Talk:Institute for Justice

Suggested changes to current "Campaign finance" section of Institute for Justice page

Campaign finance

·       In the section titled “Campaign finance,” that sub-headline covers only one narrow area of IJ’s broader legal work protecting First Amendment rights; as such, please consider changing this section headline to “Free Speech” or “First Amendment” and breaking this into five independent sub-sections:

·       Occupational licensing of speech

·       Political Speech

·       Retaliation

·       Commercial Speech

·       Signs

Those sub-sections would include the following content:

§  Occupational licensing of speech

In 1997, the Institute filed suit on behalf of Internet and software publishers challenging registration requirements by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The CFTC sought to require the publishers to register with the commission before they could offer generalized opinions on commodity markets. In 1999, U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Urbina struck down the registration requirement as unconstitutional. In 2000, the CFTC adopted a new rule stating that those who published impersonal, standardized commodity trading advice no longer needed to register with the government, thus ending the litigation and marking one of the earliest protections for free speech among Internet and software publishers.

In 2003, the Institute for Justice challenged California’s requirement that—unlike newspapers or magazines—Internet advertising companies, including its client ForSaleByOwerner.com, had to secure a government-issued real estate brokers license before they could provide information online. In 2004, the U.S. District Court in Sacramento struck down the law as “wholly arbitrary.”  The Institute for Justice won a similar victory before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire in 2008 on behalf of ZeroBrokerFees.com.

In 2013, newspaper columnist John Rosemond filed suit against the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology when it ordered him to stop publishing his advice column in Kentucky newspapers because it constituted the unlicensed practice of psychology. That same year, the Institute for Justice won a similar free speech case on behalf of North Carolina blogger Steve Cooksey, known as “the caveman blogger,” who had been told by the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition that he could not provide dietary advice without first receiving a license from the state.

The Institute for Justice has litigated several occupational speech cases on behalf of tour guides in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C., Savannah, Georgia, and Charleston, South Carolina and on behalf of interior designers in New Mexico, Texas, Connecticut, Oklahoma and Florida.

§  Political Speech

In 2006, the Institute for Justice filed a successful suit against the Colorado Attorney General challenging the state’s campaign finance laws for stifling free speech. Residents of Parker North, Colorado, who had engaged in a grassroots effort to stop the annexation of their neighborhood into the town of Parker had spent more than $200 in their campaign and were then subject to the state’s campaign finance reporting requirements, which included registering with the state, tracking and reporting all contributions and expenditures, and disclosing the identities of anyone who contributed money to their efforts. In 2010, the U.S. 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state’s ballot-issue registration and disclosure laws violated the First Amendment as applied to the grassroots group.

In 2010, the Institute won a federal lawsuit before the en banc U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of SpeechNow.org. As a result of the ruling, the Federal Election Commission could not ban an independent group of citizens from accepting unlimited donations to advocate regarding ballot issues. This led to the creation of super PACs.

In 2011, the Institute for Justice argued and won a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, which struck down Arizona’s “matching funds” provision. Under Arizona’s law, the government gave publicaly funded candidates additional funds when privately funded candidates and independent groups spent more than the amounts allotted to publicly funded candidates.

In 2013, the Institute won challenges to grassroots political speech in Mississippi and Arizona.

In 2018, IJ earned a victory in Holland v. Williams, a case that ultimately led to the complete invalidation of Colorado’s private enforcement system of campaign finance laws.

§  Retaliation

Investigative journalist and author Carla Main was sued for defamation by developer H. Walker Royall after Main wrote a book exposing his efforts to use eminent domain to remove family-owned business in Freeport, Texas to make way for a luxury marina development. The Institute for Justice represented Main for free and won on her behalf before the Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals.

IJ won a similar legal fight on behalf of Kelly Gallaher, a citizen journalist from Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, who was sued by the village attorney after Gallaher criticized him.

§  Commercial Speech

In 2017, the 11^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in favor of a Florida dairy farmer represented by the Institute for Justice who challenged the Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services regulation that banned her from labeling her all-natural skim milk as “skim milk” unless she artificially injected it with vitamin A.

Through litigation, media relations and lobbying, the Institute has successfully challenged five interior-design “titling laws” (in Connecticut, Florida, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas which prohibited its clients from truthfully advertising their services. IJ did likewise on behalf of an engineer in Oregon who challenged a city’s red-light cameras.

