonthly Newsletter (June 2011)

8/6/2019 Liberty & Law: IJ's BImonthly Newsletter (June 2011)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/liberty-law-ijs-bimonthly-newsletter-june-2011 1/16

IJ Puts EmInEnt DomaIn abusE

on thE RoPEs In natIonal CIty

Volume 20 Issue 3

IJ’s Fare Fight

For Nashville Sedans

2

Defending Free Speech

efoe the U.S. Supeme Cout

4

IJ Fights Georgia’s Secret

Forfeiture Funds

6

IJ Advocates Nationwide

For School Choice

12

Published Bimonthly by theInstitute for Justice

visit us online:

www.ij.org

Inside This Issue

By Jeff Rowes and Dana Berliner AstheRocky moviestaughtus,itdoesn’tmat-

terwherethingsstandafterthefirstround,it’s

who’sleftstandingatthefinalbellthatcounts.In

thethree-and-a-half-yearslugfestbetweenIJcli-

entCommunityYouthAthleticCenter(CYAC)and

NationalCity,Calif.,onlytheunderdogwasstillon

hisfeetwhenthejudgeissuedhispost-trialjudgment

onApril20,2011.

AsLiberty&Law readersknow,theCYACisa

nonprofitboxingandmentoringcenterforat-riskkids

indowntownNationalCityjustsouthofSanDiego.

Whatstartedwithapunchingbaghanginginthe

backyardoftheCYAC’sfounders—fatherandson

teamCarlosBarraganSr.andJr.—grewintoaflour-

ishingandeffectiveanti-gangprogramandalternativ

schoolthatownsitsownland.

ni Ci continued on pge 8

June 2011

2020 l i t i ga t i ng for li b e r t y

yearsyears



By Wesley Hottot

Untilrecently,Nashville,Tenn.,wasacitywithavibranttransportation

network.RobustcompetitionbetweentaxicabsandtheMusicCity’smany

limousineandsedanservicesmeantyoucouldtakeacabfromdowntown

totheairportforjust$25,oryoucouldpaythesamepricetogoina

limoorsedan.Asaresult,everydaypeopleinNashvillecouldhirealuxurycartogetthemto

workortotakethemoutonthetown.

ButinJune2010,Nashvillepasseda

seriesofregulationsdesignedtopreventlimos,

sedansandtaxicabsfromcompetingwitheach

other.Today,consumersandtransportation

entrepreneursarepayingtheprice.Nashville’s

newregulationsrequirelimoandsedanopera-

torstochargeaminimumof$45pertrip—an

80percentincreaseontheiraveragefare.

Additionally,carservices(aslimosandsedans

arecollectivelycalled)cannotuseleasedvehi-

cles,butmustholdthetitle;theymustdispatchonlyfromtheirplaceof

businessandwaitaminimumof15minutesbeforepickinguppassengers,

delayingresponsetimes;theycannotparkorwaitatanyplaceofpublic

accommodation,suchasahotelorbar;and,asofJanuary2012,they

cannotputanyvehicleintoserviceifitismorethanfiveyearsold,nomat-

terhowwell-maintaineditis,andtheywillhavetotakecarsoutofservice

oncetheyaremorethansevenyearsold(ortenyearsoldforalimo).

Theseregulationshavenothingtodowithpublichealthorsafety;they

haveeverythingtodowitheconomicprotectionism.Thetradegrouprepre-

sentingNashville’smostexpensivelimocompanieswassocloselyinvolved

inthegenesisoftheseregulationsthatitspresidentclaimstohave written

them.“Notmanyorganizationsgettheopportunitytocontributeandsteer

theactualcontentandwordingofpendinglegislation,”hesaid.“It’sa

win-win.”

Butthenewregulationsareanythingbuta“win”foraffordablecar

servicesandtheircustomers.Anumberoftransportationbusinesses,

burdenedwiththesepointlessrequirements,havesimplyshutdown.

Nashvillianswhouselimosandsedansarebeingforcedtotaketaxicabsorspenddouble

forexactlythesameservice.

Now,withthehelpoftheInstitutefor

Justice,affordablelimoandsedanoperators

aresuingNashvilleinfederalcourt,seeking

aninjunctiontostopthenewregulations.This

casewillbuildonIJ’slandmark2002victory

againstTennessee’sfuneraldirectorcartel,

whichwantedtokeepcasketretailingallto

itself.Thatcase—whichwasthefirstfederal

appealscourtvictoryforeconomiclibertysince

theNewDeal—establishedthateconomicpro-

tectionismisneveralegitimatefunctionofgovernment.

Similarly,Nashvillecannotputaffordablelimoandsedancompanies

outofbusinessjusttohelpouttheirexpensivecompetitors.Theremustb

alegitimatepublichealthorsafetyreasonforregulations,and,inthiscase

therearenone.

Thisisanothersadexampleofwhathappenswhenpublicpoweris

usedforprivategain.Butwearegoingtoputastopto

that.Consumers,notthegovernment,shouldpickwinners

andlosersinthemarketplace.TheInstituteforJusticewill

continuetoworktovindicatethatprinciple.u

Wee h is an IJ Texas Chapter staff attorney.

IJ client ai bkri, above, explains, “If this law stays on the books, my customers will be forced to spend twice as much money for exactly the same service,

and I risk losing my business.”

liie lck:New Regulations Threaten to Drive Nashville Transportation Entrepreneurs off the Road

www.ij.org/TNLimosVideo

Watch IJ’s video, “Nashville’s Sedan Drivers Fight City

Effort to Run Them Off the Road”



Je 20

2020 l i t i ga t i ng for l

yearsyears

By Matt Miller

IJ’sNationalStreetVendingInitiative

recentlyscoreditsfirstvictorywhenthecityofElPasorepealeditsprotectionistregulations

thathadprohibitedvendorsfromoperatingwith-

in1,000feetofanyrestaurant,grocerorconve-

niencestore,andalsoprohibitedvendorsfrom

stoppingandwaitingforcustomers.These

now-repealedrestrictionsmadeitalmostimpos-

sibleformobilefoodvendorstovendlegallyin

ElPaso,turningthecityintoa“novending”

zone.ElPaso’sreformswereadirectresponse

totheInstituteforJustice’sfederallawsuit

broughtonbehalfoffourmobilevendors.

IJtookupthecauseofElPaso’smobile

vendorsbyrepresentingfourwomenwho

ownandoperatefoodtrucksinthecity.The

lawsuitcenteredonourclients’constitutional

righttoengageintheiroccupationfreefrom

unreasonablegovernmentalinterference.

Mobilevendorshavetraditionallybeenrequired

tocomplywithnumerouslawsandregula-

tions,includingtrafficrulesandfoodhandling

requirements.Butarecenttrendtakesregula-

tionastepfurther,beyondthepolicepower

ofgovernmentandintotherealmofnaked

economicprotectionism.

Minimum-distancevendinglawslikeEl

Paso’sdonotprotectthepublic—theyprotect

brick-and-mortarrestaurantsfromcompetition.Unfortunately,suchrestrictionsareincreasingly

poppingupacrossthenationasrestaurant

associationsleanonthegovernmenttohelpcut

outtheircompetitors.Justtotaketwoexam-

ples,Chicagobansstreetvendorsfromoperat-

ingwithin200feetofrestaurantsandBaltimore

bansvendorsfromoperatingwithin300feetof

abusinessthatsellssimilarfood.Theresultis

thatitisalmostimpossibletofindalegalspot

tovendinpopularcommercialareaswhereyou

canfindarestaurantoneveryblock.

