Talk:Institute for Justice

message: The article states that IJ opposes anti-discrimination laws.  I can't think of any cases it has taken which would fall into this category.  If it did, it would oppose only anti-discrimination laws which applied to private activity (not government activity), so at least this distinction should be made, but I'd like to see if anyone has specific examples in mind before I make any change. GMcGath 15:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: August 2006

message: The article describes IJ as pursuing a "free market agenda."  That term, referring to an "agenda," has gradually become loaded, particularly among academics.  It now sometimes bears a negative connotation (though not, obviously, to a libertarian or an IJ-supporter).  Also, the term is not very accurate in describing the four pillars of IJ's litigation strategy, since IJ advocates for free speech rights and school choice, which are better described as rights to dictate the course of one's life ("personal liberty," writ large), rather than merely a "free market agenda."  I do not think it is splitting hairs to suggest that the text be changed to something more neutral, such as "litigating strategically to pursue its goals of expanding personal liberty."  Looking at their website, under "About IJ" the lengthy description of their mission never once mentions the term "free market," but repeatedly emphasizes the rule of law and individual liberty.  See http://www.ij.org/profile/index.html.Vain777 (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: June 2008

message: :Image:IJ-Logo-green.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 09:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:IJ-Logo-green.gif

message: In his article, Entrepreneurs Under Attack, John Stossel presents four cases from IJ's files in which the "libertarian public-interest law firm … works to free entrepreneurs from … opportunity-killing regulations." John Stossel's conclusion: "It's great that IJ and some determined entrepreneurs win a few victories for free enterprise. But in a country with a real free market, such lawsuits would be unnecessary." Asteriks (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 cases in which IJ works to free entrepreneurs from opportunity-killing regulations 

message: This article reads like a company brochure. Lots of unsubstantiated puffery, e.g. "The Institute has been involved in numerous high-profile lawsuits. Particularly noteworthy cases include school choice lawsuits in Cleveland, Milwaukee, Arizona, and Florida." Dogweather (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that better references needed. Rounding up references now.James Cage (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Added over 50 references, removed some SPS references, removed "directory" information, edited for NPV, many other additions and changes. James Cage (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs much improvement 

message: Every one of the organization's positions on issues are criticized by those who do not share those positions. There are at least two sides to each of these issues (and in some cases several sides). If we attempt to cover the debate on each of the issues this organization is involved in, this article will quickly become very long, and duplicate material in other articles. In other words, the majority of this article will be redundant and not useful to readers. I suggest that any section on criticism of this organization focus on the organization's methods and ethics. I also suggest that debate about the issues be covered in the Wikipedia articles on those issues, for example, Economic freedom, Property rights, Free speech, and School choice (all of which are linked to by this article). This seems to be the approach used in best-in-class Wikipedia articles on activist organizations, such as the article on the ACLU. Is this a reasonable approach to use here? James Cage (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: === Self-published sources ===
The article makes way too much use of self-published sources.  The sources need to be removed, and if other sources cannot be located, the material needs to be removed from the article. GregJackP Boomer!  06:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My plan is to replace many references to the company site, and for information that is useful but not sourced elsewhere, note that it comes from the organization in the text of the article. For example, "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 to web site]." In that way, I think I will eliminate about 10 of the references currently tagged with SPS, leaving about 3-4. Is that a good way to go? And if so, will it be enough to remove the tag on the article? Also, will it be enough to remove the SPS tag on the remaining 3-4 references? Thanks - James Cage (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Removed several references to the organization's web site, and to references to other web sites. Also deleted the section on Research. That hurt - I considered linking a bunch of references to articles that refer to publications by the organization, but decided that would give a complete section. All remaining references to the organization's web site are either noted in the text of the article ("According to the organization ..."), or are for information commonly referenced by web sites, or both. See change log for more details. Removed SPS tag on article.James Cage (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Good point - thanks! I edited the article to remove 14 instances of repeated links. I applied this to the text of the article, not the infobox. For example, the info box contains a link to the Wikipedia article about the president of the organization. The text of the article also has 1 link to that same article. This seems to be the common practice across all articles I have looked at (perhaps on the theory that someone who intends to read the entire article won't necessarily read the infobox). Is that best practice?James Cage (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Removed over-linked tag on article. James Cage (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Done - thanks again for the feedback. James Cage (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: The article makes way too much use of self-published sources.  The sources need to be removed, and if other sources cannot be located, the material needs to be removed from the article. GregJackP Boomer!  06:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My plan is to replace many references to the company site, and for information that is useful but not sourced elsewhere, note that it comes from the organization in the text of the article. For example, "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 to web site]." In that way, I think I will eliminate about 10 of the references currently tagged with SPS, leaving about 3-4. Is that a good way to go? And if so, will it be enough to remove the tag on the article? Also, will it be enough to remove the SPS tag on the remaining 3-4 references? Thanks - James Cage (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Removed several references to the organization's web site, and to references to other web sites. Also deleted the section on Research. That hurt - I considered linking a bunch of references to articles that refer to publications by the organization, but decided that would give a complete section. All remaining references to the organization's web site are either noted in the text of the article ("According to the organization ..."), or are for information commonly referenced by web sites, or both. See change log for more details. Removed SPS tag on article.James Cage (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published sources 

