Editing Institute for Justice (section)

== History ==
[[Chip Mellor|William H. "Chip" Mellor]] and [[Clint Bolick]] co-founded the organization in 1991 with seed money from [[Charles Koch]]'s private foundation.<ref name=unregulatedoffensive>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/magazine/the-unregulated-offensive.html|title=The Unregulated Offensive|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=April 17, 2005|first=Jeffrey|last=Rosen}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Southworth |first=Ann |url=https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226830728.001.0001 |title=Big Money Unleashed |date=2023 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-83073-5 |pages=62 |quote="IJ, founded in 1991 with initial seed funding by Charles Koch"}}</ref> Mellor was the organization's President & General Counsel through 2015. Bolick was the Vice President and Director of Litigation from 1990 until he left the organization in 2004. In March 2015, the organization announced that Mellor would become the chairman of its board of directors in January 2016. Senior Attorney [[Scott Bullock]] replaced Mellor as President.<ref>{{cite web|title=After 24 Years as IJ's One & Only President Chip Mellor Elevated to Board Chairman in 2016|url=http://www.ij.org/ij-transition-release-3-10-15|website=Institute for Justice web site|access-date=June 17, 2015}}</ref>

The organization's methods were modeled in part on work Bolick had done as the director of the Landmark Center for Civil Rights in [[Washington, D.C.]] For example, in the late 1980s Bolick represented Washington shoeshine stand owner Ego Brown in his attempt to overturn a Jim Crow-era law against bootblack stands on public streets. The law was designed to restrict economic opportunities for African Americans but was still being enforced 85 years after its passage. Bolick sued the District of Columbia on Brown's behalf, and the law was overturned in 1989.<ref name="East4-97">{{cite news |last=Easton |first=Nina J. |date=April 20, 1997 |title=Welcome to the Clint Bolick Revolution |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-04-20-tm-50490-story.html |access-date=December 9, 2013 |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |date=April 19, 1989 |title=Shoeshine Businessman Standing Tall in Victory |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/19/us/washington-journal-shoeshine-businessman-standing-tall-in-victory.html |access-date=December 9, 2013 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> In 1991, Bolick joined former [[United States Department of Energy|Department of Energy]] Deputy General Counsel Chip Mellor to create the Institute for Justice. Mellor had served as president of the [[Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy]], a [[think tank]] in San Francisco.<ref>{{cite book|last=Cokorinos|first=Lee|title=The Assault on Diversity: An Organized Challenge to Racial and Gender Justice|year=2003|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|isbn=0742524760|page=[https://archive.org/details/assaultondiversi00leec/page/77 77]|url=https://archive.org/details/assaultondiversi00leec|url-access=registration|quote=Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy mellor.}}</ref> According to the Institute for Justice, books commissioned and published by the [[Pacific Research Institute]] "formed the Institute for Justice's long-term, strategic litigation blueprint".<ref>{{cite web|title=William H. Mellor Biography|url=https://www.ij.org/wmellor-2|work=The Institute for Justice web site|access-date=December 9, 2013}}</ref>

=== Supreme Court cases ===

The organization has litigated cases that reached the Supreme Court:
* ''[[Zelman v. Simmons-Harris]]'', {{ussc|536|639|2002}}:<ref name=SC-zel >{{cite court |litigants=Zelman v. Simmons-Harris |vol=536 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=639 |date=2002 }}</ref> The court ruled in favor of a Cleveland, Ohio school voucher program, allowing the use of public money to pay tuition at private and parochial schools.<ref name="Zel-IJ-to-represent">{{cite news |last=Elsasser |first=Glen |date=September 26, 2001 |title=High court to rule on vouchers for religious schools |newspaper=Chicago Tribune |url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/2001/09/26/high-court-to-rule-on-vouchers-for-religious-schools/ |access-date=December 22, 2013}}</ref><ref name="NYT-Zel-Ruling">{{cite news |last=Greenhouse |first=Linda |date=June 28, 2002 |title=Supreme Court, 5-4, Upholds Voucher System That Pays Religious Schools' Tuition |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/28/us/supreme-court-school-tuition-supreme-court-5-4-upholds-voucher-system-that-pays.html |access-date=December 22, 2013}}</ref> The institute represented the pro-voucher parents.<ref>{{cite press release |first1=John |last1=Kramer |title=Landmark Victory for Parents In U.S. Supreme Court School Choice Case |url=https://ij.org/press-release/landmark-victory-for-parents-in-u-s-supreme-court-school-choice-case/ |website=Institute for Justice |access-date=July 2, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200702173931/https://ij.org/press-release/landmark-victory-for-parents-in-u-s-supreme-court-school-choice-case/ |archive-date=July 2, 2020 |url-status=live |date=June 30, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Simmons-Harris v. Zelman, 234 F.3d 945 {{!}} Casetext Search + Citator |url=https://casetext.com/case/simmons-harris-v-zelman-3 |access-date=2024-10-13 |website=casetext.com}}</ref>