Thegoaloftheserestrictionsisobvious:

tomakemobilevending—atraditionalentry

pointtoentrepreneurshipinAmerica—sodif-

ficultandsounattractivethatpeopleabandon

thebusinessentirely.Theresultisthatrestau-

rantshavefewercompetitorsandconsumers

havefewer—andmoreexpensive—optionsin

themarketplace.

IJ’snationalvendinginitiativeseeksto

vindicatetherightsofvendorsbasedonthe

simpleprinciplethattheConstitutiondoesnot

allowgovernmenttopickwinnersandlosers

inthemarketplace—todeprivepeopleoftheir

economiclibertymerelysothattheircompeti-

torscanprosper.

OurvictoryinElPasomarksanimportanfirststep.Thelawwaschangedthreemonths

tothedayafterwefiledourlawsuit.Atthe

citycouncilmeetingwheretherestrictions

wereabolished,ElPaso’sdirectorofpublic

healthwasaskedaboutthejustificationforthe

1,000-footrestrictionaroundrestaurants.He

answered,“[T]here’snotahealthreasonor

aTexasfoodrulethatIcanfindthatjustifies

that.”

NowElPasomobilevendorscanoperate

almostanywhereinthecity.Theycanparkat

thecurbduringthelunchrushandstaythere

whilecustomerscomeandgo.Inshort,they

canengageinthesametraditionalmodelof

vendingthattheyhavebeenusingfordecades

andElPasoconsumerswillcontinuetoenjoy

thelowprices,variedoptionsanddeliciousfla

vorsthatvendorsoffer.And,asforIJ,weare

alreadygearingupforournext

tastyvendingchallenge.u

m mier is the IJ Texas

Chapter executive director.

Vicr fr E P sree VedrIJ Scores a Quick and Decisive Win in National Battle to Protect Economic Liberty

El Paso tried to shut down street vendors like IJ client mri Red by making it virtually impossible to sell food on city streets.



By Bill Maurer

OnMarch28,2011,IarguedArizona

FreedomClubPACv.Bennett/McComishv.

Bennett beforetheU.S.SupremeCourt.The

consolidatedcasesbroughtbytheInstitutefor

JusticeandtheGoldwaterInstituteconcern

theconstitutionalityoftheso-called“matching

funds”provisionofthewildlymisnamedArizona

CitizensCleanElectionsAct.Underthatprovi-

sion,candidateswhorunforofficeusingtax-

payerfundsareentitledtoadditionalsubsidies

eachtimetheirtraditionallyfinancedopponents

oranindependentgroupopposingthemspend

aboveacertainamount.Thepurposeand

effectofthelawistolimitthespeechofthose

opposingtaxpayer-financedcandidatesand

“leveltheplayingfield”amongpoliticalspeak-

ers.Thegovernment,ineffect,putsathumb

onthescaleinfavorofitspreferredcandidates.

OpposingIJandGoldwaterthatdaywere

thestateofArizona,theArizonaCleanElections

InstituteandtheObamaadministration.Even

thoughthefederalpresidentialpublicfinancing

systemdoesnotcontain“matchingfunds,”the

federalgovernmentnonethelessparticipated

inoralargumenttourgetheCourttouphold

Arizona’ssystemasanessentialpartofpublic

financingofcampaigns.

Asthefirstcampaignfinancecaseheard

attheSupremeCourtsinceitshigh-profile

decisioninCitizensUnitedv.FEC ,theargu-

mentdrewconsiderablemediaattention,with

mostcommentatorsconcludingthatamajority

oftheCourtappearedtobeskepticalofour

opponents’arguments.(Iachievedapersonal

milestonewhenTheNewYorkTimes —astrong

supporteroflimitingthepoliticalspeechof

thoseoutsidethemedia—quotedmyargument

andcriticizedmebynameinaneditorialurging

theCourttoupholdArizona’slaw.)

DeliveringaneffectiveSupremeCourt

argumentrequiresweeksofpreparationand

tirelessteamwork.Wespentcountlesshoursin

internalpracticesessionscalled“mootcourts,”

whereattorneysaskquestionafterquestionthat

anticipatetheCourt’sareasofinquiryandgive

usthechancetohoneourresponses.Inaddi-

tiontoourinternalmootcourts,Georgetown

LawSchoolandtheHeritageFoundation

graciouslyhostedmootsinfrontof“courts”

consistingofaformerU.S.AttorneyGeneral,

Defending the First Amendment at the Supreme Court

IJ Washington Chapter Executive Director bi mrer fields questions from reporters following the argument. IJ clients, from left, Rick mrp , se

Wikfr, seve Veer and De mri, hope to one day have truly free political speech.

“te prpe d effec f e w i ii e peec f e ppig xper-ficed

cdide d ‘eve e pig fied’ g piic peker. te gvere, i effec,

p e ce i fvr f i preferred cdide.”



Je 20


yearsyears

formerFederalElectionsCommissioners,leadinglawprofessorsand

advocateswhofrequentlyappearbeforetheCourt.

Thispracticewasinadditiontothetimespentreadingthebriefs

(24inall,including“friend-of-the-court”briefs),thecaselawandthemassiverecordinthecase.Becausethereisnolimitonwhatthe

Justicesmayaskanadvocatebeforethem,alawyermustbeprepared

toaddresswhateverissue—onthefacts,thelaw,orthepolicyimplica-

tionsofadecision—theCourtwishestoaddress.

TheabilitytoeffectivelyadvocatebeforetheCourtisbeyondthe

capacityofmanynonprofitorganizationsandprivatelawfirms.With

thesupportofourdonorsandthededicationofourstaffandattor-

neys,however,IJisabletomorethanholditsownandadvocateeffec-

tivelyinthedefenseoflibertyatthehighestlevels.

TheSupremeCourtshouldreleaseitsdecisionsometimeinthe

earlysummer.Inthemeantime,ifyouwanttoreadatranscriptor

listentoanaudiorecordingoftheargument,thoseareavailableat

www.ij.rg/zceeeci.

IJ’slitigationagainstgovernment-imposedlimitsonourfree

speechintheguiseofcampaignfinance“reforms”isyetanother

exampleofwhatwedobest:Wetakeonce-lostlegalcausesandcom-

pletelychangethetermsofthedebate,therebyrestoringthefreedoms

wearesupposedtoenjoyinourconstitutionalrepublic.Certainly

decadesofsimilarlegalbattlesstandbeforeus,but,as

wecontinuetoshow,withprincipledandwell-prepared

advocacy,wecanaccomplishanything.u

bi mrer is the IJ Washington Chapter executive director.

ReadthetranscriptorlistentotheU.S.S.C.

audiorecordingoftheargument,availableat

www.ij.rg/zceeeci.

DoWnloaDs aVaIlablE:

InArizona’sso-called“CleanElections”system—

theprogramatissueintheU.S.SupremeCourtcaseIJarguedinMarch—eachtimeaprivatelysupported

candidateoranindependentgroupspendsabuckover

agovernment-setlimit,thepubliclyfundedopponent

getsanotherbuck.Itisnothardtoseehowthese

“matchingfunds”discouragespeechbythosenoton

thedole.