message: Every instance of several wiki articles are linked.  The first time needs to be linked, then the rest left plain.  GregJackP Boomer!  06:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - thanks! I edited the article to remove 14 instances of repeated links. I applied this to the text of the article, not the infobox. For example, the info box contains a link to the Wikipedia article about the president of the organization. The text of the article also has 1 link to that same article. This seems to be the common practice across all articles I have looked at (perhaps on the theory that someone who intends to read the entire article won't necessarily read the infobox). Is that best practice?James Cage (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Removed over-linked tag on article. James Cage (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlinked 

message: The lead needs to be rewritten to comply with MOS guidance.  It does not summarize the article, instead serving as an introduction.  When it is rewritten, footnotes need to be removed from the lead and put into the body.  GregJackP Boomer!  07:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - thanks again for the feedback. James Cage (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: I restored the deleted links - here's my reasoning. The YouTube page is included for the same reasons as the subject's web site. It is, in effect, another web site for the subject. There is a YouTube template in Wikipedia for this reason. The Right Wing watch site is, without any question, biased. In my way of thinking, that's why it's a link instead of being included as a source. But if nothing else, it shows information about how the subject is viewed by those who oppose it. Long story short, I can see both sides of including the RWW link, but the YouTube seems to me to be entirely justified. Thanks - James Cage (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Did a little research. Based on a quick Google search ("channel on YouTube" site:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/), it appears that over 5000 pages are using the YouTube template that is in use here. I understand that does not necessarily justify this - there could be 5000+ bad examples - but I still can't see any real difference between including a link to a web site created and edited by the subject, and including a link to a YouTube channel that is created and edited by the subject. I looked into YouTube policy on Wikipedia several months ago, and there was no prohibition at that time. James Cage (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Some more info on YouTube template - appears to be in use on 25,000 pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:YouTube James Cage (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for opening this conversation, James. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL says "Normally, only one official link is included." I think the default official link to use is the group's website. Therefore, I think we shouldn't include YouTube, since we already have one official link. The Right Wing Watch link seems unduly biased to me, and more of an activist than academic type site, so I don't think it's particularly helpful to readers. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to talk with you! I can see your point about the RWW, and I also note that it's from 2006, so whatever value it might have had is outdated. Regarding the YouTube link - WP:ELMINOFFICIAL is certainly on point. There is a great big "Videos" link in the middle of the official web page. I checked a few non-profits (ACLU, Gates Foundation, Red Cross), and none of them are linking to the organizations' YouTube channels. Long story short, I'll re-remove the links. I appreciate the education on this!  James Cage (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: I'm wondering whether we should be calling IJ a libertarian "public interest" law firm. Yes, it likely fits the definition of that term, but I think it's not neutral. I'm seeing that term used by conservative and libertarian sources, but mainstream sources such as the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Washington Post are just calling it a "libertarian law firm." We're also not using the term "public interest law firm" for other comparable organizations such as the ACLU or the NRDC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the organization describes itself as "The nation's only libertarian, civil liberties, public interest law firm." I believe "public interest" is the most neutral qualifier in that list - I see nothing in the Wikipedia guidance on neutrality that would make me think that "public interest" is not neutral. Comparable organizations' articles (such as the ACLU) use terms like "non partisan," which are clearly debatable at least. Thanks - James Cage (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with "public interest" is that it risks being read as value-laden, a sort of endorsement, even if that isn't the intent. The fact that conservative sources are using that term, especially IJ itself, but not mainstream sources, is evidence that this is a suspect term. Of course IJ is going to describe itself in the best possible light. The relevant portion of WP:NPV is WP:YESPOV, the bullet starting with "Prefer nonjudgmental language." (The "nonparisan" moniker on ACLU requires reliable sourcing itself. I added a  tag.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Two thoughts. First, the term "public interest law firm" is also used in Easton's "Gang of Five" (page 261). Perhaps this should be used as a reference? To clarify that "public interest" is a commonly used term for a type of law, and not an advertising term, perhaps we could link this:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest#Public_interest_law. Thanks! James Cage (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

