April 2018

Volume 27 Issue 2

The Kelo Case
Hits the Big Screen

Published Bimonthly by
the Institute for Justice

IJ Fights to End For-Profit Prosecution in California • Victory for Free Speech at the Colorado Supreme Court
IJ’s Network of Volunteer Lawyers Expands the Fight for Liberty • Victory! Mario Levels Up, Unlocks Free Speech Achievement
Does the Eighth Amendment Protect Against State and Local Forfeitures? • Overcoming Hurdles, The IJ Way

contents
46
8
10The Kelo Case
Hits the Big Screen
John E. Kramer

4

IJ Fights to End For-Profit
Prosecution in California
Joshua House

Victory for Free Speech at the
Colorado Supreme Court
Paul Sherman

IJ’s Network of Volunteer
Lawyers Expands the FightFor Liberty
Dana Berliner

12

Victory! Mario Levels Up,
Unlocks Free Speech
Achievement
Robert Frommer

14

10

Does the Eighth Amendment
Protect Against State andLocal Forfeitures?
Sam Gedge

216

Overcoming Hurdles,
The IJ Way

19

Notable Media Mentions

Robert McNamara

14

6

8
12
16

April 2018 • Volume 27 Issue 2
About the publication:
Liberty & Law ispublished bimonthly
by the Institute for
Justice, which, throughstrategic litigation,
training, communication,
activism and research,advances a rule of law
under which individuals
can control theirdestinies as free andresponsible membersof society. IJ litigatesto secure economic
liberty, educational
choice, private property
rights, freedom ofspeech and other vital
individual liberties, andto restore constitutional
limits on the power ofgovernment. In addition,
IJ trains law students,
lawyers and activists
in the tactics of public
interest litigation.
Through these activities,
IJ challenges theideology of the welfare
state and illustrates andextends the benefitsof freedom to those
whose full enjoymentof liberty is denied bygovernment.

Editor:Shira Rawlinson andJohn E. Kramer
Layout & Design:
Laura Maurice-Apel
General Information:(703) 682-9320
Donations: Ext. 233
Media: Ext. 205
Website: www.ij.org
Email: general@ij.org
Donate:www.ij.org/donate
facebook.com/
instituteforjustice
youtube.com/
instituteforjustice
twitter.com/ij
instagram.com/
institute_for_
justice

APRIL 2018 3

The Kelo Case
Hits theBig Screen
Little Pink House is a Tribute
To Our Clients and to IJ
BY JOHN E. KRAMER

You know an organization hasreached a new level when its stories
are retold on the silver screen by major
Hollywood stars.
In April 2018, Little Pink House,
which recounts IJ’s iconic case to savethe homes of Susette Kelo and herneighbors, hits the big screen. The film
stars two-time Oscar nominee Catherine
Keener (Being John Malkovich andCapote) as Susette.
The movie, based on the book of thesame name by Jeff Benedict, tells thetrue story of Susette Kelo, a small-town
paramedic who leaves a bad marriage

4

and starts over in a new town. She buys
a rundown cottage in New London,
Connecticut, refurbishes it and paints
it pink. Then she discovers powerfulpoliticians are bent on bulldozing her
blue-collar neighborhood to make way
for condos and office buildings designed
to benefit the new headquarters of pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, which is on thebrink of releasing its new drug Viagra.
The redevelopment effort is spearheaded
by Susette’s nemesis Charlotte Wells,
played by Jeanne Tripplehorn (The Firm
and Basic Instinct)—an ambitious andaccomplished college president who hasa to-die-for Rolodex. With IJ’s help, SusetteLittle Pink House tells the true story of IJ’s
fight to save the homes of Susette Keloand her neighbors.
The movie stars Catherine Keener as Susette, and Jeanne Tripplehorn as her nemesis.

The film documents how IJ’s integrated approach
to litigation, communications, activism andlegislative outreach elevates our battles on behalfof ordinary Americans and transforms them into
issues of national importance.
emerges reluctantly as the leader of herneighbors in an epic battle that goes all
the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Her
fight inspires a nation and helps millionsof Americans protect their homes.
As you will soon see, Little Pink
House is in many ways a tribute to
the courage of Susette and the otherhomeowners we represented, and an
illustration of the power of IJ’s litigation.

