Jump to content

Talk:Institute for Justice/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Request for comment, Litigation Section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This section groups this public interest law firm's cases by subject. This has triggered an NPOV dispute. See above. Thanks James Cage (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

How about each side in this dispute write one sentence of not more than 20 words stating their position.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Leave As Is: This organization believes cases are related by underlying principles. These relationships, and the terms the organization uses to describe these principles, are key to understanding the organization. Separating the cases removes relevant information, and changing "free speech" (for example) to some other term eliminates information on how this organization views free speech. James Cage (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Change: The categories are non-neutral because they use libertarian catchphrases and reflect how IJ markets itself rather than how these cases would be described by a non-ideological observer. E.g. a neutral observer would call Kelo v. City of New London an "eminent domain" case, not a "property rights" case. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Change "Free Speech" to "Campaign Finance." The other sections should be left as is, as they adequately describe the cases. GregJackP Boomer! 07:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey @GregJackP: – The section includes cases involving tour guides. The fact that IJ’s concept of “free speech” includes helping tour guides and opposing some campaign finance reform is important in an article about IJ. Changing the category labels (or removing them entirely) will remove this valuable information from the article. Changing this category to “Campaign finance” will also contradict the reference: http://www.ij.org/cases. This article is not about free speech, property rights, etc. We don’t need to debate those topics. This article is about IJ, and we should cover what IJ actually does. It is a referenced fact that IJ groups its cases in the way described in our existing article.
It has been suggested elsewhere that we make up new topic headings that we think are neutral, and then go looking for references that support our new labels. In my opinion, deciding what to say and then looking for references is not "neutral". It's more accurate (and far, far easier) to let the facts lead us, and not the other way around. Thanks! James Cage (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Update - Since this discussion started, IJ has changed the term it uses for these cases. It now uses "First Amendment" (see http://www.ij.org/cases). Can we agree to change "Free speech" to "First Amendment", and leave it at that? Thanks! James Cage (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia article, not a marketing pamphlet for IJ. Whether they choose to change terms or not is their right, but doesn't effect what occurs here. LavaBaron (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
LavaBaron, I respect that, but this is an article about IJ. These categories show how IJ views issues in society, and applies those views to litigation. We can't do that unless we show that eminent domain (for example) is viewed by IJ as being a private property rights issue. Changing the category to "Eminent Domain" (one proposal) would be changing the message to say that IJ views eminent domain to be an eminent domain issue ... which is pointless. Regarding First Amendment, I don't believe that anyone is saying that any of the cases in that section are NOT First Amendment cases, so that may be a good compromise in any case. Thanks! James Cage (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Tomwsulcer, the issue (for me at least) is that the current categorization scheme reflects IJ's marketing efforts rather than the bulk of reliable independent sources; it uses libertarian catchphrases rather than more informative, non-ideological terms. E.g. "eminent domain" is more informative and less value-laden than "property rights," which only reflects one side of Kelo v. City of New London. Mainstream sources do not call Kelo a "property rights" case, nor does our article on the case. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Change - the headers should be as un-POV as possible. For example, what is categorized here as "economic liberty" might be described by folks on the other side as "economic anarchy"; simply grouping them as "commerce" would allow much the same grouping without judging one way or th'other. If the titles are to remain describing the Institute's POV, then that should be made explicit in the text (i.e., "Cases that the IfJ consider as representing their defense of economic liberty include the following:") Note: I am entering this discussion because Fleischman suggested it to those of us who had been involved in a similar discussion over at Talk:Thomas More Law Center; I don't think that qualifies as WP:CANVASS because the discussion involved just two editors, who were on opposite sides of the issue, so it does not appear to be an attempt to unbalance the discussion.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