§  Signs

The Institute for Justice challenged Redmond, Washington when it banned Blazing Bagels from using portable signs but allowed portable signs for real estate companies. Ultimately, the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Blazing Bagels owner Dennis Ballen that the ban amounted to content-based discrimination of free speech. The Institute successfully challenged a similar ban in Lynnwood, Washington on behalf of the Futon Factory.

In 2016, in a case the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Institute for Justice’s clients then remanded to the lower court, IJ challenged Norfolk, Virginia’s effort to ban a property owner from hanging a large sign protesting the government’s taking of his property through eminent domain. The final ruling in that case was handed down by the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In 2020, the Institute successfully defended the owners of Lonesome Dove saloon in Mandan, North Dakota after the city started fining the establishment for having its business name in a mural on the side of its building. Lyrical42 (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Update to "Education" section on the Institute for Justice page

Education

·       In the section titled “Education,” please consider changing this sub-headline to “Parental choice in education” because that better describes the narrow scope of the Institute for Justice’s work in this area; IJ does not advocate generally for educational issues, but its advocacy has been limited to expanding parental choice in education.

·       Suggested updated language for this section:

The organization has litigated several cases related to education reform and school vouchers, including three four successful cases that went to the Supreme Court: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), Garriott v. Winn (2010), and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020) and Carson v. Makin. In the Zelman case, the Supreme Court ruled that parents can use public money (in the form of school vouchers) to pay tuition at private schools, including parochial schools. The Institute represented parents in that case. In the Garriott case, the court dismissed a challenge to a program in Arizona that gave state tax credits for contributions to charitable organizations that provided scholarships for payment of private school tuition. The institute argued in favor of dismissal. In the Espinoza case, the court ruled that Montana could not prohibit families from using tuition scholarships, which were funded by tax credit-eligible contributions to nonprofit scholarship organizations, at exclude religiously affiliated schools from state scholarship program funded by tax credits available to non-religious private schools. In the Carson case, the court ruled that Maine could not exclude parents children from a publicly funded state scholarship tuition assistance program because their parents selected schools that provide religious instruction as part of their curriculum.

|}

Lyrical42 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Reply 30-JUN-2023

  Unable to implement  

• Your edit request could not be implemented because the provided references are not formatted correctly. The citation style predominantly used by the Institute for Justice article is Citation Style 1 (CS1). The citation style used in the edit request consists of bare URL's. Any requested edit of yours which may be implemented will need to resemble the current style already in use in the article – in this case, CS1. (See WP:CITEVAR.) In the extended section below titled Citation style, I have illustrated two examples: one showing how the edit request was submitted, and another showing how requests should be submitted in the future:

Citation style

Bare URL reference formatting: The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin. References 1. https://www.booksource.com 2. http://www.journalsource.com 3. http://www.websource.com In the example above there are three URL's provided with the claim statements, but these URL's have not been placed using Citation Style 1, which is the style predominantly used by the Institute for Justice article. Using this style, the WikiFormatted text should resemble the following: Citation Style 1 formatting: The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Sjöblad|first1=Tristan|title=The Sun|url=http://www.booksource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2020|page=1}}</ref> while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Harinath|first1=Prisha|title=Size of the Moon|journal=Science|issue=78|volume=51|url=http://www.journalsource.com|date=2020|page=46}}</ref> The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Uemura|first1=Shu|title=The Sun's Heat|url=http://www.websource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2020|page=2}}</ref> Which displays as: The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin. References In the example above the references have been formatted according to Citation Style 1, which shows the author, the source's name, date, etc., all information which is lost when only the links are provided. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, edit requests such as yours are generally expected to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review.

Kindly resubmit the edit request below at your earliest convenience, taking care to ensure that it makes use of CS1. If you have any questions about this formatting please don't hesitate to ask myself or another editor. Regards,  Spintendo  20:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to deny edits that would be improvements because they would not be perfection. It is also inappropriate to basically make it so only editors with deep experience and knowledge of editing of Wikipedia be listened to when requesting edits. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Notes

References

Suggested edits to "Commercial regulation" subsection

As previously noted, I have a declared COI as I work at the Institute for Justice.

Here are suggested edits to the page’s “Commercial regulation” subsection that will improve it accuracy and bring it up to date.

==

Under the “Activities” section under “Litigation,” it would be more accurate to change the “Commercial regulation” subsection title to “Occupational licensing.”