Nonetheless,throughout

theInstituteforJustice’sFirst

Amendmentchallengetothelaw,

CleanElections’backershave

deniedmatchingfundshaveany

effectonspeech.Thatiswhy,aspartofourstrategicresearch

program,weaskedUniversityof

RochesterpoliticalscientistDavid

Primotoexaminethelaw’seffect.

Primofoundthatprivately

fundedcandidates,especiallyin

competitiveraces,delayspeakinguntillateinthecam-

paignsothatanymatchingfundsaredeliveredtoolate

tobeofmuchusetoanopponent.Thatmeansless

timeforcandidatestospeakandlesstimeforvoters

toconsiderthemessage.Surveysofcandidatesand

independentgroupsbyothers,includingthefederal

GovernmentAccountabilityOffice,backupPrimo’s

findings.

AlthoughCleanElections’defendershavetried

toignoreordismissthisevidence,itappearstohave

madeanimpactonatleastonememberoftheHigh

Court.JusticeScaliapointedtothisresearchduring

oralargumentasproofofharmtoFirstAmendment

rights.Hopefully,JusticeScaliaandhiscolleagueswill

seefittoputanendtothisspeech-chillinglawonce

andforall.u

Research ShowsClean Elections’ Harms

Read the report at:

www.ij.rg/pri



By Scott Bullock

IJ’snationwideinitiativeagainstforfeitureabusebroughtusto

GeorgiainMarch.There,wefiledalawsuittoshinealightonoff-

budgetlawenforcementslushfundsthatarecreatedwithpropertyand

cashtakenbycivilforfeiture.

UnderdraconiancivilforfeiturelawsinGeorgiaandmostother

states,thepolicecanseizeyourhome,car,cashorotherpropertyuponthemeresuspicionthatithasbeenusedorinvolvedincriminal

activity,regardlessofwhetheryouhave

beenconvictedofacrimeorevenarrest-

ed.Civilforfeiturerepresentsoneof

thegreatestassaultsonprivateproperty

rightsinournation.AndGeorgiahas

someoftheworstforfeiturelawsand

practicesinthenation,earninga

D-inournationalforfeiturereport

releasedlastyear.Onegoodaspectof

Georgiaforfeiturelaw,however,isthat

itatleastattemptstoensurethatcivilforfeitureissubjecttopublicscrutiny.

Georgialawrequireslocallawenforce-

mentagenciestoannuallyitemizeand

reportallpropertyobtainedthroughforfeiture,andhowitisused,to

localgoverningauthorities.

Butmany,perhapsmost,localGeorgialawenforcementagencies

failtoissuetheseforfeiturereports,thusturningforfeitureproceeds

intoslushfundsshieldedfrompublicview.Thatisabreachofthe

publictrustandabetrayaloftaxpayers.Ourlawsuitonbehalfoffive

Georgiacitizensseekstoforcetheheadlawenforcementofficersof

FultonCountyandtheCityofAtlantatodiscloseallofthepropertythey

haveseizedunderGeorgiaforfeiturestatutesalongwithhowtheyuti-

lizedthatproperty.

IJ’sGeorgialawsuitgrewdirectlyoutofourstrategicresearch

program.WhileassemblingourPolicingforProfit reportlastyear,we

discoveredthatcivilforfeiturelawsarenotoriouslyopaque.Only29

statesrequirereportingofpropertyseizedthroughforfeiture,and,eveninthosestatesthatrequirereporting,suchasGeorgia,thelawsare

notproperlyenforced.

Forinstance,wetookarandomsample

of20lawenforcementagenciesinGeorgia

andfoundthatonlytwowerereportingas

required.Thisresearchledtothepublica-

tionofanewreport:ForfeitingAccountability:

Georgia’sHiddenCivilForfeitureFunds .The

reportalsohighlightsexamplesofabusewith

forfeiturefunds,includingaGeorgiasheriff

spending$90,000inforfeituremoneytopur-

chaseaDodgeViper,andtheFultonCountydistrictattorney’sofficeusingforfeiturefunds

topurchasefootballtickets.

Themissionofourcaseissimplebut

vitallyimportant:Lawenforcementshouldfollowthelaw.Ourlatest

forfeiturelawsuitwillguaranteethatGeorgialawenforcementagencies

areaccountabletotaxpayersandpropertyowners

throughoutthestate.u

sc bck is a senior attorney at the

Institute for Justice.

www.ij.org/GAForfVideo

Watch the video about how civil forfeiture threatens the

property rights of Georgians and of all Americans.

Georgia Lawsuit Targets

Hidden Civil Forfeiture Funds

B y E rin No rman and

Anthon y Sande rs

Ma rch 2011

Read the report at:

www.ij.rg/GaFrfRepr

6



Je 20


yearsyears

“occpi iceig w ke i re diffic fr

pepe . . . r r cge creer, d d ie re

prec idr iider fr ew cpeii.”

Rerig or RIJ Returns to Court to Defend Hairbraiders’ Right to Earn an Honest Living

By Paul Avelar

TheveryfirstcasetheInstitutefor

Justicefiled20yearsagowasachallenge

toWashington,D.C.’scosmetologylicens-

inglawonbehalfofAfricanhairbraiders.

Tolawfullyofferhairbraidingservices,the

Districtrequiredwould-bepractitionersto

investthousandsofhoursandthousandsof

dollarsinatrainingprogramthathadnoth-

ingtodowithbraiding.

Demonstratingthepoweroflitigatingcasesinthecourtofpublicopinion,D.C.

wasforcedtorelentandrepealitslaw.And

intheyearssince,IJhashelpedbraiders

takeoncosmetologylicensinglaws—and

cosmetologycartels—insixstates,posting

bigwinsforeconomiclibertyeverytime.

IJhasonceagaintakenupthecause

ofeconomiclibertyforbraiders—thistime

inUtah.

JestinaClaytongrewupinSierra

Leoneandhasbeenbraidingsinceshe

wasjustsixyearsold.Shecametothe

UnitedStatesafterfleeingfromthehor-

ribleviolenceoftheSierraLeonecivilwar.

SincearrivinginAmerica,shehasgradu-

atedfromcollege,marriedandhadtwo

childrenwithathirdontheway.

In2005,Jestinarealizedtherewas

anunmetdemandforAfricanhairbraiding

inUtahandthatshecouldmakemoney

bybraiding.Beforeshestartedherbusi-

ness,however,sheconfirmedwiththe

statelicensingboardthatshedidnotneed

anyspeciallicense.Shecontinuedher

businessbecauseitcombinedtheoppor-

tunitytoprovideforherfamilywiththe

flexibilityofbeingastay-at-homemother.

Butin2009,alicensedcosmetolo-gistcomplainedthatJestinadidnothave

acosmetologylicense.Andeventhough

thelicensingboardhadpreviouslysaidshe

didnotneedalicense,theboardthreat-

enedtoshutherdown.Now,inorderto

braidhairformoney,Jestinamustspend

asmuchas$18,000totake2,000hours

ofcosmetologyclasses.Notonlyisthat

moreclasshoursthanUtahrequiresof

armedsecurityguards,mortgageloan

originators,realestatesalesagents,EMTs

andlawyers—combined —noneofthosecosmetologyclassesactuallyteacheshow

tobraidhair.

