Liberty & Law: IJ's Bimonthly Newsletter (April 2010)

8/7/2019 Liberty & Law: IJ's Bimonthly Newsletter (April 2010)

1/12

Volume 19 Issue 2

SpeechNow.org Case

Seeks to Expand

Free Speech Rights

2

IJ New York TimesOp-ed:

Compensate

Bone Marrow Donors

3

IJ Takes On

Blooming Nonsense

In Louisiana

6

Sign of the Times:

Grassroots Protest

Against Dallas Sign Ban

8

April 2010

Published Bimonthly by theInstitute for Justice

visit us online:

www.ij.org

Inside This Issue

By Scott Bullock

JustasIJelevatedschoolchoice,eminent

domainabuseandcampaignfinancerestrictionsto

becomeissuesofnationalprominence,wearepoised

todothesamewithoneofthemostseriousassaults

onpropertyrightsinthenationtoday:theabuseof

civilassetforfeiturelaws.

Civilforfeitureallowsthegovernmenttoseize

propertyandkeeptheproceedsontheflimsiestof

pretenses.AsIJdocumentedinournewreport,

PolicingforProfit:TheAbuseofCivilAssetForfeiture

(www.ij.org/PolicingForProfit),whichIco-authored

withseveralleadingscholars,forthefirsttimeinits

history,theDepartmentofJusticesforfeiturefund

recentlytopped$1billioninassetstakenfromprop-

ertyownersandnowavailabletolawenforcement.

Andthatisjustonegovernmententity;governments

ateverylevelfromcitiestocountiestostatesand

thefederalgovernmentareinonthetaketaking

propertyfromindividualswho,inmanyinstances,

haveneverbeenarrestedforanycrime,muchless

convictedofone.Andwhileindividualsarepresume

innocentuntilprovenguilty,whenitcomestocivil

forfeiture,thegovernmentturnsthatconceptonits

head,requiringthatownersprovethattheirproperty

isinnocentorelseloseit.

Whatdrivesthiswidespreadpractice?Police

andprosecutorsofficesusuallygettokeepmost

oralloftheproceedsfromthisseizedandsold

bounty,helpingtofundtheirbudgets.Bygivinglaw

enforcementadirectfinancialincentiveinpursuing

forfeituresandbystackingthedeckagainstproperty

owners,moststateandfederallawsencouragepolic

ingforprofit,notjustice.

Indeed,inPolicingforProfit,wegradedthe

statesontheirforfeiturelawsandothermeasures

ofabuse.OnlythreeearnedagradeofBorbet-

ter.Maineearnedthehighestgrade,anA-,largely

becauseallforfeiturerevenuesgotothestatesgen-

eralfund,notlawenforcementcoffers.Ontheothe

endofthespectrum,stateslikeTexasandGeorgia

IJ Report Kicks Off New Campaign

Against Civil Forfeiture Abuse

Plicing f Pfit continued on pag 10


2/122

By Paul Sherman

WhenDavidKeatingfounded

SpeechNow.org,hewantedtocre-

ateagroupthatwouldallowordinary

peopletobandtogetherandamplifytheirvoices.SpeechNow.orgwould

collectcontributionsfromindividual

U.S.citizensandusethatmoneytorun

independentadsfororagainstpolitical

candidatesbasedontheirpositionon

theFirstAmendment.Therewasonly

oneproblem:Underfederalcampaign

financelaws,Davidsplanwasillegal.

Althoughindividualshavelong

beenpermittedtospendunlimited

amountsoftheirownmoneyoninde-

pendentpoliticalads,groupslike

SpeechNow.orgareconsideredpoliti-

calcommitteesandsubjecttoahost

ofrestrictions,includinglimitsonhow

muchmoneyagroupssupportersmay

contributetofunditsspeech.Inother

words,becauseofspeech-squelching

campaignfinancelaws,SpeechNow.org

wasnotabletocriticizetheverycandi-

dateswhosupportedthoselaws.Soin

February2008,SpeechNow.organdits

supportersjoinedwiththeInstitutefor

JusticeandtheCenterforCompetitive

Politicstostrikedowntheserestrictions

ontheirFirstAmendmentrights.

OnJanuary27,inarareenbanc

hearing,allnineactivejudgesoftheD.C.CircuitCourtofAppealsheard

argumentinSpeechNow.orgv.Federal

ElectionCommission.

Thetimingcouldnothavebeen

better.Justsixdaysearlier,theU.S.

SupremeCourthandeddownitsland-

markrulinginCitizensUnitedv.FEC,

strikingdownafederallawthatpro-

hibitedcorporationsandunionsfrom

runningindependentpoliticalads.The

SupremeCourtsreasoninginCitizens

Unitedapplieswithevengreaterforceto

SpeechNow.orgifitisunconstitutional

tolimitspeechbyGeneralMotorsand

theAFL-CIO,thenithastobeuncon-

stitutionaltolimittheabilityofordinary

citizenstobandtogetherandspend

theirownmoneyontheirownspeech.