NatGertler, the intro to the Litigation section handles this. It reads, "[IJ] groups its cases into four areas ..." Further, the property rights section includes the following: "The organization's litigation in the area of private property rights includes cases involving perceived abuse of eminent domain and civil forfeiture." Thanks!James Cage (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Close RfC and Consider Renaming all Sections Weak Leave as is I find DrFleischman's and User:NatGertler's points convincing in that some of the sectional titles represent obvious argument framing. However, responding strictly to the structure of the RfC - should this be grouped sectionally - I agree it should be; I also, however, support a renaming of those sections to more value neutral terms and would like to see a separate proposal for that. LavaBaron (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
LavaBaron, perhaps the RfC is a bit ambiguous, but I'm confident James Cage would agree with me that the dispute isn't about whether the cases should be grouped sectionally (he and I both think it should be), but about how they should be grouped sectionally and specifically about what section headings we should use. Since James opened the RfC I'll let him tweak it for clarity. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I came here from the feedback request service so don't know the background. If the RfC is amended, I'd appreciate it if someone pinged me so I can adjust my !vote accordingly. As it is, it's a little unconventional since it doesn't propose a question so I was left to guess what kind of comments were being requested. LavaBaron (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
LavaBaron, all of the proposals for new section headings I've seen leave cases out. Changing "Property Rights" to "Eminent Domain" leaves out civil forfeiture. "Campaign Finance" leaves out tour guides, etc. Are we just going to add categories until we cover everything? If so, we'll just end up listing the cases in alphabetical order, which DrFleischman and I both think is a very bad idea. Simply reporting the facts, with an unequivocal reference, is easier, factual, and useful to the reader. But if we must change the categories, how should we change the intro, which currently reads, "[IJ] groups its cases into four areas ..." Should it be changed to read, "We, the editors of Wikipedia, group its cases as follows ..."? If the five or six of us agree on a few dozen new categories (we won't), is there a citation template that covers our blah blah blah? :) The way this organization actually groups cases is factual and referenced. (And although I don't think it matters, if "property rights" is a libertarian catchphrase, then the Wikipedia article on that subject is wildly inaccurate. I suggest we edit that article too ... you do have a reference stating that this is a catchphrase, right?) I'm not trying to be insulting - but I seriously want us to think before we start spewing out a dozen (or possibly dozens) of new categories, which won't add anything to the readers' understanding of IJ. And IJ is the subject of this article, not Kelo or campaign finance reform or ... Thanks! James Cage (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty confident we can come up with a neutral categorization scheme with a handful (maybe 5-6) categories, the last one being "Other cases" or somesuch for the cases that don't fit into the others. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
If we are going to move cases out of some categories and into new categories, do we also remove the information on how IJ groups the cases? In any case, I am not the right person to propose new categories. Further, I don't think we can decide to make this change without knowing what those categories are. Perhaps we should close this request for comment, and open a new one for a new set of categories. We can debate the wording of each of those categories. We can debate which cases belong in which category. In my opinion, this will add nothing to the readers' understanding of the subject of this article. Or we can work to make it as clear as possible that the categories, and the terms involved, are the ones that IJ uses. That doesn't have to be neutral, because it is factual. (Actually, it's inherently neutral because it is factual.) But if we must have new categories, I am certainly not the person to propose them. Thanks! James Cage (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
As per Dr. Fleischman, this is clearly what the RfC should be asking. As a neutral and disinterested recent arrival I will open a new one that places concrete options for a discussion so we can rapidly achieve a consensus one way or the other. LavaBaron (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Comment: Litigation section category names