Researchshowsthatoccupational

licensinglawsmakeitmoredifficultfor

people—especiallypoor,minority,immi-

grantandolderworkers—tostartorchange

careers,anddonothingmorethanprotect

industryinsidersfromnewcompetition.

Government-imposedroadblocks,likecos-

metologylicensingrequirementsforbraid-

ers,cutoffthefirstrungoftheeconomic

ladderforthosewhoneeditmost.Itforc-

esthemintotheundergroundeconomy.

Jestinahasalreadyexplainedtothe

licensingboardandtolegislatorswhy

Utah’slicensingschememakesnosense,

butnoonehasbeenwillingtochangethe

laws.

Inhernativelanguage,“Jestina”

means“justice.”IJisgoingtoUtahfederal

courttogetjusticeforJestina.Soitisfit-

tingthatsheteamedupwithIJtochange

theunjustlaw.

Jestinashouldn’tneedthegovern-

ment’spermissiontobraidhair.Boththe

federalandUtahconstitutionsprotectevery

individual’srighttoearnanhonestlivingin

theirchosenoccupationfreefromarbitrary

andirrationalgovernmentregulations.But

thisconstitutionalrightismeaningless

unlesscourtsenforceit.u

P aver is an IJ

Arizona Chapter staff

attorney.

IJ client Jei C has been told by the Utah

cosmetology board that she can no longer braid

hair. Excessive government-imposed licensing on a

safe and uncomplicated practice, such as hairbraid-

ing, is both outrageous and unconstitutional.

www.ij.org/UTHairbraidingVideo

Watch IJ’s video, “Untangling African Hairbraiders from

Utah's Cosmetology Regime.”



Unfortunately,likemostpropertyinNational

City,theCYACisinthemiddleofamassive

zonethathasbeendeclaredblighted.And,

in2005,NationalCitypromisedthegym’s

landtoaluxurycondodeveloper.

In2007,NationalCitydecidedtorenew

itseminentdomainauthorityforanother

10years.NationalCityhashadaseries

ofblightandeminentdomaindesignations

sincethe1960s.LikemanyCaliforniacities,

NationalCitywantstokeepitselfinaperpetu-

alstateofdeclared“blight”becausedoingso

givesitaccesstopowerandmoney.

Thereisanentireindustryofpoliticians,bureaucrats,consultants,developersandbank-

erswhofeedoffofendlessblightdesignations,

andtheyhavenoincentivetodoanythingbut

engageinexactlythesortofarbitrarycentral

planningthatperpetuatesthesocialandeco-

nomicproblemstheypurporttobesolving.

IJteamedupwiththeCYACbackinthe

springof2007toopposethereauthorization

ofeminentdomain.Unsurprisingly,despite

beinginformedbyIJthatitsproposalviolated

statutoryandconstitutionallawinliterally

dozensofways,anddespiteenormouspublicopposition,NationalCityrammedthenew

eminentdomainordinancethrough.Thecity

didn’tseemtocarethatwhatitwasdoing

wasillegalbecauseeveryoneknowsthatyou

can’tfightCityHall.

FortheCYAC,itwastimetodowhat

theyhavebeenteachingtheirkidsallalong:

havethecouragetofightforwhat’sright,no

mattertheodds.IJandtheCYACfiledsuit

inSeptember2007,andwewereknocked

downattheopeningbell.Exploitingabizarre

technicalityinCalifornialaw,theoriginal

judgedismissedthecaseonthegroundthat

anoticeinthebackofanewspapergavea

certaindateasaFridaywhenitshouldhave

beenthefollowingMonday.Notonlydidthe

judgetossthesuit,heruledthattheCYAC

couldnotcorrecttheerror.Thecasewas

over,andNationalCityprobablythoughtthat

ithadscoredafirst-roundknockout.

Wepickedourselvesup,wipedour

bloodynoseandtookNationalCitytothe

CourtofAppealforroundtwo,wherewenot

onlygotthetrialcourtreversed,wesecured

animportantprecedentprotectingproperty

ownersfromsillytechnicalitieswhentryingto

protecttheirland.

Suddenlylookingalittleworried,

NationalCitythentriedtodazzleuswitha

fewroundsoffancyfootwork,doingevery-

thingpossibletopreventthetruthfromcom-

ingout.Firsttheytriedtogetthecasedis-

missedagainonthesametechnicality.Then

theyrefusedtoturnoveranyevidenceindis-

covery,raisedeverypossibleobjection

andtriedtopreventnonpartiesfrom

givingdocumentstotheCYAC.Asallofthisjumping,dancingandswing-

ingawaytranspired,IJpatientlystood

inthecenterofthering,waitingfor

NationalCitytogetcloseenough,and

thenitwaspow,pow,powinaseries

ofjudicialdecisionsinstructingNational

Citytogoforwardwiththelawsuit,turn

overdocuments,andpreparefortrial.

AsweheadedintotrialinMarch,we

enteredwhatfighterscallthe“deepwater”

ofthelaterrounds,whereyoufindoutif

you’vedonethetrainingandgotthehearttogothedistance.Wehadtodigreallydeep.

Eventhoughwe’drockedNationalCitybadly,

andeventhoughwehadrightonourside,

goingupagainstthegovernmentinaprop-

ertyrightscaseisalwaysalongshot.

Trialwasnothingshortofanordealfor

IJ’sfive-personcrew:thetwoofus,Staff

AttorneysDanAlbanandDoranArik,and

ParalegalKyndraGriffin.Wealsohadamaz-

inghelpfromourlocalcounsel,RichSegal,

BrianMartinandNateSmithofPillsbury

Winthrop.WespentweeksinSanDiego

workingvirtuallyaroundtheclock.There

werelotsofopportunitiestoquit,tocut

corners,togivejustenoughinsteadofgiv-

ingourbest,butnoonefalteredintheface

ofintensestress,theexpectationsofour

clients,theimportanceoftherightswewere

fightingforandthelonelinessweallfeltfor

ourlovedonesbackhome.Wehadtosolve

smallproblemsontheflyandmakesplit-

seconddecisionsduringtrialthatcouldcost

useverythingifnotcorrect,buttimeand

againtheentireteamdidwhatittooktotake

theCYAC’sfighttothecity.

Withtheroarofthecrowdbehindus

(oursideofthecourtroomwaspackedevery

day,whileNationalCityhadnoone),we

deliveredourclosingargumentsinaflurry

ofbodyblows,uppercutsandcrossesthat

leftNationalCityinaheaponthecanvas.

Thejudgeagreed,rulingthatNational

Cityviolatedstateredevelopmentlaw,the

U.S.ConstitutionandtheCaliforniaPublic

RecordsAct.Theentire692-propertyemi-

nent-domainzonewasstruckdown.

Thereweretwonotablefirstsinour

victory.ThiswasthefirstdecisionapplyingthereformsthatCaliforniapassedaspart

ofthepropertyrightsreformmovementthat

IJspearheadedfollowingtheinfamousKelo

decision.OurwinconfirmedthatCalifornia

propertyownershaveheightenedprotection

againstbogusblightdesignations.Thiswas

alsothefirstdecisionclearlyholdingthat

documentsproducedbygovernmentcontrac

tors—inthiscase,privateblightconsultants—

werepublicrecordssubjecttodisclosure

underthePublicRecordsAct.