text: What's the relevant contextual language from the Easton source? Can you share a sentence or two? I'm not at all comfortable with the link because the linked section and the main article, Public interest law) focus on a movement that has little to do with IJ's activities. These articles demonstrate that "public interest law" is closely associated with representing those in poverty and other vulnerable segments of society. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if this will work, but give this a try:https://books.google.com/books?ei=QeQeVbnNFceUNofegLgN&id=PJt3AAAAMAAJ&dq=%22the+two-year-old+public+interest%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22the+two-year-old+public%22. This should show the sentence from the Easton book. Regarding the section public interest law, I note this sentence (emphasis mine): "The term has grown, however, to encompass a broader range of activities of lawyers and non-lawyers working toward a multitude of objectives, including civil rights, civil liberties, women’s rights, consumer rights, environmental protection, and so on." (Consumer rights - example purchase of alcohol Supreme Court case) Many of the organization's clients are, if not poor, at least far less powerful than the business interests and governments that they believe are impinging on their rights. Thanks - good discussion. James Cage (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the link. That looks like a reliable and mainstream source. I'd like to do a broader analysis of how mainstream sources are describing IJ, since we now have one using "public interest" and two not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. James Cage (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks to Schematica for finding several very reliable sources calling IJ a public interest law firm. I consider this issue settled. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public interest law firm 

message: The category names in the "litigation section" of this article have been characterized as marketing "catchphrases" by some editors and it has been suggested they be renamed to "value neutral labels." The question: should the current names be changed as indicated below? 
:* change Economic Liberty to Commercial regulation
:* change Private property rights to Eminent domain and civil forfeiture
:* change First amendment to Campaign finance 
:* change School choice to Education funding
:* add Other cases as a catchall for those that don't fit the new categories
LavaBaron (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, I like "Education." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Litigation section category names 

message: * Abstain I don't care one way or the other. Someone ping me in a week and I'll come back and close this. LavaBaron (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, I like "Education." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey ("yes" !vote indicates "make changes"; "no" indicates do not; if using other terms, please explain intent)

message: this week ij argued another case before the supreme court. timbs v indiana, which is likely to win, argues for incorporation of the excessive fines clause of the 8th amendment to the states via the 14th amendment.
when it wins, this will open the floogates for ij and their ilk to challenge fines against poor people, which they have been doing in places like fergueson missouri. win or lose, this is a case that will get taught in every 1l constitutional law class. will need links to wiki articles on incorporation octrine, barron v baltimore, etc.
http://ballots.blogspot.com/2018/11/argument-analysis-court-appears-ready.html
50.90.158.23 (talk)gtbear at gmail  —Preceding undated comment added 09:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  2018 - needs update for timbs v indiana 

message: Updates to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Justice:
·       Updated the boxed information on the right side:
·       Formation:
·       The Institute for Justice opened on September 3, 1991 (not 1990, as listed on this page)
·       Purpose:
·       It is not merely “economic liberty advocacy” but—as will be well-documented with the material and copious links I will provide below—IJ litigates to advance four specific pillars and one general area of the law:
§  Economic liberty advocacy
§  Property rights advocacy
§  Free speech advocacy
§  Parental choice in education advocacy
§  Government immunity and accountability advocacy
·       Headquarters:
·       I would suggest replacing the “S-900” with “#900”—that is our suite number, as documented at the bottom of this page.
·       Total number of employees:
·       Organizations such as the Cato Institute, the ACLU and the Goldwater Institute evidently provide Wikipedia with their own data when it comes to staff size. If that is acceptable for you, I can tell you that as of 2023, the Institute for Justice has 157 full-time staff members, including 64 attorneys. Lyrical42 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to Institute for Justice boxed material on the right 