TheimportanceoftheCitizens

UnitedrulingtoSpeechNow.orgscase

wasnotlostonthejudgesoftheD.C.

Circuit.AfterIJSeniorAttorneySteve

Simpsontookthepodiumtobegin

hisargument,hehadnotsaidaword

beforeChiefJudgeDavidSentelle

asked,Whatcanyouaddtowhat

[CitizensUnitedauthor]JusticeKennedy

said,Mr.Simpson?ThejudgeswerealsoacutelyawareoftheFirst

Amendmentstakesinthecase.Atone

point,ChiefJudgeSentelleflatlytoldthe

governmentsattorneydefendingthe

law,Youdontseemtovalue[the]First

Amendment...veryhighly,Counsel.

Januarysargumentwasanimpor-

tantandlong-awaitedsteptowards

victoryforSpeechNow.org.Whathap-

pensnextisuptotheD.C.Circuit.

Thereisnowaytopredictwhenthey

willhanddowntheirrulinginthecase,

butwehopetheywilldososooner

ratherthanlater.Regardlessofwhat

theD.C.Circuitdecides,wewontstop

fightinguntilSpeechNow.organdall

AmericanshaveregainedtheirFirst

Amendmentrights.u

Paul Shman is an IJ

staff attorney.

SpchNw.g Gts Its Day in Cut

IJ client and SpeechNow.org President David Keating intends to set an important First Amendment precedent ending government-imposed

restrictions on how individuals can participate in the political process.

2


3/12

Apil 2

January 7, 2010

Give These Donors a Bone

By John Wagner & Jeff roWes

eVery , m t 100,000 amic di-

cv tt t v t li-tti bld d

b-mw di lik lkmi. f m, t l

p i tplt bld-pdci mw cll.fidi m t dt t mw i cll-

i, t, bc t cll mt b -pct

tic mtc wit t ptit w cll, d t

d t id. ev ibli v cmptibl mw cll

l 30 pct t tim. Mt ptit mt c

till d ittill pttil d.

ol 7 i 10 Cci ptit w d

d id . f aic-amic, t dd

l till; l i d. T td

amic v did lck d.

It wld mk t c dti b -

i pttil d ictiv it t vitcit, xmpl, clip. Bt dl lw

bid dct, di ptit t

ictiv. T itt t 1984 lw, t ntil

o Tplt act, w t pvt t l m

kid tplt, t cc tt mkt i

cld tmpt ppl t ik ti lt m

b mki ivibl dcii t b d.

Bt wit mw dti ti i t i.

ulik , mw cllbicll, immt bld

cll wbl. T bd w qickl

t plc t xtctd tplt i bt

mt. ad dti mw cll i w v

i mt c, it impl mtt dwi bld m

t d m d i it t mci tt

kim t mw cll. Wll d l dti

cdctd t ld w, b vti mw cll

m t d ip.

Ittil, C didt b cmpti

ll m d. I witi t 1984 lw, it xcldd

wbl cll lik bld pm m t pmt

pibiti, v it ixplicbl icldd b mw.

W v ild i dl ditict ct ctit-

til cll t t mw pibiti, bc w

wt t t p pilt pm t cti t xtt t

wic cti ttic ictiv $3,000 clip,

i llwc, citbl itcld ic

mw-cll dti.

I it i ccl d ictiv llwd, it

wld t ct wli mkt i b mw

dti. Mw dti wld, d ld, mi

md t wld b titi wit

d. T wld b b ll, pibil-

it mkt-lik tcti.

Bt ppl w pvid li-ivi mw cll

cld, i d ccic, t mti i t

lpi v li.u

John Wagneris a professor of pediatrics and the

director of the blood and marrow transplant program at

the University of Minnesota.

Jeff Rowes is a senior lawyer with

the Institute for Justice, in Arlington, Va.

Ti ticl iill ppd i The New York Times.

n t pt ppd i t iil pblicti.

Cancer patients like IJ client Akiim Dshaywould have better

odds of finding a bone marrow donor if a federal ban on compen-

sating donors were struck down.

Apil 2


4/124

By Tim Keller

IJhasaskedtheU.S.Supreme

Courttoreversethe9thU.S.Circuit

CourtofAppealsdecisioninWinn

v.Garriott,whichdeclaredArizonas

13-year-oldscholarshiptaxcreditpro-

gramunconstitutional.Arizonasscholar-

shipprogramallowsindividualtaxpayers

toclaimataxcreditfordonationstonon-

profitorganizationscalledschooltuition

organizationsthat,in2008,issuedmore

than28,000scholarshipstoenablelow-andmiddle-incomeparentstosendtheir

childrentoprivateschools.