SoIJandtheCYACareexcitedtogive

abig“YoAdrian”topropertyownersacross

California.AndifNationalCitywantsa

rematchintheCourtofAppeal,wehaveonly

threewordsforthem:Bringiton.u

Jeff Rwe and

D berier

are IJ senior

attorneys.

ni Ci continued from pge 1

EMINENT DOMAIN ON THE ROPES

www.ij.org/cyac

8



Je 20


yearsyears

Je 20

By Jeff Rowes

Goingtotrialisaboutthehardestthingalawyerdoes.

Thenightsaresleepless.Therearethousandsofdocuments.

Witnessessayunexpected,evencrazy,things.Youhavetowrite

entirebriefsinonedayandbepreparedtoargueanylegalissue

onthespot.Thejudgecoulddoanythingatanyminutetosinkthe

case.Yougodownintothetrenches,getshelledaroundtheclock

andstaggeroutweekslaterinadaze. InMarch,ateamfromIJmannedthefrontlinesinthefight

againsteminentdomainabuseinatrialinvolvingourCYACboxing

gymcase.Here’saglimpseintowhatyoudon’tseeonshowslike

Law&Order .

te IJ Gp Crv:Privatepracticelawyersoftenlive

likekingsontheircorporateclients’dime.ButanIJpublicinterest

lawyerismoreMotel6thanFourSeasons.Sowhenourjudgehad

tobumpthetrialbackoneweekafterallfivemembersofourIJteam

(SeniorAttorneysDanaBerlinerandme,StaffAttorneysDanAlban

andDoranArik,andParalegalKyndraGriffin),arrivedinSanDiego

weneededtoeconomizefast.Althoughwehadinitiallynegotiateda

reasonablerateatareasonablehotel,wefinagledanevenbetterdealatadifferenthotelfromtheoneweinitiallybooked(saving$14,000!),

andspentanentiremorningwheelingbazillionsofdocuments,sup-

plies,suitcasesandelectronicsdownthestreetonhanddollies.

Civr Die, b Kdr srvive:Asourparalegal,

Kyndra,neededtocopy,organizeandbeabletoinstantlyidentify

mountainsofdocuments.Todothis,sheconstantlyshuttled

betweenthe“warroom”(aconvertedhotelsuite)andtheofficesof

ourlocalcounselafewblocksaway.Thefirsttimesheannounced

thatshewasgoingtothelocalcounsel’sofficeatnight,Ichival-

rouslysaidIwouldescorther,protectingherfromtheevildoersof

downtownSanDiego.Overthenextfewdays,itdawnedonmethat

KyndrawasfasterandtougherthanI,andthatshewasgoingtogo

overatallhourswithorwithoutme,soImeeklyacceptedmyown

wimpinessandstoppedtryingtofollowheraround.

Dr De 2,000 Pge i tw D:Doranstartedat

IJinJanuaryandwasimmediatelytossedintotheCYACwoodchip-

per,workinghoursthatwouldterrifythemosthighlypaidWallStreet

lawyer.Andwepiledonevenmoreduringtrial.Sheborethiswith

theenduranceofLanceArmstrong,buthadtodigevendeeper

whenitfelltohertogothrough2,000pagesofenvironmentaland

redevelopmentreportsintwodays,flaggingeverythingimportant.

Givenhergeneralstateofexhaustionandthemind-numbingcontent

ofthesedocuments,DanaandIwouldhavefeltlessguiltyasking

hertojuggleflamingchainsawsblindfolded.Fortwodays,likeaZenmonk,Doransatcross-leggedonthefloorofthewarroom

immersedinreamsofbureaucratese,preparingtoleadusfrom

ignorancetoenlightenment.Herdiligencepaidoffinspadeswhen

thosemomentsarose,againandagain,inwhichweneededtoknow

somethingthatwasinthosedocuments,andeverytimeDoran

camethrough.

D sep up big tie:Danawasdoingtheworkofthree

peoplegettingourexpertexaminationsreadyandIwaswritingabrief

topreventabunchofconfusingandirrelevantevidencefromcom-

ingin.Itbecameobviousthatneitherofuswouldbereadytodo

thequestioningofakeyhostilewitnessattrial.Dan,whohadonly

beenatIJsincethispastsummer,andwhohadbeenhelpingDana

prepareforthiswitness,volunteeredtoworkthroughthenighttobe

readytodotheexamination.DanandIskippedtrialthatmorningto

honehisoutlineandrelentlesslydrilldifferentscenariosinwhichthe

questioningcouldgohaywire.Whenthetimecame,hesteppedup

tothepodiumanddeliveredanoutstandingexaminationofthewit-

ness,elicitingtestimonythatturnedouttobecrucialtoourvictory.

beid e scee e CyaC tri

IJ’s trial successfully defending the property rights of our clients required not only

strong minds and strong spirits, but also strong backs as our team moved IJ’s

litigation “war room” to a different hotel, thereby saving the Institute $14,000.

beid e scee continued on pge 13



By Chip Mellor

Duringarecentargumentbeforethe

U.S.SupremeCourt,JusticeElenaKagan

soughttominimizetheimportanceofan

attorney’sstatementwithwhichshedis-

agreedbysaying“somepeoplemayuse

certainbuzzwordsandotherpeopledon’t

usethosebuzzwords.”Sadly,theprob-

lemwith“buzzwords”inconstitutionalcasesstemsnotfromtheadvocates

beforetheCourt,butfromtheCourt

itself.SincetheNewDeal,theCourt

hascontinu-

allybasedits

constitutional

interpretation

ontermsand

teststhat

redefinethe

actualconsti-

tutionaltextandeffectively

predeterminemostoutcomes.

Twoofthemostegregiousexamples

ofsuchconstitutionalbuzzwordsare

“heightenedscrutiny”and“rational

basis.”Neithertermappearsinthe

Constitution.Butbothhavebecome

enshrinedinconstitutionalanalysisand

areroutinelyemployedbyfederaland

statecourtstoupholdlawsandgovern-

mentalactions.Despitesuchubiquity

andthefactthatthesebuzzwordspro-

foundlyaffectthelivesofeveryAmerican,

mostpeoplehaveneverheardthem

uttered.Theirprevalenceandinfluence

offeranimportantlessoninwhathap-

penswhencourtsabdicatetheirresponsi-

bilitybyimproperlydeferringtothelegisla-

tivebranch.

TheSupremeCourtstruckdown

earlyNewDealprogramsbecauseit

foundthatCongressdidnothavethe

powertoenactthem.Simplyput,the

Courtfoundthattherewerenoenumerat-

edpowersintheConstitutionthatautho-

rizedviolatingtherightsofAmericans

whosepropertyandlivelihoodswere

beingdrasticallyregulated.

Afterintensepoliticalpressure,

includingathreattoaddadditionaljus-

ticestotheCourttoobtainamajority,

PresidentFranklinRooseveltinducedtheCourttochangeitspositionontheNew

DealandtheConstitution.Inorderto

upholdNewDealprogramsfromconstitu-

tionalchallenge,theCourthadtorelegate

certainrights—notablypropertyrightsand

economicliberty—tosecond-classstatus.