message: Commercial regulation
·       In the Activities section under Litigation, please consider changing “Commercial regulation” to “Occupational licensing.” I suggest this because IJ does not get involved generally in “commercial regulation,” but, instead, focuses more narrowly in the area of government licensing of occupations, it would more accurate and descriptive of IJ’s work to use the headline “Occupational licensing” here.
·       The initial link you provide in that section is dated; it is from a story that ran in 2014. A great deal of independent reporting and research has been done on this issue since then. Here are three much more recent news stories 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/
https://reason.com/2023/03/27/how-bad-are-your-states-occupational-licensing-requirements/
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/02/27/who-benefits-who-loses-from-the-occupational-licensing-system
·       The list of occupational licensing cases IJ has litigated has not been updated since 2009. Here are some more recent major cases to consider adding to the end of that section:
·       In 2010, the Institute for Justice filed suit on behalf of monks from Saint Joseph Abbey, a century-old Benedictine monastery in Covington, Louisiana. The monks sold handmade wooden caskets, but the Louisiana Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors enforced a law requiring anyone who wanted to sell caskets or any funeral merchandise in the state to become a government-licensed funeral director. To secure a license, the monks would need to pass a funeral industry test [FN: La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 37:848(A).] and convert their monastery into a funeral establishment [FN:  La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 37:848(A); La. Admin. Code tit. 46, §§ 503, 709 & 903.], which would require installing equipment for embalming human remains. [FN:  La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 37:842(D); La. Admin. Code tit. 46, §§ 1105 & 1107.] On March 20, 2013, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous ruling in favor of the monks holding that laws amounting to “naked transfers of wealth” to politically favored insiders are unconstitutional.
·       In 2013, the Institute for Justice filed a federal suit on behalf of three independent tax preparers against the Internal Revenue Service. The tax preparers challenged the IRS’s imposition of a new licensing system (without congressional authorization) requiring tax preparers to get the IRS’s permission before they could work. In January 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled the IRS didn’t have the power to impose nationwide licensing on tax preparers. In February 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling.
·       In July 2017, Airbnb property manager Sally Ladd—represented by the Institute for Justice—filed lawsuit challenging the Pennsylvania Real Estate Commission’s effort to require Ladd to obtain a real estate broker’s license to manage vacation rental properties. After winning a procedural case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2020, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held a trial on Ladd’s case in 2022 then ruled in October 2022 her favor[JK1] —a decision the government did not appeal.
In December 2018, the Institute for Justice filed suit on behalf of two would-be estheticians—cosmetologists who specialize in beauty and care of the face—against the Pennsylvania Cosmetology Board. The clients, Courtney Haveman and Amanda Spillane, were denied government-issued licenses to work citing the state’s “good moral character” clause because each of them had past criminal offenses. In August 2020, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court struck down the good moral standard clause, clearing the way for Haveman and Spillane to reapply for their licenses.
----[JK1]Because this is a unpublished opinion, I provided a link to the ruling, which is housed on IJ's website. Lyrical42 (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to "Commercial regulation" section of Institute for Justice page  

