Date post: | 07-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | institute-for-justice |
View: | 219 times |
Download: | 0 times |
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
8/6/2019 Liberty & Law: IJ's BImonthly Newsletter (June 2011)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/liberty-law-ijs-bimonthly-newsletter-june-2011 2/162
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”
8/6/2019 Liberty & Law: IJ's BImonthly Newsletter (June 2011)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/liberty-law-ijs-bimonthly-newsletter-june-2011 3/16
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.
8/6/2019 Liberty & Law: IJ's BImonthly Newsletter (June 2011)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/liberty-law-ijs-bimonthly-newsletter-june-2011 4/164
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.”
8/6/2019 Liberty & Law: IJ's BImonthly Newsletter (June 2011)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/liberty-law-ijs-bimonthly-newsletter-june-2011 5/16
Je 20
2020 l i t i ga t i ng for l
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
8/6/2019 Liberty & Law: IJ's BImonthly Newsletter (June 2011)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/liberty-law-ijs-bimonthly-newsletter-june-2011 6/166
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
8/6/2019 Liberty & Law: IJ's BImonthly Newsletter (June 2011)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/liberty-law-ijs-bimonthly-newsletter-june-2011 7/16
Je 20
2020 l i t i ga t i ng for l
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.”
8/6/2019 Liberty & Law: IJ's BImonthly Newsletter (June 2011)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/liberty-law-ijs-bimonthly-newsletter-june-2011 8/168
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
8/6/2019 Liberty & Law: IJ's BImonthly Newsletter (June 2011)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/liberty-law-ijs-bimonthly-newsletter-june-2011 9/16
Je 20
2020 l i t i ga t i ng for l
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
8/6/2019 Liberty & Law: IJ's BImonthly Newsletter (June 2011)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/liberty-law-ijs-bimonthly-newsletter-june-2011 10/160
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:
8/6/2019 Liberty & Law: IJ's BImonthly Newsletter (June 2011)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/liberty-law-ijs-bimonthly-newsletter-june-2011 11/16
Je 20
2020 l i t i ga t i ng for l
yearsyears
Je 20
2020 l i t i ga t i ng for l
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
2020 l i t i ga t i ng for l
yearsyears
8/6/2019 Liberty & Law: IJ's BImonthly Newsletter (June 2011)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/liberty-law-ijs-bimonthly-newsletter-june-2011 12/162
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. ”
8/6/2019 Liberty & Law: IJ's BImonthly Newsletter (June 2011)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/liberty-law-ijs-bimonthly-newsletter-june-2011 13/16
Je 20
2020 l i t i ga t i ng for l
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
8/6/2019 Liberty & Law: IJ's BImonthly Newsletter (June 2011)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/liberty-law-ijs-bimonthly-newsletter-june-2011 14/164
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.”
8/6/2019 Liberty & Law: IJ's BImonthly Newsletter (June 2011)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/liberty-law-ijs-bimonthly-newsletter-june-2011 15/16
Je 20
2020 l i t i ga t i ng for l
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.”
8/6/2019 Liberty & Law: IJ's BImonthly Newsletter (June 2011)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/liberty-law-ijs-bimonthly-newsletter-june-2011 16/16
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.