Thiswasaccomplishedbycreatingahier-

archyofrightswiththoseatthetop(like

theFirstAmendment)receivingrelatively

strongprotectionandthoseatthebottom

(propertyrightsandeconomicliberty)

receivingverylittle.

Torationalizethis,theCourtcame

upwiththenotionthatwhencourts

examinegovernmentalactionthataffects

top-tierrights,theyshouldemploy“height-

enedscrutiny”effectivelyplacingthe

burdenonthegovernmenttojustifyits

action.Oftenlawssubjecttoheightened

scrutinyarestruckdown.

Theflipsidewasthatlawsaffecting

rightsinthebottomtierwouldbeupheld

ifthecourtcouldfindany“rational

basis”forthelaw.Thattermcameto

meanthatany“reasonablyconceiv-

able”setoffactswillsufficetojustifya

lawevenifthefactsdidnotexistatthe

timethelawwaspassed.Inpractice,

courtsoftenmakeupreasonsandfindhypotheticalfactssufficient.Thismeans

thatalmostalllawsgoverningeconomic

libertyorpropertyrightsareupheldwith

onlyperfunc-

toryanalysis.

Indeed,the

application

ofthesebuzz

wordshas

evolvedto

thepointthat

todaycourtsroutinely

defertolegislaturesoneconomicand

propertymattersandrubberstamplaws

thatregulateeverythingfromlemonade

standstothecolorofone’shouse.

TheConstitutionwascrafted

painstakinglytoestablishagovern-

mentoflimitedandenumeratedpow-

ers.TheSupremeCourthasthevital

andchallengingjobofinterpreting

theConstitutionconsistentwiththe

Founders’goalofmaintainingsucha

liberty-orientedinstitution.Anytime

buzzwordslike“heightenedscrutiny”

or“rationalbasis”servetoreplacethe

wordsoftheFounders,theCourtis

effectivelyamendingtheConstitution.u

Cip mer is president

and general counsel of the

Institute for Justice.

bzzig b te CiiReprinted from

“te Cii w crfed pikig ei

gvere f iied d eered pwer. te spree

Cr e vi d cegig j f ierpreig e

Cii cie wi e Fder’ g f

iiig c ier-rieed iii.”

ChipMellorisaregularcontributorto

Forbes.com.Hisarticlesareavailableat

i.ij.rg/CipoFre

REaD moRE:



Je 20


yearsyears

Je 20


yearsyears

By Melanie Hildreth

Ifyouinvestedingoldin1991,you’re

probablyprettyhappytoday.(Infact,maybe

youretiredearlyandarereadingthisonthe

beach.)Whataboutifyoubegandonatingto

IJin1991?Whatdoyouhavetoshowforit

today?

Tostart,youwouldhavehelpedsave

morethan16,000propertiesfromeminent

domainabuse,improvedpropertyrightslawsin43states,helped810,000children

getintoschoolchoiceprograms,earned20

awardsforpublicrelationsthatsharethe

messageoflibertyandhadfivecasesheard

beforetheU.S.SupremeCourt—twocases

thisyearalone.

Morethanthat,though,youwouldhave

beenpartofbuildinganentirelynewwayof

litigatingpublicinterestcasesthatresultsin

successforindividualliberty,againststeep

odds,70percentofthetime.

After20remarkablysuccessfulyears,IJ

hasalottolookforwardto,andourdonors

canrestassuredthatthefundstheygiveto

IJwillbeusedwiselyandeffectivelyinthe

next20yearsandbeyond.

Hereareafewwayswetakecareof

yourinvestmentinIJ:

We re priciped.Weareguided

bytheprinciplesoflibertylaidoutinthe

Constitutionandarticulatedbythinkerslike

Jefferson,Hayek,FriedmanandRand.We

neversuccumbtopoliticalexpediencyor

jumponthebandwagonofpopularcausesto

earnextraattentionormoney.Thisdedica-

tiontoprincipleallowsustohaveanimpact

thatfarexceedsoursize.

Wemaintainthesamepe d -

e relationshipwithoursupportersthatwe

haveamongourstaffandwithourclients

andthemedia.Wewantyoutoknowtheorganizationyouareinvestingin,whether

itiswithyear-to-yearsupport,amulti-year

pledgeoragiftthroughyourwillortrust.

Youarealwayswelcometostopbyour

officestoseeinpersonwhatyouarehelping

makepossible.

or rd f direcr ere

cdide fr eerip e

rd dere e ige dedic-

i r ii.Boardmembership

hasremainedselectandconsistent,and

attendanceatboardmeetingsisexcep-

tional—itisrareforamembertomissa

meeting.Inaddition,everymemberisactive

inIJ’sgovernance,approvingeachcasewe

fileinadditiontooverseeingourgrowthand

finances.

We ire ff w ierize r

ii d cre;thisisparticularly

trueofourseniorstaff.Asaresult,people

whocometoIJtendtostayandmakea

careerhere.Forexample,theaverage

tenureofourvicepresidentsandsenior

attorneys,todate,is12.2years.Thisconti-

nuityhelpsensureconsistencyinthewaywe

pursueallaspectsofourstrategiclitigation.

We re cce.Westriveto

answerdonors’questionsandalwaysreport

ontheexpendituresoffunds(includinghere

inLiberty&Law ).Eachyear,IJisauditedby

anindependentauditingfirm.OurForm990andauditedfinancialstatementsareavail-

ableonourwebsite.Andwehaveearned

nineconsecutive4-starratingsfromCharity

Navigator;thisputsusinthetoponepercent

ofcharitiesevaluated,andindicatesthatwe

consistentlyexecuteourmissioninafiscally

responsiblewaythat,accordingtoCharity

Navigator,“outperformsmostothercharities

inAmerica.”

YourinvestmentinIJissecure,andit

ispayingdividends.Ourfirst20yearshave

demonstratedthatyoucanfeelconfident

thattheorganizationyousupporttodayis

goingtobehereandadvancingindividuallib-

ertyforyearstocome.Thankyouforbeing

partofoursuccess.u

meie hidre is the

Institute’s director of

donor relations.

Your Investment in IJ Remains True After 20 Years

2020 l i t i ga t i ng for li b e r t y

yearsyears

1991-2011

Je 20


yearsyears



By Dick Komer

Whatadifferenceayearmakes!Or

perhapsmoreaccurately,whatadiffer-

enceanelectionmakes.

The2010electionsbroughtinanew

RepublicanmajorityintheU.S.Houseof

Representatives,wherethenewSpeakeroftheHouseJohnBoehnerthrewhiscon-

siderableinfluencebehindeffortstorevive

theD.C.OpportunityScholarshipProgram,

whichPresidentObamaandtheprevi-

ousDemocrat-dominatedCongresshad

condemnedto

deathbyattri-

tion.Speaker

Boehnermade

reauthoriza-

tionofthe

programademandinthe

budgetnegotiationsthatnearlyresultedin

agovernmentshut-down,andwhenthe

Presidentsignedthebudgetcompromise,

itrenewedtheprogramforfiveyears.

Evenmoreimportantlyforschool

choice,becauseeducationisprimarilya

stateresponsibility,thechangeswrought

bythe2010electionsatthestatelevel

havecatalyzedeffortstoprovidepar-

entswithgreatereducationalfreedom.