The film documents the human costof eminent domain abuse and features
actors playing IJ cofounder and nowBoard Chairman Chip Mellor, IJ President
Scott Bullock, Senior Vice President andLitigation Director Dana Berliner andyours truly. It documents how IJ’s integrated approach to litigation, communications, activism and legislative outreachelevates our battles on behalf of ordinary
Little Pink House continued on page 18

The real life Susette Kelo is an American herowhostood up against the gov
ernment that wanted
to bulldoze her neighborhood
for a private developer.

the U.S. Supreme Court.
Susette’s case went all the way tonationwide backlashato
The infamous decision led
ain abuse.
dom
ent
emin
againstAPRIL 2018 5

IJ Fights to End
For-Profit Prosecution
in California
Ramona saved for years to purchase multiple small
For almost two decades, IJ has led the fight toproperties. She refurbished many of those properend policing for profit, the troubling trend in whichties herself with the help of family and friends. And
law enforcement uses citizens as ATMs. A recent
she eventually sold some properties to longtime
case fighting this injustice expands on our work totenants at discounted prices.
end civil forfeiture and government’s ability to pad
In 2015, Ramona received two warnings, a crimits budgets using excessive
inal citation, and even an arrest
fines and fees. In California’s
warrant, each saying that a tenant
Watch the case video!
Coachella Valley, a little-knownof hers was illegally keeping
for-profit policing tactic can turnchickens. Overkill for a few
minor infractions—like a $225
chickens, but it appeared easy
ticket for having chickens in aenough to resolve. Ramona madesuburban backyard—into a nearlysure that the tenant complied by$6,000 bill from a private, forremoving the chickens and theniam.ij.org/IndioFines
profit law firm.
went to court to pay the citation.
Welcome to the world
In court, she pleaded guilty andof “prosecution fees,” where cities outsource
explained to the judge that the chickens had been
their code enforcement to a private law firm. In
removed. She paid the $225 in fines, fees and costs,
California, the law firm’s business model is straightbelieving the matter was over.
forward: Hire us to be your city’s prosecutor and
But nearly a year later, Ramona received a bill
we will bill property owners for every second spentfrom Silver & Wright LLP, the law firm employed byprosecuting cases at private firm rates—sometimes
Indio. The letter explained that the city was entitled tocosting thousands more than the original fine. This
recoup all costs for the criminal prosecution and that
unconstitutional scheme has turned otherwise
those costs included the hourly rates billed by Silver
minor infractions into big business for both Indio,& Wright. It requested that Ramona send a cashier’s
California, and the law firm, at the expense ofcheck of over $3,000 made out to Silver & Wright.
homeowners’ due process rights.
None of this sounded right to Ramona. After
Ramona Morales is a 79-year-old property
all, she had already paid her fines. She decided toowner who found herself inside the “prosecution
appeal the bill, but lost. Again, Ramona was billedfees” system.
nearly $3,000—this time for the supposed cost ofRamona is a housekeeper and retired Avon
preparing for the appeal.
makeup saleswoman. Having learned about propShe was able to get a cash loan from her son, aerty investment from her housekeeping clients,
U.S. Marine, to pay the fees. Yet she was left bewilBY JOSHUA HOUSE

6

Ramona Morales is caught up in a little-known for-profit
policing tactic that turned a $225 ticket into a nearly $6,000
bill from a private law firm.

dered. That is, until a local newspaper investigation
revealed that Ramona was not alone. In November
2017, the Desert Sun reported that many others had
been put through the same prosecution fees schemeby the cities of Indio and Coachella.
That is when IJ got involved. As part of IJ’s
national campaign to fight for-profit policing, weteamed up with Ramona to file a class action lawsuit
to shut down this unconstitutional prosecution fees
system and return the money paid by Ramona andothers in her situation. Both federal and California
courts have already made it clear that it is illegal
for prosecutors to have a direct financial interestin the cases they bring. That is why IJ will keep
fighting until we end this type of policing for profit in
California and elsewhere.u
Joshua House is an IJ attorney.