Consensus is to enforce the section title changes described in the question, with the exception of "School choice" which should be changed to "Education" instead of "Education funding." Further explanation is contained in the closing comment below. LavaBaron (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The category names in the "litigation section" of this article have been characterized as marketing "catchphrases" by some editors and it has been suggested they be renamed to "value neutral labels." The question: should the current names be changed as indicated below?

  • change Economic Liberty to Commercial regulation
  • change Private property rights to Eminent domain and civil forfeiture
  • change First amendment to Campaign finance
  • change School choice to Education funding
  • add Other cases as a catchall for those that don't fit the new categories

LavaBaron (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Survey ("yes" !vote indicates "make changes"; "no" indicates do not; if using other terms, please explain intent)

  • Abstain I don't care one way or the other. Someone ping me in a week and I'll come back and close this. LavaBaron (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No to the proposed changes. (However, I do support closing the RfC above and considering this one instead. Thanks, LavaBaron.) "Economic liberty" (referred to as Economic freedom on Wikipedia) is a recognized civil rights subject with an article on Wikipedia. It is not the same thing as commercial regulation, as evidenced by the fact that this is a separate article. Ditto for Private property rights. First Amendment is NOT a catch phrase, and every case in this section was litigated based on the First Amendment, including cases that have nothing to do with campaign finances. School choice is the worst example - IJ was founded in large part to promote school choice, not education funding. They are absolutely different subjects. Censoring this term is like writing an article about GM and not being allowed to use the word "cars." The need for an "Other" category illustrates the fact that we are removing information from this article by substituting how IJ groups its cases with our own opinions. James Cage (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Snooze. Frankly I don't see what the fuss is about.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. The current categorization scheme reflects IJ's marketing efforts rather than the bulk of reliable independent sources; it uses libertarian catchphrases rather than more informative, non-ideological, neutral terms. E.g. "eminent domain" is more informative and less value-laden than "property rights," which only reflects one side of Kelo v. City of New London. Mainstream sources do not call Kelo a "property rights" case, nor does our article on the case. Mainstream sourced also do not call campaign finance cases "First Amendment" cases. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. This is an easy call. Dr. Fleischman explained it well; we should avoid contentious value-laden labels. As for school choice, if "education funding" is unsuitable I would go with "education reform" or simply "education." Neutralitytalk 22:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree, I like "Education." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Meh It doesn't seem to be that different...if they are could we merge? Say, for example "Education funding and school choice", etc. My thought being education funding is a big bucket, this clarifies their niche and self-designated areas of litigation. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Closing Comment - I have closed this RfC as an uninvolved editor. While I was the editor who opened it, I believe I meet the qualifications of "uninvolved" on the basis of non-participation in the discussion, abstention from the survey, and no edit history on the article proper. After seven days discussion the !votes were as follows: 3 Yes, 1 Weak Yes (originally lodged as "if we are being this pedantic than YES"), 3 Abstain (originally lodged as "Abstain," "Snooze," and "Meh"), and 1 No. On this basis I feel there is a consensus to enforce the changes. An unrequested consensus also emerged during the discussion by which "School choice" should be changed to "Education" instead of "Education funding" as originally proposed. An involved editor should make these changes at this time. Dr. Fleischman and James Cage are to be congratulated for their civility in this edit disagreement and have been awarded barnstars. LavaBaron (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of "School Choice" in text of article

Wikipedia has articles on school choice and school vouchers. These topics are relevant to the section on education reform. I have added a link to "school choice" (in quotes, to show this term was not viewed as neutral - see discussions above) to the text of the article. Given the organization's Supreme Court litigation, I felt that including "school vouchers" in the section heading was appropriate. James Cage (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I changed the wording to match the consensus, above. GregJackP Boomer! 16:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the consensus and am against the use of "school choice" for two reasons. First, the term appears to be non-neutral, as the top two hits in a Google web search are to the Friedman Foundation and National School Choice Week, two political advocacy groups, and most of the hits in a Google News search are to op-eds and a handful of right-leaning media outlets. Mainstream reliable sources overwhelmingly use "school vouchers." Second, the term "school vouchers" is more specific and informative; as our article on School choice explains, school vouchers are a subset of school choice, and as far as I can tell all of the cases IJ has worked on in this area are about school vouchers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Is there any acceptable way to link to the Wikipedia article on school choice? It is not the same as vouchers (separate article). Organization has litigated cases regarding tax credits as well. James Cage (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
GregJackP, just to be clear, I believed that the consensus had to do with the section sub-headings in the litigation section, and not the text of the article itself. I believe this is a real distinction, as there is a real "school choice" movement. It includes real activities (including activities such as tax credits) not covered by vouchers. It merits a separate article in Wikipedia, and not just a re-direct of "school vouchers" or some other article. DrFleischman, I believe you recommendations have now been followed completely. Do you feel that the neutrality warning can now be removed? If so, feel free.
We've created an article about the Institute for Justice that does not contain the phrase "school choice." I had to write that down - frankly, I'm stunned. I understand that this conforms to some view of neutrality, but I regret that we have eliminated factual information, and links to a real movement that exists in the real world, for the sole reason that we don't like the phrase that they use to describe their efforts. I understand that you don't agree, but I wish someone would explain why there is a separate article on our project, if the movement is in fact just a misnomer. Best regards, James Cage (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Neither case dealt with school choice, per se. It dealt with the use of vouchers, in other words, tax dollars to send children to religious schools (or public schools). The other case dealt with the use of school tax credits, sort of a vouchers in reverse. However, there is nothing on magnet schools, charter schools, homeschooling, etc., all of which make up portions of school choice. Finally, the term is POV, in that it has become a euphemism for using tax dollars to send children to schools where they will not be taught science, but will be taught religious dogma instead. Now, if that is what IJ stands for, it would be better to come out and say it rather than couch it in a euphemism. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 18:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with a reliably sourced statement explaining IJ's involvement in the school choice movement or describing IJ as an advocate for school choice. What I have a problem with is describing these cases as school choice cases. That's a subtle but important distinction. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay.James Cage (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