Combinedwiththeincreasingwilling-

nessofDemocrats—particularlyminority

Democrats—tobucktheteachers’unions,

theascendancyofnewlegislatorscommit-

tedtoeducationreformthroughempower-

ingparentshasresultedinthemostintense

legislativeseasonforschoolchoiceever.

Alreadythisyear,threeremarkable

programshavebrokennewgroundforthe

schoolchoicemovement.Arizonahas

createdaprogramofeducationalsavings

accountsforArizonafamilieswithchildren

withspecialneedsthatprovidesthemwith

theabilitytocontroltheeducationtheir

childrenreceive.Thelocalschoolboardfor

DouglasCounty,Colo.,hascreatedaschol-

arshipprogramthatenablesupto500

familiestoselectanon-districtschoolfortheirchildren’seducations,includingprivate

schools.AndIndianaenactedwhatcould

growintothelargestschoolchoicescholar-

shipprograminthenation.IJexpectsall

threeprogramstobechallengedincourt

andispreparingtointerveneinthoselaw-

suitstodefendparents’righttochoosethe

bestavailableeducationfortheirchildren.

Morestatelegislaturesareconsider-

ingschoolchoiceprogramsthanever

before,andIJ’slegislativecounseling

effortshaveextendedtomorestatesthan

everbefore.Injustthepastfewmonths,

wehavehelpedmorethan20statescare-

fullyexaminetheirchoiceoptions.Among

those,Ohio,PennsylvaniaandWisconsin

areconsideringmajornewprogramsor

expansionsofexistingprograms,witha

goodchanceofenactmentthanksinpart

totheelectionofpro-schoolchoicegover-

nors.StateslikeAlaskaandTennessee,

whichhaveneverintroducedschoolchoice

legislation,havegottenonthebandwagon,

andmoreseriouseffortsthaneverhave

occurredinotherstateslikeNewMexico

andMontana.

Manyoftheseneweffortsinvolvetax

creditscholarshipprograms,inwhichthe

stateallowstaxpayerstotaketaxcredits

forcontributionstheymaketoorganiza-

tionsawardingscholarshipstostudentsfor

useatprivateschools.IJ’sApril4victory

intheU.S.SupremeCourt,inwhichtheCourtheldthattaxpayerscannotchal-

lengeArizona’spersonalincometaxcredit,

rendersmoredifficulttheusualsuspects’

abilitytochallengesuchprograms.IJ

expectsthatadditionalstateprograms

willjoin

theexist-

ingones

inArizona,

Florida,

Georgia,

Indiana,Iowa,

PennsylvaniaandRhodeIsland,allof

whichwillcontinuetogrowandserveever

greaternumbersoffamilies.Infact,since

thisarticlewasfirstdrafted,Oklahoma

haspassedataxcreditprogram.

Inshort,althoughtheyearisnot

evenhalfover,2011isprovingabanner

yearforschoolchoice.Andwithschool

choiceprovidingacost-effectivemeansof

educatingchildrenwhilestatesnationwide

faceseverebudgetdifficulties,choiceis

advancingmorerapidlythaneverbefore.

ItisnowondertheInstituteforJustice’s

schoolchoiceteamisbusierthanever,

celebratingvictories,preparingforlitiga-

tionandhelpingadditionalstatesharness

parentalchoicetoreform

Americaneducation.u

Dick Ker is an

IJ senior attorney.

School Choice Takes Off

“Wi c cice prvidig c-effecive e f

edcig cidre wie e iwide fce

widepred dge difficie, cice i dvcig

re rpid ever efre. ”



Je 20


yearsyears

D hde e Exper like Exper:A

majorpartofourcasewasthetestimonyoftwoexperts.

EinsteinwouldhavebeenbaffledbyDana’sabilitytocram

48hoursworthofworkintoevery24-hourday,butthatis

whatDanahadtodotopreparethem.Inthemiddleof

ourfirstexpert’stestimony,thejudgeunexpectedlyruled

thathugeareasofhistestimonywereinadmissible,andher

detailedoutlineofquestionstoaskhadtoberewritten,inher

head,onthespot,tostaywithinthejudge’srulingandstill

getwhatweneeded.Andallofthishadtobedonewithout

betrayinganysenseoffrustrationorlossofconfidence.The

nextdaywithourotherexpert,afterDanawroteanewlineof

testimonyovernighttofitunderthejudge’sruling,theexpertsteppedontothewitnessstandandpromptlyspilledapitche

oficewateralloverthecourtreporter.DanaandIlookedat

eachotherandshrugged.Thisseemedlikeoneoftheleast

insanethingsthathadhappenedsofar.

I G Crie see:Iworkoutalotandwastheo-

retically“intraining”foranironmantriathlonwhilethetrial

wasgoingon.IcalledIJPresidentChipMelloratonepoint

toupdatehimandwhinedthatnotonlyhadn’tIworkedout

forthreedays,Icouldn’tremembergoingthreedayswithout

physicalactivitysince1994.Ithenhadtogofivemoredays

withoutworkingout.Thisradicallifestyleshifttookplacejust

asthenationwasgrippedwithCharlieSheenfever.Ifoundmyselfconstantlypepperingthetrialteamwithinspirational

CharlieSheenquotessuchas“youcanworkallnight,you’ve

gottigerbloodandAdonisDNA.”AstheCYACtrialseemed

readytosapmylastdropofsanity,IwonderedhowIhad

gonefromswashbucklingfreedomfightertoCharlieSheen

groupie.Luckily,ataboutthattime,mywifeshowedupwith

ournine-month-oldson,Will,forabriefvisit.Wedubbed

him“LittleWill,”madehimtheTeamCYACmascot,andthis

snappedmebacktoreality.

Whenthetrialfinallyended,wepackedupthewar

roominafog,knowingthatwehadbeenthroughsomething

extraordinary.Thelastthingtocomedownwasafortune

cookiemessagetapedtotheTVthatsaid,“Functioning

superblycomesautomaticallytoyou.”

Iguessthatcookiewasontosomething.Onemonth

later,thejudgehandeddownasweepingvictoryfortheCYAC

andpropertyownersacrossCalifornia.AllIcoulddowas

harnessmyinner-CharlieSheenandthink,“Winning!”u

Jeff Rwe is an IJ senior attorney.

beid e scee continued from pge 9

In March, IJ client and journalist Cr mi, above, testified before the Texas

House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee in support of the Citizen

Participation Act, a bill that would curb frivolous defamation lawsuits, also known

as “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” or SLAPP suits. Main discussed

how she was sued for defamation by Dallas developer H. Walker Royall over her

book, “Bulldozed: Kelo , Eminent Domain, and the American Lust for Land,” which

chronicles eminent domain abuse in Freeport, Texas. Royall was the lead devel-

oper on the project. Some form of anti-SLAPP legislation has been adopted by 27

states. The Institute is defending Main and her publisher in court.

D berier, above, and IJ client lri a Vedei (not pictured) testified

before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on the Constitution in

favor of the Private Property Rights Protection Act, which would withdraw federal

funding from state and local governments that use eminent domain for economic

development. The bill, sponsored by Reps. Sensenbrenner (R) and Waters (D)

passed the House by 386-43 in 2005 but stalled in the Senate. Congress is gear-

ing up for another attempt to pass the bill in 2011.