message: Eminent domain and civil forfeiture
·       In the section titled “Eminent domain and civil forfeiture,” please consider changing this sub-headline to “Property rights” and breaking this into new sub-sections:
§  Eminent domain,
§  Civil forfeiture,
§  Unconstitutional searches, and
§  Fines and fees.
·       Suggested updated language for Eminent domain
§  Please consider adding the following as a new paragraph after the paragraph that begins: “In 2005, the organization represented the plaintiffs…”
·       Since litigating the Kelo case, the Institute for Justice has won eminent domain cases in Lakewood, Ohio, Long Branch, New Jersey, Riviera Beach, Florida, National City, California, Nashville, Tennessee and Atlantic City, New Jersey.
·       Suggested updated language for Civil forfeiture
§  In the paragraph that begins, “The organization also works to publicize what it sees as abuse of civil forfeiture laws….” it would be more accurate to write:  “The organization seeks to end the use of civil forfeiture and replace it with criminal forfeiture, which would require the government to convict someone of a crime before their property could be taken.”
§  Suggested list of civil forfeiture cases (with links to news sources) to post:
The Institute for Justice has litigated numerous civil forfeiture cases across the country. Among them:
In 2011, the Institute for Justice represented Russ Caswell, a motel owner from Tewksbury, Massachusetts, after the federal government sought to take his property through civil forfeiture. After a four-day trial in 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the government’s forfeiture action.
In 2013, the Institute filed suit on behalf of Terry Dehko a grocery store owner in Fraser, Michigan. Federal agents seized Dehko’s bank account without charging him with a crime but claiming he had made frequent deposits of less than $10,000 into his bank account in an effort to avoid bank regulations. Later that year, the IRS returned Dehko’s money.
In 2014, the Institute filed three federal suits on behalf of those who had their money or property seized by the government through civil forfeiture:
IJ filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia challenging the city’s use of civil forfeiture, which often targeted minorities and the poor. In 2018, the city agreed to return $3 million is seized assets to those whose cash and property was taken.
The Institute filed suit on behalf of Iowa restaurant owner Carole Hinders, who had her bank account of $33,000 seized by the IRS, despite never being accused of a crime. Later that year, the IRS agreed to return all of her money.
The Institute filed suit on behalf of Jeffrey, Richard and Mitch Hirsch from Long Island, New York, after the IRS seized $446,000 from their candy and snack wholesale company without filing any criminal complaint against them. The Hirsch brothers had made deposits of under $10,000 into their bank account, which the government called “structuring.” In 2015, the IRS agreed to return all of the Hirsch’s money.
In 2019, President Donald Trump signed a law that now forbids the IRS from seizing bank accounts based on nothing but the allegation of structuring.
In 2021, the Institute won a legal battle against the Drug Enforcement Agency after it seized $30,000—the life savings—of shoeshine man Kermit Warren as he was traveling through the airport in Columbus, Ohio.
In 2023, the Institute for Justice secured the return of $39,500 to North Carolina shipping company owner Jerry Johnson. Although he earned the money legally and it is not illegal to travel with cash, Phoenix police seized Johnson’s money when he flew into Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.
Additional Institute for Justice lawsuits successfully challenging civil forfeiture have been filed in North Carolina, Kentucky, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Wyoming and elsewhere.
·       Suggested NEW language for Unconstitutional searches:
The Institute for Justice has litigated numerous cases challenging what it sees as the unconstitutional searching of private property. Among its areas of litigation are:
·       Warrantless searches of rental properties
·       The Institute has successfully challenged unconstitutional rental inspection requirements in Marietta, Georgia and Park Forest, Illinois.
·       Government searching and monitoring of “open fields”
·       Today, the government may inspect and even place cameras on private property without a warrant or the property owner’s consent as long as this does not include the area immediately surrounding the property owner’s home. This is known as the open fields doctrine. The Institute for Justice is challenging such searches in Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
Moreover, several state courts have rejected the open fields doctrine under their own state constitutional search-and-seizure provisions. [Proposed cite: See, e.g., Faulkner v. State, 98 So. 691 (Miss. 1924); State v. Bullock, 901 P.2d 61 (Mont. 1995); People v. Scott, 593 N.E.2d 1328 (N.Y. 1992); State v. Dixson, 766 P.2d 1015 (Or. 1988); Welch v. State, 289 S.W. 510 (Tenn. 1926); State v. Kirchoff, 587 A.2d 988 (Vt. 1991); State v. Johnson, 879 P.2d 984 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).]
·       Suggested NEW language for Fines and fees:
Local governments impose fines and fees for minor traffic violations and property code violations to fund their budgets without raising taxes. Such actions, however, create financial incentives for municipalities to maximize revenue rather than address public safety issues.
The Institute for Justice continues to litigate cases challenging excessive and arbitrary government-imposed fines and fees in:
Pagedale, Missouri, where the city could fine residents for having mismatched curtains, walking on the left-hand side of a crosswalk and having barbeques in the front of a home, among other infractions. The U.S. Department of Justice cited the excessive use of fines and fees as among the issues that sparked the riots in nearby Ferguson, Missouri. In 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri finalized a consent decree in which Pagedale agreed to eliminate its municipal code dealing with fines and fees for what it deemed “nuisance” behaviors.
Charlestown, Indiana, where the mayor imposed fines against low-income homeowners in an effort to help a developer secure the land for a new development project.
Brookside, Alabama, where the municipality of 1,253 residents saw fines and fees rise by 640 percent in four years to pay for half of the city government’s income.
In 2019, the Institute for Justice won Timbs v. Indiana, a U.S. Supreme Court that for the first time that held the U.S. Constitution's 8th amendment protection against excessive fines applies to state and local governments. Lyrical42 (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested overhaul of "Eminent domain and civil forfeiture" section 

message: 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. 10th 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 11th 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 9th 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)
thread_title:  Suggested changes to current "Campaign finance" section of Institute for Justice page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Update to "Education" section on the Institute for Justice page 

message: * 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: 
The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.[3]
References
----
1. 
2. 
3. 
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:
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.
The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.[3]
References
----
^ Sjöblad, Tristan. . Academic Press, 2020, p. 1.
^ Harinath, Prisha. (2020). , Science, 51(78):46.
^ Uemura, Shū. . Academic Press, 2020, p. 2.
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reply 30-JUN-2023