The9thCircuitsdecisiondirectly

conflictswithnofewerthanfourU.S.

SupremeCourtcases.Thislawsuit,filed

10yearsagobyschoolchoiceopponents,

claimsthatArizona,bygivingtaxpayers

thechoicetodonatetobothreligiousand

nonreligiousschooltuitionorganizations,

isunconstitutionallyadvancingreligion

becausemosttaxpayerstodatehave

donatedtoreligiouslyaffiliatedcharities.

Butthemostnotablethingabout

thiscaseiswhatitdoesnotinvolve:

stateactionadvancingreligion.Private

choiceandprivateactorscontrolevery

decisioninthescholarshipprogram,with

nogovernmentalinfluenceorcontrol.

UnderU.S.SupremeCourtprecedent,

schoolchoiceprogramsbasedontrue

privatechoicepassconstitutionalmuster.

TheCourtstatedinits2002 Zelmanv.

Simmons-Harrisdecision,ithasrepeat-

edlyrecognizedthatnoreasonable

observerwouldthinkaneutralprogram

ofprivatechoice,wherestateaidreaches

religiousschoolssolelyasaresultof

thenumerousindependentdecisions

ofprivateindividuals,carrieswithitthe

imprimaturofgovernmentendorsement.

Arizonastructureditstaxcredit

programtobecompletelyneutralwith

regardtoreligion.Itistaxpayersnot

bureaucratswhodecidewhichpri-vatelyoperatedscholarshiporganizations

receivecharitabledonations,anditispar-

entswhodecidewhichschoolstoenroll

theirchildreninandwhichorganizations

toapplytoforscholarshipfunds.Neither

taxpayersnorparentshaveanyfinancial

incentivetodonatetoareligiouslyaffili-

atedscholarshiporganizationoveranon-

religiousscholarshiporganization,orto

selectreligiousovernonreligiousschools.

Infact,becausemostscholarshipsdo

notcovertheentirecostoftuition,there

arefinancialdisincentivestochoosing

privateschools.

Atitscore,thelegalquestioninthis

caseiswhetherArizonastaxcreditpro-

gramcoercesparentsintosendingtheir

childrentoreligiousschools.Theanswer

tothatquestionisclearlynobecause

Arizonaleadsthenationineducational

choicesofferedtoparents.Arizonapar-

entshavenumerousnonreligiousoptions,

includingopenpublicschoolenrollment,

back-to-basicstraditionalacademiesope

atedbypublicschooldistricts,charter

andmagnetschools,andaninnovative,

onlinevirtualacademy.

UnderArizonasscholarshippro-

gram:(1)thestateprovidesnodirect

aidtoreligiousorganizations;(2)taxpay-

ersarefreetodonatetoanyschool

tuitionorganizationstheydesire,or

donatenothingatall;and(3)nofamily

iscoercedintosendingtheirchildrentoareligiousschool.

Giventhehighstakes,theU.S.

SupremeCourtshouldactquicklyand

decisivelytoreversethe9thCircuits

opinion.Weareaskingthemtodothis

withoutevenhearingoralargument.As

JudgeDiarmuidOScannlain,oneofeigh

judgeswhodissentedfromthe9thCircu

orderdenyingreviewbythefullappel-

latecourt,observedunlesstheU.S.

SupremeCourtintervenesthedecision

jeopardizestheeducationalopportuni-

tiesofthousandsofchildrenwhoenjoy

thebenefitsof[theArizonaprogram]and

relatedprogramsacrossthenation.

AcopyofIJspetitiontotheU.S.

SupremeCourtisavailableat:www.

ij.org/WinnCertPetition.u

Tim Kll is the IJ

Arizona Chapter executive

director.

IJ Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Reverse9th Circuit Decision in Arizona School Choice Case

4


5/12

Apil 2

Restoring the Privileges or Immunities ClauseMay Have to Wait for Another Day

By Clark Neily

AswegatheredoutsidetheU.S.SupremeCourtneardawn

onTuesday,March2,theforecastcalledforscatteredshowers

withachanceofliberty.Inafewhours,theJusticeswouldhear

argumentsinMcDonaldv.CityofChicago,andwewouldgetour

firstinklingaboutthepossibleresurrectionofthePrivilegesor

ImmunitiesClauseagoalIJhasbeenworkingtowardfornearly

20years.

McDonald,ofcourse,isthefollow-upcaseto Districtof

Columbiav.Heller,inwhichtheSupremeCourtheldforthefirst

timethattheSecondAmendmentprotectsanindividualright

tokeepandbeararms.UnresolvedinHellerwaswhethertheSecondAmendmentappliesnotjusttothefederalgovernment,

buttostateandlocalgovernmentsaswell.Theanswertothat

questionliesintheFourteenthAmendment,nottheSecond.