APRIL 2018 7

Victory for

FREE SPEECH

at theColorado Supreme Court
BY PAUL SHERMAN

In a ruling that will benefit hundreds of citizens
and political groups throughout the state of Colorado,
the Colorado Supreme Court on January 29 unanimously ruled that pro bono and reduced cost legal
services to political organizations cannot be regulated
as political “contributions” under Colorado’s campaign
finance laws. The ruling in Coloradans for a Better
Future v. Campaign Integrity Watchdog ensures thatpolitical speakers cannot be
hauled into court by their political
opponents merely for seeking out
legal help navigating Colorado’s
incredibly complex campaign
finance system.
This case has its origins in the 2012 campaign for
the Colorado Board of Regents, when a group called
Coloradans for a Better Future (CBF) ran political ads
criticizing Matthew Arnold, a Republican candidate for
the Board. After Arnold lost the election, he turned to thecourts, filing three separate campaign finance lawsuits

against CBF. To escape this harassment, CBF shut
down with the help of a volunteer lawyer. But this only
triggered a fourth lawsuit by a group Arnold founded,
Campaign Integrity Watchdog (CIW), alleging that thevolunteer lawyer’s services should have been reported
as a campaign contribution.
Unfortunately, in April 2016, the Colorado Courtof Appeals agreed, handing down a ruling thatthreatened hundreds or even thousands of politicalspeakers throughout Colorado.
To understand how dangerous
this ruling was, it helps to understandthat in Colorado, unlike in moststates, any person may file a lawsuit
to enforce the state’s campaign
finance laws (as the sidebar notes, IJ is currently challenging this system in federal court). Not surprisingly,
these lawsuits are routinely filed over trivial reporting
errors by people looking to harass and intimidate theirpolitical opponents. Treating pro bono legal services asa contribution thus worked a double harm: It created

Where others see
only roadblocks, we
see opportunities.

8

Private Enforcement
In the Spotlighta new trap for the unwary, and it made it harder forsmall, unsophisticated groups to get the legal help theyneeded to navigate this regulatory minefield.
If the court of appeals’ decision was grim, thechances for reversing that decision were even grimmer.
Defunct and without legal representation, CBF had
not filed briefs in the trial court or the appellate court.
It had lost unanimously at the court of appeals. And
its only hope was to persuade the Colorado Supreme
Court to take the case.
Most law firms would have called the case hopeless, but IJ is not like most law firms. Where others
see only roadblocks, we see opportunities. So wetook over representation of CBF and convinced theColorado Supreme Court not only to hear the case,but to issue an unprecedented order staying theprecedential effect of the court of appeals’ decision
so that other groups would not face similar lawsuits
while we fought to defend CBF.
Now, IJ’s efforts have been rewarded: The Colorado
Supreme Court unanimously reversed the court ofappeals, adopting IJ’s legal arguments 100 percent.
That result is not just good news for political speakers
in Colorado—it is a powerful vindication of the neversay-die spirit that helps IJ accomplish the impossible.u
Paul Sherman is an
IJ senior attorney.

IJ’s Colorado Supreme Court win is just the tip of
the First Amendment iceberg in the Centennial State.
Unlike every other state in the U.S., Colorado
outsources enforcement of its campaign finance laws
wholesale to “any person.” That system is exploitedrelentlessly by politicians and their allies, who harness
the full power of the state to target their ideological
opponents. In the words of the state’s most prolificcomplainant, the system is a tool for waging “political
guerrilla legal warfare” against disfavored viewpoints.
Even the state’s courts have admitted that “if politicalpartisans were barred from filing complaints, very few
complaints would ever be filed.”
This abuse-prone system is the focus of a separate First Amendment case IJ has been pursuing since2016. IJ teamed up with Tammy Holland, the small-town
mom who was sued twice by incumbent politicians
for speaking out about politics in Colorado. Tammy isconfronting Colorado’s private-enforcement system
head-on, with a First Amendment challenge in federal
court. As her case explains, the state cannot police
political speech by authorizing “any person” to haul theirenemies into court. Keep an eye out for developments in
Tammy’s case as the year goes on.u

Tammy Holland and IJ are fighting
for her First Amendment right tospeak in Colorado.