* ''[[Granholm v. Heald|Swedenburg v. Kelly]]'', {{ussc|544|460|2005}}: The court struck down laws in New York and Michigan that made it illegal for consumers to buy wine directly from out-of-state wineries. The institute represented small [[Vintners#Winemakers|vintners]] in Virginia and California.<ref name=SC-Swe /><ref name="LATimes-WineRuling">{{cite news |last=Savage |first=David G. |date=May 17, 2005 |title=Wine Sale Curbs Lifted |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-may-17-na-scotus17-story.html |access-date=December 22, 2013 |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]]}}</ref> (This case was consolidated with ''[[Granholm v. Heald]]''<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite court |litigants=Granholm v. Heald |vol=544 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=460 |date=2005 }}</ref> prior to consideration by the Supreme Court.<ref name="SC-Swe">{{cite news |last=Greenhouse |first=Linda |date=May 25, 2004 |title=Justices Step Into Interstate Wine Rift |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/politics/25scotus.html |access-date=December 6, 2013 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref>)<ref>{{Cite web |title=Swedenburg v. Kelly, 00 Civ. 0778(RMB). |url=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/swedenburg-v-kelly-no-887067937 |access-date=2024-10-13 |website=vLex |language=en}}</ref>
* ''[[Kelo v. City of New London]]'', {{ussc|545|469|2005}}:<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Kelo v. City of New London |vol=545 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=469 |date=2005 }}</ref><ref name=NYT-Kelo /> The court ruled that the state of Connecticut could use eminent domain to take property from the plaintiffs (a group of homeowners) and transfer it to a private business. The institute represented the homeowners.<ref name=NYT-Kelo /><ref name="FT-WineRuling">{{cite news |last=Waldmeir |first=Paul |date=May 17, 2005 |title=Supreme Court rules against state wine laws |url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/02e4030c-c672-11d9-b69b-00000e2511c8.html#axzz2oDoUlPb5 |access-date=December 22, 2013 |newspaper=[[Financial Times]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=July 9, 2015 |title=The State of Property Rights in America Ten Years After Kelo v. City of New London |url=https://www.congress.gov/event/114th-congress/house-event/103691/text |access-date=October 13, 2024 |website=[[congress.gov]]}}</ref>
* ''[[Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn|Garriott v. Winn]]'', {{ussc|563|125|2011}}: The court upheld an Arizona program that gave tax credits for private school tuition.<ref name="AZtax-WSJ">{{cite news |last=Bravin |first=Jess |date=April 5, 2011 |title=Private-School Tax Break Is Upheld |url=https://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703712504576242992744305366 |access-date=December 22, 2013 |newspaper=[[Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref><ref name="AZtax-WashPost">{{cite news |last=Barnes |first=Robert |date=April 4, 2011 |title=Supreme Court tosses private-school tax-credit challenge |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-tosses-private-school-tax-credit-challenge/2011/04/04/AFe2LGfC_story.html |access-date=December 22, 2013 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref> This case was consolidated with ''[[Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn]]'' prior to consideration by the Supreme Court.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2010-05-24 |title=High court to hear Arizona school case |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna37322055 |access-date=2024-10-13 |website=[[NBC News]] |language=en}}</ref>
* ''[[Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett]]'', {{ussc|564|721|2011}}: The court struck down part of a public campaign financing law in Arizona that provided additional public funding to candidates based on the amount of spending by their opponents. The institute represented several challengers to the law.<ref name=NYT-ElectionFinanceRuling>{{cite news|last=Liptak|first=Adam|title=Justices Strike Down Arizona Campaign Finance Law|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/politics/28campaign.html?_r=0|access-date=December 22, 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=June 27, 2011}}</ref><ref name=WSJ-CampaignFinanceRuling>{{cite news|title=Campaign Funding Measure in Arizona Overturned|url=https://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304447804576411652081842860|access-date=December 22, 2013|newspaper=Wall Street Journal|date=June 28, 2011|author=Bravin, Jess|author2=Kendall,Brent}}</ref> This case was consolidated with ''McComish v. Bennett'' prior to consideration by the Supreme Court.<ref name="NYT-McComish">{{cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |date=November 29, 2012 |title=Justices to Assess Arizona Campaign Financing |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/30scotus.html?_r=0 |access-date=December 3, 2013 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref>
* ''[[Timbs v. Indiana]]'', {{ussc|docket=17-1091|volume=586|year=2019}}:<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf|title=Timbs v. Indiana}}</ref> The court ruled that the [[Excessive Fines Clause|Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause]] is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause]], thus grossly disproportionate [[Civil forfeiture in the United States|asset forfeiture]] is unconstitutional.<ref>{{Cite journal |date=February 20, 2019 |title=Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019) |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1091/62603/20180904160323136_Petitioners%20Opening%20Merits%20Brief_17-1091_TO%20FILE.pdf |journal=The United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers' Edition |volume=586}}</ref>