Astheclocktickeddownthatmorning,theatmosphere

insidethecourtgrewcharged.Manyspectatorshadcamped

outovernighttoensuretheygotaseatfortheargument,and

thepew-likewoodenbenchestotheleftofthecourtroomwere

packedwithluminariesoftheSupremeCourtpresscorps.

Historywasinthemaking.

TakingthepodiumforlibertywasformerIJlawclerkAlan

Gura,withwhomIJboardmemberBobLevyandIhadteamed

upinlitigatingHeller.Atissuewasnotsimplywhetherthe

FourteenthAmendmentprotectstherighttokeepandbear

arms,buthow:throughthePrivilegesorImmunitiesClauseor

thecontroversialdoctrineofsubstantivedueprocess?Would

theJusticesfinallyembracethetruehistoryandpurposeofthe

FourteenthAmendment,orwouldtheypunt?

TheJusticescameoutswinging,butunfortunatelynotfor

originalism.

ChiefJusticeRobertsbeganbyadmonishingAlanthathe

carriedaheavyburdeninaskingtheCourttooverrulethe

Slaughter-HouseCases,an1873decisionthatvirtuallywrotethe

PrivilegesorImmunitiesClauseoutoftheConstitution.Askepti-

cal-soundingJusticeSotomayorinquiredwhetherlibertyhadbeen

badlyaffectedbythatdecision,andwhenJusticeGinsburg

askedwhichunenumeratedrightstheClauseprotects,itwasas

ifsheweredaringAlantosaythewordscontractorproperty.

JusticeScalianotedthatevenhehadacquiescedinthedoctrine

ofsubstantivedueprocessandaskedwhetherthatwouldnotbeeasierthanrevivingthePrivilegesorImmunitiesClause,which

hecausticallydismissedasthedarlingoftheprofessoriate.

Incredibly,despiteAlansvalianteffortstoengagetheCourt

onthehistoryandimportanceofthePrivilegesorImmunities

Clause,theJusticesnevermadeasinglereferencetotheCivil

War,Reconstruction,theBlackCodes,oranyoftheeventsthat

gaverisetotheFourteenthAmendment.

Althoughwewillnotknowforsureuntilthedecisioncomes

down,itappearstheSupremeCourtisstillnotreadytorestore

thePrivilegesorImmunitiesClausetoitsrightfulplaceinthe

FourteenthAmendment.Butweremainundauntedafterall,we

havethetext,history,purposeandoriginalunderstandingofthe

Constitutiononourside.Itisonlyamatteroftime

beforewegettheSupremeCourt,too.u

Clak Nilyis an IJ senior attorney.

But we remain undauntedafter all, we have the text, history, purpose and

original understanding of the Constitution on our side. It is only a matter of time

before we get the Supreme Court, too.

Apil 2


6/126

BLOOMINGNONSENSEBLOOMINGNONSENSEIJ FILES SI O OO FLOIS LIcENSING Lw

By Tim Keller

Onacool,crispMarchmorninginNewOrleans,three

unlicensedfloristscommittedacrimeonthestepsofthe

federalcourthouse.Inanactofcivildisobedience,theseunli-

censedfloristsdidtheunthinkabletheymadeandsoldfloral

arrangementswithoutgovernmentapproval.Byarranging

andsellingflowerswithoutagovernment-issuedlicense,these

floristsbrokethelaw.ButtherealcrimeisthatLouisiana

requiresaspiringfloriststoobtainagovernment-issuedlicense

atall,whichiswhyIJfiledalawsuitchallengingtheconstitu-

tionalityofLouisianasfloristlicensingschemeonbehalfoftheseunlicensedflorists-turned-civil-rights-activists.

In2003,IJfiledasimilarcasechallengingthissamelaw.

Unfortunately,oneofourclientspassedawayandHurricane

Katrinascatteredourotherclients,leavingthecaseunre-

solved.Inthisnewcase,IJdemonstratesitsdetermination

todoawaywithwhatmaywellbeAmericasmostoutrageous

occupationallicensinglaw.IfLouisianacanlicenseflorists,

thereisnolimittowhatitcanlicenseortotheburdensitcan

imposeonhonest,productivelivelihoods.

Louisianaistheonlystateinthenationthatrequiresindi-

vidualstopassalicensingexambeforetheycanarrangeand

sellflowers.Toobtainalicense,individualsmustpassbotha

writtenexaminationandapracticaltestrequiringthemtocre-

atefourthemedfloralarrangementsthatarejudgedbytheir

futurecompetitionfloristswhoalreadypassedthelicensing

exam.Bygivinglicensedfloriststhepowertodecidewhois

andwhoisnotqualifiedtoarrangeflowers,Louisianagives

existingbusinessesthepowertorestrictcompetition.