APRIL 2018 9

IJ’S NETWORK OF

VOLUNTEER LAWYERS

EXPANDS THE FIGHT FOR LIBERTYBY DANA BERLINER

At IJ, changing the world is a full-time job.
But there are many lawyers around the country
who work at private law firms yet still hope todo something, even part time, to make the U.S.
a freer place. IJ gives them a way to do justthat. In this past year alone, nearly 200 attorneys volunteered to expand our fight for liberty.
IJ began recruiting volunteer lawyers
more than 20 years ago, when attendees ofour first law student conference became partof our Human Action Network. The network is
now comprised ofhundreds of former
law clerks, law
student conference
attendees, friends
and people who
volunteer when they learn about our work, allof whom we engage in a huge variety of ways.
Lawyers in IJ’s network serve as local counsel
on the ground in most of our cases. They write
friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of IJ and on
behalf of other people in IJ’s cases. Volunteer
lawyers assist entrepreneurs through IJ’s
Clinic on Entrepreneurship at the University of
Chicago. Others do legal research projects intheir spare time or volunteer for IJ in between

jobs. And we refer whole cases to volunteer
attorneys when they are not quite right for us.
Although IJ’s network has always been
active, we have noticed a distinct rise in enthusiasm for pro bono work lately—from lawyers
at private law firms and lawyers in State Policy
Network groups. And IJ is expanding the typesof projects that pro bono lawyers can do.
Most recently, IJ itself has been the plaintiff in a series of Freedom of Information Act(FOIA) lawsuits, which are important legal
cases in their own right. And in each of these,
we have been represented by a teamof lawyers from our
network. Right now, IJ
has four different FOIA
lawsuits in progress,
where we are represented pro bono by four
different law firms.
For example, when IJ’s strategic researchteam wanted to conduct a study about hair
braiding, it asked many state agencies for
information. Illinois refused to respond.
Represented by Jeffery Lula and others at thelaw firm of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, IJ sued. Sometime after we sued, a new law went into effectthat exempted these documents from FOIA.

In this past year alone, nearly
200 attorneys volunteered to
expand our fight for liberty.

10

IJ Receives
Pineapple Fund
Grant
Although the agency had no justification for withholding the information when we asked for it, the agency could now claim that the
new law meant it never had to give us the information. This is an
important question. If the agency wins, government entities could
illegally withhold documents, get a new law passed justifying withholding the documents and then never need to produce them. The
case was heard at the Illinois Supreme Court on March 15, 2018.
Another case, about whether the Georgia Legislature can refuse
to produce documents about its new music therapy license requirement, is pending in the Georgia appellate court. We are represented
by Alex Harris and other lawyers at Gibson Dunn.
Meanwhile, we have two cases seeking forfeiture databases of
the Internal Revenue Service and Customs and Border Protection.
These databases will allow IJ and other researchers to answer manyquestions about how often and in what situations the federal government uses civil forfeiture. IJ is represented in those suits by twoformer law clerks, Dan Muino at Morrison Foerster and Andrew Prins
at Latham & Watkins LLP, as well as other lawyers on their teams.
There is so much to be done in fighting for liberty. And throughstrategic use of volunteer lawyers, IJ gives opportunities to otherfreedom lovers and can do even more to change the world.u
Dana Berliner is the senior vice president
and litigation director at IJ.

Liberty & Law readers may haveheard of the Pineapple Fund, an organization created in December 2017 by
an anonymous donor aiming to giveaway approximately $86 million in
Bitcoin. “Pine” accepted online applications for two months and received
thousands of requests.
IJ applied, and we were proudand delighted to learn in January that
we were one of only 58 charities so
far selected to receive a grant. Other
recipients include charities providing
clean water and sanitation services topeople around the world, digital rights
watchdogs and advocates, organizations that teach kids to read and write,and many more.
At IJ, the Pineapple Fund donation will help us defend and secure
the rights of hundreds of thousandsof people like those you will readabout in this issue of Liberty & Law,
protecting them from government
abuse and enabling them to live as
free and responsible individuals.
From IJ, our clients and so manyothers like them—thank you, Pine!uIf you would like to volunteer, please contact Melissa LoPresti, IJ’s
litigation projects and training programs manager, at mlopresti@ij.org.

APRIL 2018 11

Scott Fisher teamed up with IJ to challenge
Orange Park, Florida’s sign code—andwon. Mario is now displayed outside
Scott’s video game store.