P h o t o b y A l i c i a W a g n e r C a

l z a d a

P h o t o b y C r a i g M i l l w a r d

tkig e mege f Freedt legire



By Paul Sherman

AttorneyDavidMarstonandformer

Bush-administrationofficialJohnYoo

wrotearecentop-edinTheWallStreet

Journalmakingthecaseagainstthe

WhiteHouse’seffortstoforcefederal

contractorstodisclosecontributions,not

justtocandidates,

buttoanygroupthat

mightrunpolitical

advertisements.AsreadersofIJ’sMake

NoLaw blog(www.

kew.rg)areaware,thisisa

backdooreffortbytheWhiteHouseto

achievebyfiatwhatitwasunableto

achieveinCongress,namely,passageof

theso-calledDISCLOSEAct.

MarstonandYoo’sop-edisnotable

notjustbecauseitmakesastrongcase

fortheunconstitutionalityoftheObama

administration’sactions,butalsoas

amarkofhowmuchthedebateover

regulationofpoliticalspeechhasshifted

inthepastdecade.Whenthenowhalf-

deadMcCain-Feingoldlawwasenacted

in2002,amajortalkingpointamong

conservativeeliteswas“nolimits,full

disclosure.”Butincreasingly—andquite

correctly—opinionmakersarebeginning

torecognizethesignificantcoststhat

disclosurecanimposeonpoliticalpar-

ticipation.

Sowhathaschanged?

Unquestionably,partofthischangein

eliteopinionhasbeendrivenbyhigh-

profileincidentsofpoliticalretaliation

madepossiblebydisclosurelaws.But

thoseincidentshavereceivedmuch

moreattentionduetoIJ’seffortto

shedlightontheburdensofdisclosure

laws.Indeed,whenwefirstpub-

lishedDisclosureCosts:Unintended

ConsequencesofCampaignFinance

Reform in2007,almostnoonehad

botheredtostudytheimpactofthelaws

onrealpeople.Wefollowedthatstudy

withmanymore,including:Campaign

FinanceRedTape:StranglingFree

Speech&PoliticalDebate ,LockingUp

PoliticalSpeech:HowElectioneering

CommunicationsLawsStifleFree

SpeechandCivicEngagement ,Mowing

DowntheGrassroots:HowGrassroots

LobbyingDisclosureSuppressesPolitical

Participation,andKeepOut!How

CampaignFinanceLawsErectBarriers

toEntrytoPoliticalEntrepreneurs .

Otherpoliticalscientistshave

nowjoinedthisdebate.Professor

RaymondLaRajaoftheUniversity

ofMassachusetts,Amherst,recently

releasedaworkingpapertitledDoes

TransparencyofPoliticalActivityHave

aChillingEffectonParticipation? His

studymeasured“howindividuals

responddifferentlytomakingcampaign

contributionsorsigning

petitionswhenprovided

withasubtlecuethatthe

informationwillbemadepublic.”Hisfindings?Not

onlydoesdisclosurehave

achillingeffectonparticipation,but

theresultisparticularlypronouncedfor

smalldonorsandwomen.

LaRajaconcludesthathisfindings

“shouldspurpolicymakerstoreconsider

thecost-benefittradeoffsfordisclo-

surepolicy,particularlyforcampaign

finance.”Basedonthegrowingnum-

berofvoicesquestioningtheconven-

tionalwisdomthatmoredisclosureis

alwaysbetter,itseemsthattheymight

be.Here’shopingthatjudgeswillfol-

lowsuit.u

P ser is an IJ

staff attorney.

The Institute for Justice has led the way in changing the terms of the debate on campaign finance laws by publishing multiple studies that

examine the burdens disclosure places on grassroots political activists, including: Disclosure Costs: Unintended Consequences of Campaign

Finance Reform , Campaign Finance Red Tape: Strangling Free Speech & Political Debate , Locking Up Political Speech: How Electioneering

Communications Laws Stifle Free Speech and Civic Engagement , Mowing Down the Grassroots: How Grassroots Lobbying Disclosure

Suppresses Political Participation , and Keep Out! How Campaign Finance Laws Erect Barriers to Entry to Political Entrepreneurs.

Piic Privc sd be Civi Rig

“opii ker re egiig recgize e

igific c dicre c ipe

piic pricipi.”



Je 20


yearsyears

Volume20Issue3

a e pici

Liberty & Law is published bimonthly by the

Institute for Justice, which, through strategic

litigation, training, communication, activismand research, advances a rule of law under

which individuals can control their destinies

as free and responsible members of society.

IJ litigates to secure economic liberty, school

choice, private property rights, freedom of

speech and other vital individual liberties,

and to restore constitutional limits on the

power of government. In addition, IJ trains

law students, lawyers and policy activists in

the tactics of public interest litigation.

Through these activities, IJ challenges theideology of the welfare state and illustrates

and extends the benefits of freedom to those

whose full enjoyment of liberty is denied by

government.

Editor: John E. Kramer

Layout & Design: Don Wilson

Howtoreachus:

Institute for Justice

901 N. Glebe RoadSuite 900

Arlington, VA 22203

General Information . . . . . (703) 682-9320

Fax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (703) 682-9321

Extensions:

Donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Website: www.ij.org

E-mail: [email protected]: www.ij.org/donate

Quotable QuotesThe Hannity Show

(FOX News)

IJ seir are D berier dic-

e e Iie fr Jice’ iigi

ef f e Ci y aeic

Ceer: “Inthiscase,theproposalwasto

takethegym’spropertyandgiveittoaprivate

developerforupscalecondominiums.”

The Atlantic

“TheInstituteforJusticecombinestheright’sfocusoneconomiclibertywiththe

left’swillingnesstoeffectchangethroughthecourts....Intheestimationofits

‘merrybandoflibertarianlitigators,’candidatesontherightandleftshouldput

theirdifferencesasideandagreeonthismuch:everyoneoughttoenjoyanarrayof

economicliberties,andthejudiciaryisavitaltoolforsecuringthem.”

EconLog

“Cangovernmentforcetransportationbusinessestochargeaminimumpriceto

protectpoliticallyconnectedcompaniesfromcompetition?Thatisthequestion

theInstituteforJustice(IJ)anditsclientsseektoanswerinfederalcourtwitha

challengetoNashville’snewlimousineandsedanregulations....Anyonewantto

makeoddsontheoutcomeofthetrial?”

The New York Times

IJ Wig Cper Execive Direcr bi mrer dice e

Iie fr Jice’ cege ariz’ “Ce Eeci” cee:

“[T]hegovernmentshouldn'tbedecidingwhoisspeakingtoomuchandwhois

speakingtoolittle.”



Institute for Justice901 N. Glebe RoadSuite 900

Arlington, VA 22203

“te Iie fr

ice i i

gi—rig

keep gvere

r redcig e

cpeiivee f

rke.”

—Café Hayek

NON-PrOFIT OrG.

U . S . P O S T A G E

P A I D

I N S T I T U T E F O r

J U S T I C E

St. Louis wants to take my property for private development and censor my mural protesting the city’s eminent domain abuse.

But I’m fighting for my right to be heard.

I am today’s face of free speech.

I am IJ.

Documents

Liberty & Law: IJ's BImonthly Newsletter (June 2011)