Itisdifficulttoconceiveofanoccupationlessinneed

ofgovernmentregulationthanarrangingflowers.Thereisn

reasontorequirefloriststoobtainalicensebecausethere

norisktoanyonefrompurchasingfloralarrangementsfrom

unlicensedflorists.Thereisnojustificationforalicensing

schemethatexcludesevenasinglepersonmuchlesssign

cantnumbersofpeoplefrompursinganhonestlivingas

florist.

AmongtheplaintiffsinthecaseareMoniqueChauvin,

LeslieMassonyandDebraWood.Theywouldliketowork

asretailfloristswithouthavingtojumpthroughthearbi-traryhoopscreatedbyLouisianasflorist-licensinglaw.But

becausenoneofthemhaspassedthestate-mandatedlicen

ingexam,theonlywaytheycanarrangeflowersforaliving

iftheyworkforabusinessthatemploysalicensedflorist.

MoniqueandLeslieworktogetheratMoniquesstore,

MitchsFlowers,inNewOrleans.Magazinesregularlyfeatur

Moniquesfloralarrangements,butshehasbeenunableto

passthelicensingexam.Thelicensingregimethreatensto

shutdownherfloralshopbecausethelicensedfloristshe

employedpassedawayinFebruary.Moniquenowhas90d

tohireanotherlicensedfloristsomethingshedoesnotwant

dobecauselicensedfloristsarenomoreadeptthanunlicens

florists.ButMoniquesonlyoptionsaretohirealicensedflo

rist,trytotaketheexamagainherselforclosehershop.

DebbyWoodstartedherownfloralarrangingbusiness

aftermakingsixfloralarrangementsforhermother-in-laws

birthdayparty.Attheurgingofherfamily,Debbystarted

DebraHirschWoodDesigns.Shecompletedallthenecessa

6


7/12

Apil 2

Experiment Exposes Louisianas

ointless and nti-competitive

Florist Liensing Sheme

paperworkandobtainedataxIDnumber,butthendiscov-ereditwasillegaltoarrangeandsellflowersinLouisiana

withoutalicense.Debbyspent$2,000onatwo-week,

80-hourcoursethattaughtpeopletheoutdatedskills

testedonthelicensingexam,andanadditional$150ona

refreshercoursebeforetheexam.Shewasshockedwhen

shefoundoutshehadfailedthetest.

Thereisnolegitimatereasonforthegovernmentto

dictatewhocanandwhocannotarrangeflowers.Inchal-

lengingLouisianasfloralcartel,IJseekstostrikedowna

blatantlyanti-competitiveoccupationallicensingscheme

andsetaprecedenttorestoreeconomiclibertytheright

toearnanhonestlivingfreefromarbitrarygovernment

regulationtoitsrightfulplaceasaconstitu-

tionallyprotectedAmericanright.u

Tim Kll is the IJ Arizona Chapter

executive director.

BackersofLouisianasfloristlicensing

schemeclaimitisessentialtomaintaining

professionalstandardsandprovidingconsum-

erswithhigh-qualityfloralarrangements.But

isthattrue?

Tofindout,Dr.DickCarpenter,IJdirectorofstrategicresearch,askedLouisiana-licensed

floristsandunlicensedfloristsfromacross

theborderinTexastojudgearandomline-

upoffloralarrangements25fromregulated

Louisianaand25fromunregulatedTexas.

Theresult?

NoteventhelicensedLouisianaflo-

ristsfoundanydifferenceinqualitythatcouldbeattributedto

licensure.AsreportedinBloomingNonsense:Experiment

RevealsLouisianasFloristLicensingSchemeasPointlessand

Anti-Competitive,thejudgesratedtheLouisianaandTexasarrange-

mentsessentiallythesame. Infocusgroups,almostallofthejudgesincludingthose

licensedbyLouisianaexpectednodifferenceinthequalityof

arrangementsbecauseofLouisianaslicensinglaw.Manythought

thatinsteadofproducingqualityflorists,thelicensingscheme

servedtwopurposes:raisingmoneyforthestatethroughtesting

andlicensefeesandshuttingoutcompetition.Andfloristsscoffed

attheideathatlicensingisnecessarytoprotectthepublic.Asone

Louisianafloristconcluded,Youcantreallyhurtanybodywitha

flower.

Inshort,theexperimentsuggeststhatLouisianaslicensing

schemedoesnothingbutprotectexistinglicenseholdersfromfair

competition.