VICTORY!
Mario Levels Up, Unlocks Free Speech Achievement

BY ROBERT FROMMER

It is tough enough being an entrepreneur. But if no one knows how to find yourbusiness, it becomes almost impossible. Because a business with no signs is a signof no business, a vital part of IJ’s First Amendment work is to strengthen speechprotections for small businesses that use signs to advertise and announce theirgoods and services. Our recent victory in Orange Park, Florida, on behalf of a video
game storeowner shows that pro-free-market policies and constitutional rights go
hand in hand.
IJ client Scott Fisher, owner of Gone Broke Gaming, knows how hard it is for a
new small business to get noticed. Located in a small strip mall off a major fourlane road, Gone Broke Gaming was easy to miss. In fact, Scott often heard from
customers who said they could not find the place. Rather than sit idly by, Scottpurchased a nine-foot inflatable of beloved video game mascot Mario, which hedisplayed outside during business hours.

12Business instantly took off, but so
did the interest of regulators. Even though
Mario was a cute and safe addition to
the community, regulators cited Mario asan “illegal” sign.
They said that
Mario had togo, even thoughsimilarly sizedinflatables put
out as holiday
displays could
stay. Although this made no sense, Scottcomplied. Unsurprisingly, once Mario
disappeared, so did Scott’s customers.
Of course, businesses have a constitutional right to use signs and otherdisplays to advertise. That is why, in April
2017, IJ sued Orange Park, arguing that its
treatment of Scott and other businesses
violated the First Amendment. As the caseprogressed, officials’ testimony made clearthat Mario was prohibited only because
Gone Broke Gaming sold video games;
if Scott had instead put out an inflatable
unicorn or Santa, then he would not have
had any trouble.
Despite much disagreement in First
Amendment circles, everyone agrees on
one basic point: The government may
not suppress certain messages basedon whether officials like what thosemessages have to say. Once Orange Park
recognized that this is what its sign code

permitted, it threw in the towel. The town
not only let Scott start displaying Mario
once again, but it also agreed to extensively rewrite its offending sign code.
Thankfully,
Orange Park did
not have to startfrom scratch. Due
to IJ’s vast experience in litigating
sign cases, IJ
attorneys keep alist of sign code best practices—ways
to maximize freedom of speech while
ensuring public health and safety. IJ
has distilled these best practices into a
series of recommendations for municipalities to adopt. And that is precisely
what Orange Park did: Guided by IJ’s
model sign code, Orange Park revised
large sections of its own sign code,
which it finalized in January 2018.
With Mario back out front andcustomers coming through the door,
Scott could not be happier. By working
with IJ, Scott secured a win not just forhimself, but for all the entrepreneurs in
his community. That is precisely the kindof principled, real-world change that IJ
will keep fighting for on behalf of entrepreneurs of all stripes.u

The government may not
suppress certain messages
based on whether officials
like what those messages
have to say.

Robert Frommer is an IJ
senior attorney.

To read IJ’s model constitutional sign code, visit:

iam.ij.org/model-sign-code

APRIL 2018 13

Does the Eighth Amendment

Protect Against State and Local

FORFEITURES?

Tyson Timbs is an Indiana resident who
got his life back on track after beingarrested. Yet Indiana continued to punish him by using civil forfeiture to seize
his vehicle months later.

14

On behalf of Indiana resident Tyson Timbs, we have asked the U.S. Supreme
Court to address a question that—remarkably—it has yet to clearly answer:
Does the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protect Americans
against overreach by state and local authorities?