2018 - needs update for timbs v indiana

this week ij argued another case before the supreme court. timbs v indiana, which is likely to win, argues for incorporation of the excessive fines clause of the 8th amendment to the states via the 14th amendment.

when it wins, this will open the floogates for ij and their ilk to challenge fines against poor people, which they have been doing in places like fergueson missouri. win or lose, this is a case that will get taught in every 1l constitutional law class. will need links to wiki articles on incorporation octrine, barron v baltimore, etc. http://ballots.blogspot.com/2018/11/argument-analysis-court-appears-ready.html 50.90.158.23 (talk)gtbear at gmail —Preceding undated comment added 09:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

May I get an editor's assistance in updating this page?

My name is John Kramer. I’m the Vice President for Strategic Relations at the Institute for Justice.


I have studied Wikipedia pages related to the work of the Institute for Justice, specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Justice. In the next month or so, I would like to work with a Wikipedia editor to offer some suggested updates to this page.


As required by Wikipedia standards, I want to ensure I am:


·        Being transparent about my role at the Institute for Justice,

·        Suggesting only factual edits—not making suggestions that are opinions,

·        Offering neutral third-party sources/links to verify each of the updates I’m suggesting, and

·        In the rare instance where the Institute for Justice is the only source of the information shared (such as the number of employees within our organization), I’ve provided you with a link to our website where that information can be verified. Lyrical42 (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Here are three examples (among others) of edits I would like to suggest:
Edit request
·       Formation:
·       The Institute for Justice opened on September 3, 1991 [1] (not 1990, as listed on this page)
·       Purpose:
·       It is not merely “economic liberty advocacy” but (as will be well-documented with copious independent news links I will provide) IJ litigates to advance four specific pillars and one general area of the law:
§  Economic liberty advocacy
§  Property rights advocacy
§  Free speech advocacy
§  Parental choice in education advocacy
§  Government immunity and accountability advocacy
·       Headquarters:
I would suggest replacing the “S-900” with “#900”—that is our suite number. Lyrical42 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I can get around to looking at this in a couple of hours when I’m back on my laptop if someone else doesn’t get to it first. Could you also have a look at WP:COI please and add the template to your user page so anyone checking your edits in future will know you’ve declared. Thanks. Equine-man (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Very much appreciated. COI statement now added to my user page. Lyrical42 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Edits to Institute for Justice boxed material on the right

Updates to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Justice:


·       Updated the boxed information on the right side:


·       Formation:

·       The Institute for Justice opened on September 3, 1991 (not 1990, as listed on this page)


·       Purpose:

·       It is not merely “economic liberty advocacy” but—as will be well-documented with the material and copious links I will provide below—IJ litigates to advance four specific pillars and one general area of the law:

§  Economic liberty advocacy

§  Property rights advocacy

§  Free speech advocacy

§  Parental choice in education advocacy

§  Government immunity and accountability advocacy


·       Headquarters:

·       I would suggest replacing the “S-900” with “#900”—that is our suite number, as documented at the bottom of this page.


·       Total number of employees:

·       Organizations such as the Cato Institute, the ACLU and the Goldwater Institute evidently provide Wikipedia with their own data when it comes to staff size. If that is acceptable for you, I can tell you that as of 2023, the Institute for Justice has 157 full-time staff members, including 64 attorneys. Lyrical42 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Edits to "Commercial regulation" section of Institute for Justice page

Commercial regulation


·       In the Activities section under Litigation, please consider changing “Commercial regulation” to “Occupational licensing.” I suggest this because IJ does not get involved generally in “commercial regulation,” but, instead, focuses more narrowly in the area of government licensing of occupations, it would more accurate and descriptive of IJ’s work to use the headline “Occupational licensing” here.