BloomingNonsensewillbeacriticalpartofIJsstrategyto

fighttheflorist-licensingschemeincourtandinthecourtofpublic

opinion.Thereport,availableatwww.ij.org/BloomingNonsense,

wasreleasedthedayIJfiledsuitandhasalreadygarneredmedia

attentionaspartofafeatureonthefloristlicensingschemeonFox

BusinessStosselshow.u

Apil 2

IJ clients, top left, Mniqu Chauvin and Lsli Massny

(top right) are challenging Louisianas government-imposed

licensing scheme for florists. They joined IJ client Dbby

Wd, (left) and IJs Tim Kll at the press conference

launching the case.


8/128

IJ-printed protest signs are appearing in windows across Dallas.

By Matt Miller

IJrecentlyfiledsuittoendDallas

banonnearlyallcommercialsignsin

storefrontwindows.AsIJsfederallawsuit

againstthecityofDallasmakesitswaythroughthecourtsystem,wehavebeen

hardatworkonthegroundcontinuingour

fightagainstanunconstitutionallawthat

issilencing

entrepreneurs

andmakingit

evenharder

forbusiness

tosucceedin

thesealready-

difficulteco-

nomictimes.

Across

Dallas,small

businessown-

ersarehangingasignintheirwindows

thatdeliversabluntmessagetothecity:

FreeSpeechForSmallBusiness:End

theDallasSignBan.

Asignmightseemlikeanoddwayto

protestasignban,buttheseprotestsigns

helpillustrateexactlywhatiswrongwith

Dallasnewordinancebyshowinghow

effectivelywindowscanbeusedtodeliveramessage.In2008,Dallaspasseda

lawbanningallcommercialmessages

fromtheuppertwo-thirdsofanywindow

orglassdoor.It

alsobanned

signsthatcover

morethan15

percentofa

window.The

result:Theonly

signsbusinesses

canhangaretiny

signsplacedso

lowthatnobody

canseethem.

Tellingly,thelawonlytargetscom-

mercialspeech.Thatiswheretheprotest

signscomein.Dallasletssmallbusiness-

esputanythingtheywantintheirwindows

exceptspeechabouttheproductsand

servicesthatthebusinessoffers.Thepro-

testsignsareexemptpoliticalspeechand

arethusallowedunderthelaw.Butthe

FirstAmendmentdoesnotgivecommer-cialspeechlessprotectionthanpolitical

speech.NeithershouldthecityofDallas.

Dallashasbeenaggressivelyenforc-

ingthenewlaw.Conveniencestores

(includingevery7-EleveninDallas)now

lookeerilyvacant,theirwindowsdevoidof

signs.Drycleaners(likeourclientCharlie

Patel)arenolongerabletoeffectively

advertiseweeklyspecials.Windowsigns

arecomingdownacrossDallasatthe

behestofcitycodeenforcers.Businesses

thatrefusetocomplyfacefinesofupto

$2,000.DallasMayorProTemwasnot

kiddingwhenhetoldthelocalABCNews

affiliatethatthelawrepresentsadrastic

changeforthecity.

Thatiswhy,onFebruary24,2010,

smallbusinessesacrossDallasbegan

displayingtheIJ-designedprotestsign.In

www.ij.org/DallasSignBan

The First Amendment does not differentiate between political speech, artistic

speech and commercial speech. Neither should the city of Dallas.

8

USING SIGNSTo ProTeST A SIGN BAN


9/12

Apil 2

Areyoulookingforano-hasslewaytosupporttheInstituteforJustice?Howaboutonethatcostsyounothingnow?Herearetwoideastoconsider.

Include IJ in your will or living trust. Bequestsaretheeasiestandmostcommonwaytoincludeacharityinyourlong-termplanning,andtheyarecriticallyimportanttoensur-ingIJsfutureviabilityandstrength. IncludingIJinyourplanscanbeassimpleasaddingacodiciltoanexistingwill.Ifyouwouldliketomakeabequest,justreviewthefol-lowinglanguagewithyourattorney:

I give, devise, and bequeath to the Institute for Justice, tax identi-fication number 52-1744337, 901 North Glebe Road, Suite 900,Arlington, Virginia 22203, (insert total amount, percentage, orremainder of estate) to be used for general operations (or your desig-nated purpose).

Youcansetasideaspecificdollaramountorapercentageofyourestate,orgiveIJanyassetsleftoverafteryouhaveprovidedforyourlovedones.