would violate the Excessive Fines Clause. The Indiana Court of
As Liberty & Law readers know, officials at all levels of
Appeals agreed.
government—federal, state and local alike—are increasingly
Then the Indiana Supreme Court stepped in. Breaking withrelying on fines and forfeitures to bolster their budgets. Thatat least 14 other state courts, the Court ruled that the Eighth
perverse profit incentive makes these kinds of sanctions one ofAmendment provides no protection at all against fines andthe greatest threats to property rights in the nation today.
forfeitures imposed by the states. Until the U.S. Supreme Court
IJ’s latest foray into combating unjust fines and forfeituresintervenes, the court said, “we elect not to impose federal obligafinds us immediately before
tions on the State that the federal
the U.S. Supreme Court. On
government itself has notbehalf of Indiana resident
mandated.”
Tyson Timbs, we have asked
So Tyson—with IJ at
the Court to address a queshis back—is asking the U.S.
tion that—remarkably—it hasSupreme Court to intervene.
yet to clearly answer: Does
It is critical that the Bill of
the Eighth Amendment’s
Rights protect citizens not justExcessive Fines Clause protect
against the federal governAmericans against overreachment, but against states andby state and local authorities?
municipalities, too. In fact,
Tyson’s path to the U.S.
most of the Bill of Rights
Supreme Court began shortly
already applies to all levels ofafter his father died, when hegovernment.
received more than $70,000
The Excessive Fines
Tyson’s case is about more than just a truck—it is about enforcing
in life-insurance proceeds andClause should be no different.
an important check on the government’s power to punish peoplebought a new car. For years,
State and local authoriand take their property.
Tyson struggled with drug
ties—no less than the federal
addiction. Soon after buying
government—regularly misuse
his car, he sold four grams of heroin to fund his addiction. The
economic sanctions. Recall IJ’s case in Pagedale, Missouri,
buyers were undercover officers, and police arrested him. They
which fined residents to bolster its budget. Or our case in
seized his car, too.
Muskogee County, Oklahoma, which seized $53,000 from a
Tyson pleaded guilty, which led to house arrest, then probaChristian rock band. Indiana, Tyson’s home state, even doubles
tion, and $1,200 in fees. Most importantly, the experience wasdown on the distorting effects of civil forfeiture by letting private
a wake-up call. Tyson got his life back on track, taking steps tolawyers act as contingency-fee prosecutors.
battle his addiction and getting involved in a community taskforce
The Excessive Fines Clause is a vital check on unjust
on substance abuse. He has been clean for three years now.
monetary penalties. And as the Indiana Supreme Court madeBut the state of Indiana is more interested in Tyson’s car, aclear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can answer once and for all
Land Rover worth $40,000.
whether the Clause protects citizens against rapacious state andWithin months of his arrest, contingency-fee lawyers filed
local authorities. Stay tuned.u
a forfeiture suit on behalf of the state. The trial court ruled for
Sam Gedge is an IJ attorney and the Elfie Gallun
Tyson. Because taking Tyson’s car would be “grossly disproFellow for Freedom and the Constitution.
portional” to his offense, the court decided that the forfeiture
BY SAM GEDGEAPRIL 2018 15

Overcoming

Hurdles,T H E I J WAY

BY ROBERT MCNAMARA

The goal of IJ’s litigation is to set important constitutional precedent in state andfederal courts. To do that, though, we often
must cut through a thicket of procedural
obstacles before a court even addresses the
merits of our claims. We often spare readers
the details of these fights, but it is important,every now and then, to talk about exactly
what these obstacles are—not just to demonstrate how outrageous they can be, but toillustrate how much of an uphill fight it is tovindicate liberty in the courts.
We are facing one such obstacle inour ongoing South Carolina court battle on
behalf of the internet startup Opternative.
Opternative offers a simple promise: online
vision tests from the comfort of your own
home. A computer shows you a series ofimages, just like you would see in a visionscreening at an optometrist’s office, collects
your responses, and emails them to a statelicensed ophthalmologist who, if he decides

16

it is medically appropriate, can write you a
new corrective-lens prescription via email.
Opternative’s technology holds realpromise to greatly expand people’s accessto eye care, but it is also a major threat tothe business model of most optometrists.
Optometrists are limited-practice eye-healthproviders who traditionally make a lot ofmoney selling expensive eyeglass frames inthe showroom attached to their exam rooms.
But an Opternative customer can buy glasses
anywhere, including on the internet. Giving
consumers that option could cost optometrists millions of dollars in sales.
Unsurprisingly, optometrists arefighting back: In South Carolina, the optometrists’ lobbying organization drafted—and
persuaded the Legislature to pass—a law
making it illegal to issue prescriptions basedon online technologies like Opternative’s.
Because IJ does not take protectionism
lying down, we filed suit in South Carolina,
standing up for the rights of Opternativeand other startup companies to createinnovative technologies without being
immediately banned by the horse-andbuggy crowd. But, earlier this year, thestate trial judge ruled in favor of thegovernment—not because the judge held
the law constitutional, but because thejudge held that the law had not “injured”
Opternativeand so thecompany was
not allowed tobring suit.
Now, to beclear, the law
was specifically
written to ban
Opternative’s
technology,
and it worked:
The company
stoppedoffering its
services in South Carolina once the law
was passed. But being thrown out of
the state was not “injury” enough for the
court, which threw out the lawsuit.
We have already appealed this ruling,
and we expect to win that appeal. But
procedural hurdles like these draw out

litigation, requiring more time, effort andmoney—all just to prove that a small business has the right to be in court in thefirst place.
Hurdles like these make it all themore important that IJ exists to provide
entrepreneurs like Opternative (and all
our clients)
with theresources,
wherewithal
and knowhow toclimb overprocedural
obstacles
like these enroute to ultimate victory.
And as weachieve these
victories, it isalways a delight to report here in Liberty &Law that yet another example of government overreach has been struck down.u

Hurdles like these makeit all the more importantthat IJ exists to provide
entrepreneurs like
Opternative (and all ourclients) with the resources,
wherewithal and know-how
to climb over procedural
obstacles like these en routeto ultimate victory.