Why?

Because IJ does not get involved generally in “commercial regulation” generally but, instead, focuses more narrowly in the area of government licensing of occupations.  Therefore, it would more accurate and descriptive of IJ’s work to use the headline “Occupational licensing” here.

In addition, the initial link in that subsection is quite dated; it is from a story that ran in 2014. A great deal of independent reporting and research has been done on this issue over the ensuing decade. Here are three much more recent independent news stories (with footnotes in their proper form) for you to consider using as updated links, each of which feature the latest research on the issue:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/02/state-licensing-requirements-cosmetologists-landscape-architecture/673196/ FOOTNOTE: Demsas, Jerusalem (February 24, 2023). “Permission-Slip Culture is Hurting America”. The Atlantic. Retrieved September 15, 2023.

https://reason.com/2023/03/27/how-bad-are-your-states-occupational-licensing-requirements/ FOOTNOTE: Tuccille, J.D. (March 27, 2023). “How Bad Are State’s Occupational Licensing Requirements? Reason. Retrieved September 15, 2023.

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/02/27/who-benefits-who-loses-from-the-occupational-licensing-system FOOTNOTE: Sutherland, Paige; Chakrabarti, Meghna; and Skoog, Tim (February 27, 2023). “Who Benefits, who loses from the occupational licensing system?” WBUR. Retrieved September 15, 2023. Lyrical42 (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

With regards to your first request, the terms Commercial regulation and Occupational licensing appear to describe the same thing, in that occupational licensing is a commercial regulation. I would need a better reason why this should be changed. With regards to your second request, the three sources you provided appear to all be editorials, which are generally not usable in Wikipedia, per WP:RSEDITORIAL. The link that is dead can still be used for now, but I would suggest checking to see if the link has already been archived at Archive.org Regards,  Spintendo  21:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It is understandable that you might not appreciate the myriad government regulations that can be imposed on businesses and how they differ.  Although, as I stated, the Institute for Justice litigates against occupational licensing, it does not litigate in general against government-imposed “Commercial regulation” in a host of other areas, for example:

·       Environmental Regulations: Control emissions, waste disposal, and resource usage.

·       Health and Safety Standards: Ensure workplace safety for employees and customers.

·       Taxation Rules: Govern income, sales, property, and other taxes that businesses must pay.

·       Import and Export Regulations: Control the international movement of goods.

·       Intellectual Property Laws: Protect patents, trademarks, and copyrights.

·       Anti-Discrimination Laws: Prohibit discrimination in hiring and workplace practices.

·       Food Safety Regulations: Ensure the safety and quality of food products.

·       Immigration Regulations: Determine rules for hiring foreign workers.

·       Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Regulations: Set safety and health standards for various industries.

·       Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): Regulate employer-sponsored retirement plans.

·       Export Control Laws: Restrict the export of sensitive technologies and products.

·       Intellectual Property Enforcement: Lawsuits and penalties for IP infringement.

·       Hazardous Materials Handling and Storage Regulations: Govern the handling of dangerous substances.

·       Clean Air Act Regulations: Control air pollution emissions from businesses.

·       Affordable Care Act (ACA) Compliance: Mandate healthcare coverage for certain employers.

·       Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA): Require unpaid leave for eligible employees.

·       Truth in Lending Act (TILA): Ensure transparency in lending practices.

·       Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Rules: Govern aviation safety and operations.

·       Import Tariffs and Duties: Taxes on imported goods.

·       Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Rules: Oversee the energy industry.

·       Social Security Contributions: Mandate employer and employee contributions to the social security system.

·       Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) Regulations: Ensure mine safety and health standards.

·       Agricultural Regulations: Oversight of farming and agricultural practices.

·       Federal Reserve Regulations: Regulate financial institutions and monetary policy.

This is a relatively short list, but with a little digging, I could provide literally thousands of other examples of areas of “Corporate regulation” IJ does not litigate.  So, in this context, my suggested edit to this section of the Institute for Justice Wikipedia page—changing “Commercial regulation” to “Occupational licensing” improves the page’s accuracy. Lyrical42 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Lyrical42, "Commercial Regulation" is an umbrella term that covers a *lot* of ground. There are law firms that specialize in specific areas, such as tax law, OSHA law, and especially IP and patent law. Occupational licensing is a more precise term. Jbmcb (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)