·       The initial link you provide in that section is dated; it is from a story that ran in 2014. A great deal of independent reporting and research has been done on this issue since then. Here are three much more recent news stories for you to consider using as updated links, each of which feature the latest research on the issue:


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/02/state-licensing-requirements-cosmetologists-landscape-architecture/673196/


https://reason.com/2023/03/27/how-bad-are-your-states-occupational-licensing-requirements/


https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/02/27/who-benefits-who-loses-from-the-occupational-licensing-system


·       The list of occupational licensing cases IJ has litigated has not been updated since 2009. Here are some more recent major cases to consider adding to the end of that section:


·       In 2010, the Institute for Justice filed suit on behalf of monks from Saint Joseph Abbey, a century-old Benedictine monastery in Covington, Louisiana. The monks sold handmade wooden caskets, but the Louisiana Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors enforced a law requiring anyone who wanted to sell caskets or any funeral merchandise in the state to become a government-licensed funeral director. To secure a license, the monks would need to pass a funeral industry test [FN: La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 37:848(A).] and convert their monastery into a funeral establishment [FN:  La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 37:848(A); La. Admin. Code tit. 46, §§ 503, 709 & 903.], which would require installing equipment for embalming human remains. [FN:  La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 37:842(D); La. Admin. Code tit. 46, §§ 1105 & 1107.] On March 20, 2013, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous ruling in favor of the monks holding that laws amounting to “naked transfers of wealth” to politically favored insiders are unconstitutional.


·       In 2013, the Institute for Justice filed a federal suit on behalf of three independent tax preparers against the Internal Revenue Service. The tax preparers challenged the IRS’s imposition of a new licensing system (without congressional authorization) requiring tax preparers to get the IRS’s permission before they could work. In January 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled the IRS didn’t have the power to impose nationwide licensing on tax preparers. In February 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling.


·       In July 2017, Airbnb property manager Sally Ladd—represented by the Institute for Justice—filed lawsuit challenging the Pennsylvania Real Estate Commission’s effort to require Ladd to obtain a real estate broker’s license to manage vacation rental properties. After winning a procedural case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2020, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held a trial on Ladd’s case in 2022 then ruled in October 2022 her favor[JK1] —a decision the government did not appeal.


In December 2018, the Institute for Justice filed suit on behalf of two would-be estheticians—cosmetologists who specialize in beauty and care of the face—against the Pennsylvania Cosmetology Board. The clients, Courtney Haveman and Amanda Spillane, were denied government-issued licenses to work citing the state’s “good moral character” clause because each of them had past criminal offenses. In August 2020, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court struck down the good moral standard clause, clearing the way for Haveman and Spillane to reapply for their licenses.

[JK1]Because this is a unpublished opinion, I provided a link to the ruling, which is housed on IJ's website. Lyrical42 (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Suggested overhaul of "Eminent domain and civil forfeiture" section

Eminent domain and civil forfeiture


·       In the section titled “Eminent domain and civil forfeiture,” please consider changing this sub-headline to “Property rights” and breaking this into new sub-sections:


§  Eminent domain,

§  Civil forfeiture,

§  Unconstitutional searches, and

§  Fines and fees.


·       Suggested updated language for Eminent domain


§  Please consider adding the following as a new paragraph after the paragraph that begins: “In 2005, the organization represented the plaintiffs…”


·       Since litigating the Kelo case, the Institute for Justice has won eminent domain cases in Lakewood, Ohio, Long Branch, New Jersey, Riviera Beach, Florida, National City, California, Nashville, Tennessee and Atlantic City, New Jersey.


·       Suggested updated language for Civil forfeiture


§  In the paragraph that begins, “The organization also works to publicize what it sees as abuse of civil forfeiture laws….” it would be more accurate to write:  “The organization seeks to end the use of civil forfeiture and replace it with criminal forfeiture, which would require the government to convict someone of a crime before their property could be taken.”


§  Suggested list of civil forfeiture cases (with links to news sources) to post:


The Institute for Justice has litigated numerous civil forfeiture cases across the country. Among them:


In 2011, the Institute for Justice represented Russ Caswell, a motel owner from Tewksbury, Massachusetts, after the federal government sought to take his property through civil forfeiture. After a four-day trial in 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the government’s forfeiture action.