Designate IJ as the beneficiary of your retirement plan,insurance policy, or other cash account. NamingIJasabeneficiaryoftheseaccountsallowsyoutomakeagiftwithouttheneedtochangeanexistingwillorotherfinancialplans.Andlikecharitablebequests,thesegiftsmayberevokedifyourplansorcircumstanceschange. Becauseoftheunfavorabletaxconsequencesofleavingtax-deferredaccounts(likemanyretirementplans)tonon-spousalbeneficiaries,theseassetscanbeparticularlygoodcandidatesforcharitablegiving.Forexample,whenyounameachildasthebeneficiaryofaretirementaccount,theaccountissubjecttoestatetaxation.Ontopofthat,yourchildwouldhavetopayincometaxonthedistributionoftheseplan

assets.Asacharitablegift,however,thefullamountoftheaccountgoestoIJandourfightforliberty. ThesegiftswillhelpsecureIJsfutureforyearstocome.PleaseletusknowifyouhavealreadymadearrangementstoincludeIJinyourplans.DoingsoallowsustheopportunitytoexpressourappreciationforyoursupportthroughmembershipinourFourPillarsSociety,whichrecognizesfriendsandsupporterswhohavemadeacommitmenttodefendingandpreservinglibertythroughtheirestateplans.

For more information, please do not hesitate to contact MelanieHildreth, the director of IJs Four Pillars Society, at (703) 682-9320 x. 222or [email protected]

Gifts Anyone Can Afford

thedaysandweeksleadinguptotheprotest,IJ

attorneysandstaffcrisscrossedthecity,visiting

hundredsofbusinessesandhandingoutsigns.

Thesameday,weheldapressconferencein

frontofAAAVacuumthestoreofoneofourclientstoannouncetheprotestcampaign.We

alsolaunchedaFreedomFlixvideoonYouTube

(www.ij.org/DallasSignBanVideo)demonstrating

theabsurdityofthenewlaw.

Theseeffortspaidoffwithmajorinterest

fromlocalandnationalmediaandbloggers.

Fromfederalcourtstothecourtofpublicopinion,

IJ-TXwillcontinuetoapplypressureonthecity,

andDallassmallbusinesseswilldotheirpartby

displayingsignsoftheirresistancetothisoppres-

sivenewlaw.

WeareconfidentthattheFirstAmendment

willsecureavictoryforDallasentrepreneurs.

Whetherthathappensinthecourtoflawor

throughbusinessownersexerciseoftheirFirst

Amendmentprotestrightsbyapplyingpressure

tolocalofficials,thislawshouldbeabandoned

andthrownintothescrapbinof

badideas.u

Matt Mill is the IJ Texas Chapter

executive director.

Fighting for the free speech rights of small business

owners, IJ clientApil Gilliland, left, and IJ Director

of Activism and Coalitions Chistina Walsh launch a

campaign to stop the city of Dallas abuse of the First

Amendment.


10/120

bothearnedaD-becausetheirlawsmakeforfeitureeasyand

profitableforlawenforcementwith90and100percentof

proceedsawardedtotheagenciesthatseizedtheproperty.

Federalforfeiturelawmakestheproblemworsewith

so-calledequitablesharing.Underthesearrangements,

stateandlocalofficialshandoverforfeitureprosecutionsto

thefederalgovernmenttopursueandthengetbackupto80

percentoftheproceedsevenwhenstatelawbansorlimitstheprofitincentive.

Infact,myco-authorsofPolicingforProfit,criminaljus-

ticeresearchersDrs.MarianWilliamsandJeffersonHolcomb

ofAppalachianStateUniversityandTomislavKovandzicof

theUniversityofTexasatDallas,examinedequitablesharing

dataandfoundclearevidencethatlawenforcementisact-

inginpursuitofprofit.Theyconcludedthatwhenstatelaws

makeforfeitureharderandlessprofitable,lawenforcement

engagesinmoreequitablesharing.NewYork,forexample,

hasaverageforfeiturelawsaccordingtoIJsgradesbutis

oneofthemostaggressivestatesforequitablesharing,earn-

ingitaD. Compoundingtheseproblems,moststatesfailtocol-

lectdataabouttheuseofforfeitureoritsproceeds,thereby

creatingasystemthatisopaque,unaccountableandripefor

abuse.

PolicingforProfitisthelatestreportfromIJsStrategic

Researchprogramandwillserveasajumping-offpointfor

litigationandotheradvocacyforneededreforms.

First,lawenforcementshouldberequiredtoconvictpeo-

plebeforetakingtheirproperty.Lawenforcementagencies

couldstillprosecutecriminalsandmakethemforfeittheirill-

gottenpossessionsbuttherightsofinnocentpropertyowners

wouldbeprotected.Second,policeandprosecutorsshould

notbepaidoncommission.Toendtheprofitincentive,for-

feiturerevenuemustbeplacedinaneutralfundlikeastates

generalfund.Finally,theremustbegreatertransparency

andequitablesharingmustbeabolishedtoensurethatwhen

statesacttolimitforfeitureabuse,lawenforcementcannot

evadethenewrulesandkeeponpocketingforfeituremoney.

www.ij.org/Forfeiture

Plicing f Pfit continued from pag 1

Ending the Abuse of Civil

Asset Forfeiture

Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can take propertywithout

so much as even charging the owner with a crimeand then prot from

the proceeds.