* ''[[Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas]]'', {{ussc|docket=18-96|volume=588|year=2019}}:<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ij.org/case/tennessee-wine-and-spirits-retailers-association-v-blair/|title=Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair|website=Institute for Justice|language=en-US|access-date=February 22, 2019}}</ref> The court ruled the residency requirement for retail liquor licenses violates the [[Commerce Clause]] and the [[Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution|21st Amendment]] does not save it.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Supreme Court Strikes Down Tennessee Liquor Law |url=https://www.memphisflyer.com/supreme-court-strikes-down-tennessee-liquor-law |access-date=2024-10-13 |website=[[Memphis Flyer]]}}</ref>
* ''[[Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue]]'', {{ussc|docket=18-1195|volume=591|year=2020}}:<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ij.org/case/montana-school-choice/|title=Montana School Choice|website=Institute for Justice|language=en-US|access-date=July 3, 2019}}</ref> The court ruled that excluding religious schools from a tax-funded scholarship program available to non-religious private schools violates the Free Exercise Clause under a strict scrutiny analysis.<ref>{{Cite web |date=January 6, 2020 |title=Espinoza School Choice Case and Discrimination Against Religion |url=https://reason.com/2020/01/06/espinoza-school-choice-case-and-discrimination-against-religion/ |access-date=January 17, 2020 |website=[[Reason.com]] |language=en-US}}</ref>
* ''[[Brownback v. King]]'', {{ussc|docket=19-546|volume=592|date=2021}}:<ref>{{Cite web |title=Brownback v. King |url=https://ij.org/case/brownback-v-king/ |access-date=April 27, 2022 |website=Institute for Justice |language=en-us}}</ref> The court ruled that a failure to state a claim ruling in a district court is a judgement on merits and thus triggers the [[Federal Tort Claims Act]]'s judgement bar, precluding additional claims to be brought under ''[[Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents|Bivens]]''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Brownback v. King, 592 U.S. ___ (2021) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/592/19-546/ |access-date=April 27, 2022 |website=[[Justia Law]] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Sullum |first=Jacob |date=2020-11-09 |title=SCOTUS Considers Whether James King Has Any Recourse Against the Cops Who Choked and Beat Him for No Good Reason |url=https://reason.com/2020/11/09/scotus-considers-whether-james-king-has-any-recourse-against-the-cops-who-choked-and-beat-him-for-no-good-reason/ |access-date=2024-10-13 |website=Reason.com |language=en-US}}</ref>
* ''[[Carson v. Makin]]'', {{ussc|docket=20-1088|volume=596|year=2022}}:<ref>{{Cite web |title=Carson v. Makin |url=https://ij.org/case/maine-school-choice-3/ |access-date=April 27, 2022 |website=Institute for Justice |language=en-us}}</ref> The petitioners, represented by the Institute, argued that Maine's requirement that schools be "non-sectarian" to receive tuition assistance violates the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First]] and [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]]s.<ref name="Carson v. Makin">{{Cite web |title=Carson v. Makin |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2021/20-1088/ |access-date=April 27, 2022 |website=[[Justia Law]] |language=en}}</ref> The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on December 8, 2021.<ref name="Carson v. Makin"/> The Court decided the case in favor of the plaintiffs on June 21, 2022.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Carson v. Makin | url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf |access-date=June 21, 2022 |website=Supreme Court of the United States | language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Mattox |first=Casey |date=2022-08-21 |title=What Carson v. Makin means for your back-to-school list |url=https://americansforprosperity.org/blog/carson-v-makin-back-to-school/ |access-date=2024-10-13 |website=[[Americans for Prosperity]] |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-04-06 |title=Carson v. Makin |url=https://www.au.org/how-we-protect-religious-freedom/legal-cases/cases/carson-v-makin/ |access-date=2024-10-13 |website=[[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] |language=en}}</ref>
* ''[[Gonzalez v. Trevino]]'', {{ussc|docket=22-1025|volume=602|year=2024}}<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rao |first=Devi M. |title=Gonzalez v. Trevino |url=https://www.macarthurjustice.org/case/gonzalez-v-trevino/ |access-date=October 13, 2024 |website=MacArthur Justice Center}}</ref>
* ''[[Devillier v. Texas]]'', {{ussc|docket=22-913|volume=602|year=2024}} The Institute represented a farmer seeking to be allowed to sue the state of Texas regarding a Fifth Amendment issue. The court agreed with the farmer.<ref>{{cite news |last=Huff |first=Jess |date=April 16, 2024 |title=A Texas landowner can sue the state for flood damage to his property, U.S. Supreme Court rules |url=https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/16/texas-landowner-highway-flooding-supreme-court/ |access-date=October 28, 2024 |newspaper=[[Texas Tribune]]}}</ref>