In 2013, the Institute filed suit on behalf of Terry Dehko a grocery store owner in Fraser, Michigan. Federal agents seized Dehko’s bank account without charging him with a crime but claiming he had made frequent deposits of less than $10,000 into his bank account in an effort to avoid bank regulations. Later that year, the IRS returned Dehko’s money.


In 2014, the Institute filed three federal suits on behalf of those who had their money or property seized by the government through civil forfeiture:


IJ filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia challenging the city’s use of civil forfeiture, which often targeted minorities and the poor. In 2018, the city agreed to return $3 million is seized assets to those whose cash and property was taken.


The Institute filed suit on behalf of Iowa restaurant owner Carole Hinders, who had her bank account of $33,000 seized by the IRS, despite never being accused of a crime. Later that year, the IRS agreed to return all of her money.


The Institute filed suit on behalf of Jeffrey, Richard and Mitch Hirsch from Long Island, New York, after the IRS seized $446,000 from their candy and snack wholesale company without filing any criminal complaint against them. The Hirsch brothers had made deposits of under $10,000 into their bank account, which the government called “structuring.” In 2015, the IRS agreed to return all of the Hirsch’s money.


In 2019, President Donald Trump signed a law that now forbids the IRS from seizing bank accounts based on nothing but the allegation of structuring.


In 2021, the Institute won a legal battle against the Drug Enforcement Agency after it seized $30,000—the life savings—of shoeshine man Kermit Warren as he was traveling through the airport in Columbus, Ohio.


In 2023, the Institute for Justice secured the return of $39,500 to North Carolina shipping company owner Jerry Johnson. Although he earned the money legally and it is not illegal to travel with cash, Phoenix police seized Johnson’s money when he flew into Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.


Additional Institute for Justice lawsuits successfully challenging civil forfeiture have been filed in North Carolina, Kentucky, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Wyoming and elsewhere.


·       Suggested NEW language for Unconstitutional searches:


The Institute for Justice has litigated numerous cases challenging what it sees as the unconstitutional searching of private property. Among its areas of litigation are:


·       Warrantless searches of rental properties


·       The Institute has successfully challenged unconstitutional rental inspection requirements in Marietta, Georgia and Park Forest, Illinois.


·       Government searching and monitoring of “open fields”


·       Today, the government may inspect and even place cameras on private property without a warrant or the property owner’s consent as long as this does not include the area immediately surrounding the property owner’s home. This is known as the open fields doctrine. The Institute for Justice is challenging such searches in Pennsylvania and Tennessee.


Moreover, several state courts have rejected the open fields doctrine under their own state constitutional search-and-seizure provisions. [Proposed cite: See, e.g., Faulkner v. State, 98 So. 691 (Miss. 1924); State v. Bullock, 901 P.2d 61 (Mont. 1995); People v. Scott, 593 N.E.2d 1328 (N.Y. 1992); State v. Dixson, 766 P.2d 1015 (Or. 1988); Welch v. State, 289 S.W. 510 (Tenn. 1926); State v. Kirchoff, 587 A.2d 988 (Vt. 1991); State v. Johnson, 879 P.2d 984 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).]


·       Suggested NEW language for Fines and fees:


Local governments impose fines and fees for minor traffic violations and property code violations to fund their budgets without raising taxes. Such actions, however, create financial incentives for municipalities to maximize revenue rather than address public safety issues.


The Institute for Justice continues to litigate cases challenging excessive and arbitrary government-imposed fines and fees in:


Pagedale, Missouri, where the city could fine residents for having mismatched curtains, walking on the left-hand side of a crosswalk and having barbeques in the front of a home, among other infractions. The U.S. Department of Justice cited the excessive use of fines and fees as among the issues that sparked the riots in nearby Ferguson, Missouri. In 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri finalized a consent decree in which Pagedale agreed to eliminate its municipal code dealing with fines and fees for what it deemed “nuisance” behaviors.


Charlestown, Indiana, where the mayor imposed fines against low-income homeowners in an effort to help a developer secure the land for a new development project.


Brookside, Alabama, where the municipality of 1,253 residents saw fines and fees rise by 640 percent in four years to pay for half of the city government’s income.


In 2019, the Institute for Justice won Timbs v. Indiana, a U.S. Supreme Court that for the first time that held the U.S. Constitution's 8th amendment protection against excessive fines applies to state and local governments. Lyrical42 (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Institute_for_Justice/Archive_2&oldid=1235960668"