WithPolicingforProfitasamajornewweapon,

theInstituteforJusticewillfightincourts,legislatures

andthecourtofpublicopiniontoensurethatpolice

andprosecutorsarenotprofitingbytak-

ingpropertyfrompeoplewhohavenot

beenconvictedofanycrime.u

Sctt Bullck is an IJ senior attorney.

Download a copy ofPolicing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil

Asset Forfeitureat www.ij.g/PlicingFPfit.

What are modern civil asset forfeiture laws and how can

they affect you? Watch at www.ij.g/Ffitu.

0


11/12

Apil 2

Volume19Issue2

Abut th publicatin

Liberty & Lawispublishedbimonthlybythe

InstituteforJustice,which,throughstrategic

litigation,training,communication,activismandresearch,advancesaruleoflawunder

whichindividualscancontroltheirdestinies

asfreeandresponsiblemembersofsociety.

IJlitigatestosecureeconomicliberty,school

choice,privatepropertyrights,freedomof

speechandothervitalindividualliberties,

andtorestoreconstitutionallimitsonthe

powerofgovernment.Inaddition,IJtrains

lawstudents,lawyersandpolicyactivistsin

thetacticsofpublicinterestlitigation.

Throughtheseactivities,IJchallengestheideologyofthewelfarestateandillustrates

andextendsthebenefitsoffreedomtothose

whosefullenjoymentoflibertyisdeniedby

government.

Editor:JohnE.Kramer

Layout&Design:DonWilson

Howtoreachus:

InstituteforJustice

901N.GlebeRoadSuite900

Arlington,VA22203

GeneralInformation . . . . . (703)682-9320

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

Extensions:

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

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

Website: www.ij.org

E-mail: [email protected]

PBSNewsHour with Jim Lehrer

IJ Sni Attny Stv Simpsn:

CitizensUnitedwillaffectelectionsin

thewaythattheFirstAmendmentwas

designedtoaffectelections,whichis

toallowpeopletospeakoutandinflu-

encethecourseoftheirgovernment

andthecourseoftheirelections.One

ofthethingsthatJusticeKennedysaid

intodaysdecisionwasthattheFirst

Amendmentprotectsnotonlyspeech,itprotectsspeakersaswell.Ifspeakersare

tospeakeffectively,theyhavetospendmoney.

USA Today

A7-decades-old[Louisiana]lawrequiresfloriststopassatestandgetalicenseto

arrangeandsellflowers,makingLouisianatheonlystateintheUSAwithsucha

requirement....AlawsuitfiledinU.S.DistrictCourtherelastweekischallenging

thelawsconstitutionality,claimingitinfringesonaresidentsrighttoearnaliving.

Thesuit,filedbytheInstituteforJustice,alibertariannon-profitlawfirmbasedinWashington,D.C.,listsasplaintiffsfourlocalfloristswhohaveeitherfailedthetest

orrefusetotakeit.[Tim]KelleriswiththeInstituteforJustice,whichhastakenthe

caseprobono.Thiscaseisaboutmorethanjustlicensingflorists,hesaid.Itcan

setaprecedentthatrestoreseconomiclibertytoitsrightfulplaceasafundamental

Americanright.

Huffington Post

IJ Dict f Activism and Calitins Chistina Walsh: Whatwouldyoudo

ifyourfavoriteneighborhoodwateringholewasbeingdemolishedforarich,greedydeveloper?Handcuffyourselftothebar,naturally.Sincehearingtheirfavoritetav-

ernwasgoingtobecondemned,regularsatFreddysBar&BackroominBrooklyn

boltedachaintothebarandhavebeenpracticinghandcuffingthemselvestoitin

protestoftheimminentbulldozers....AslongasNewYorkshighcourtcontin-

uestorubberstampanydeclarationofblightandtheLegislaturerefusestoreform

itsboguslaw,favoriteneighborhooddiveslikeFreddyswillcontinuetobeseized

andhandedovertoanydeveloperwhocomesalongwithpromisesofglitzytowers.

Quotable Quotes


12/12

I immigrated from Ecuador because of Americas promise of opportunity.

I drove a cab but dreamed of starting my own taxi company.

Minneapolis slammed the door on entrepreneurs like me,so I helped end its cap on cab licenses.

When the existing taxi companies sued to defendtheir monopoly, I fought the cartel and won.

I am IJ.

IJ I i f J ii P

Institute for Justice901N.GlebeRoadSuite900

Arlington,VA22203

[IJ is] n f

my vy favit

ibty-intd

ganizatins.

Walter Williams

NON-PROFIT ORG.

U . S . P O S T A G E

P A I D

INSTITUTE FOR

J U S T I C E

Documents

Liberty & Law: IJ's Bimonthly Newsletter (April 2010)