Robert McNamara is an
IJ senior attorney.

APRIL 2018 17

Little Pink House
continued from page 5

Americans and transforms them into issuesof national importance. Taking away yourhome is one of the most serious things that agovernment can do to a person, and Little Pink
House shows that in stark relief.
The film marks the feature-film directorial
debut of Courtney Balaker, who is joined in the
project by her producer husband, Ted Balaker.
Little Pink House the movie is yet
another demonstration of how IJ pursues
a long-term vision in our work and how wecontinually work to look beyond the horizon
for cutting-edge projects that will advanceindividual liberty. Five years ago, when we
first contacted Courtney and Ted about
pursuing this project, this movie was nothing
more than a dream. But with its release thismonth in theaters across the country, we areon the cusp of a new effort that will reinvigorate the call for eminent domain reform andgreater protection for property rights. IJ andthe Balakers will continue our teamwork to
employ Little Pink House as a vehicle to raise
public awareness about this threat to property
rights and advocate in courts of law, in legislatures and in the court of public opinion to stopeminent domain for private gain.
To learn more about what you can do tobring Little Pink House to a theater near you,see the sidebar on the right of this page. And
be sure to share your experience on social
media when you see the movie.
From our founding to today, the Institutefor Justice continually challenges itself to be
the best—to do all we can do as well as it canbe done to advance individual liberty. Working
to tell the Little Pink House story with those at
the Hollywood level is yet another demonstration of that commitment to institutional excellence. We hope you enjoy the film! uJohn E. Kramer is IJ’s vicepresident for communications.

Little Pink House is brought to the big
screen by (from top): Catherine Keener,
Jeanne Tripplehorn, producer Ted
Balaker and director Courtney Balaker.

18

Visit the official Little Pink
House website for more
information:www.littlepinkhousemovie.com

View the official Little Pink
House trailer:
iam.ij.org/LPHtrailer

Little Pink House is scheduled
to screen in these cities, withnew cities being added eachweek:
• April 15: New London (CT)(Special pre-release screening)• April 20–26: New York City, Santa
Monica (CA), Pasadena (CA),Atlanta (GA), San Francisco (CA),Berkeley (CA)• April 25: Newport Beach (CA)• April 27–May 3: Philadelphia (PA)• May 1: Anchorage (AK)• May 4–10: Denver (CO), San Diego(CA), Boston (MA)• May 11–17: Dallas (TX), Pittsburgh(PA), Phoenix (AZ)
• May 15: Monterey (CA)(Schedule current as of March 2018)

For an updated list of screenings, visit:www.littlepinkhousemovie.com/
screening.html

Bring Little Pink House to atheater near you:iam.ij.org/LPHscreening

N OTA B L E M E D I A M E N T I O N S

Occupational Licensing Blunts
Competition And Boosts Inequality

New Jersey’s Home-Baked Goods Ban
Prevents Mom From Extra Income

When Mercy Collides With The Law

New York Treats Corrupt Politicians
Better Than Regular Citizens

February 17, 2018

January 10, 2018

Some California Cities Criminalize
Nuisance Code Violations
February 14, 2018

December 20, 2017

February 18, 2018

The Winding Road: 4 Hair Braiders
Open Up About The SignificanceOf Braids
March 2018 issue

APRIL 2018 19

NON-PROFIT ORG.
U.S.
POSTAGEPAIDINSTITUTE FORJ U S T I C E

901 N. Glebe Road
Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203

I teamed up with IJ to protect the right of Montana parents
to choose the best education options for our families.

But the state’s Department of Revenue refuses
to accept our victory at the district court.

I won’t stop fighting until we win
at the Montana Supreme Court.

I am IJ.

Kendra Espinoza
Kalispell, Montana

www.IJ.org

Institute for JusticeNational Law Firm for Liberty