August 1, 2013

IJ Sues the Government to Protect the Right to Sue the Government

After being beaten in court by IJ, Washington’s Public Disclosure Commission is now trying to force IJ client Robin Farris (above) to state that IJ’s representation in her free speech case was a campaign contribution, not traditional civil rights representation. The new case has serious implications for public interest law nationwide.
After being beaten in court by IJ, Washington’s Public Disclosure Commission is now trying to force IJ client Robin Farris (above) to state that IJ’s representation in her free speech case was a campaign contribution, not traditional civil rights representation. The new case has serious implications for public interest law nationwide.

Americans have the right to sue the government to protect their rights. And lawyers—like those at IJ—have the right to help people vindicate their rights in court. But Washington’s Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) has taken a dangerous step toward regulating those rights out of existence. That is why, for the first time in our history, the Institute for Justice is acting as a plaintiff in one of our own cases: suing Washington and the PDC to protect our right to help Americans protect their rights in court.

For more than two years, IJ has represented a small grassroots group called “Recall Dale Washam” in a civil rights lawsuit challenging government-imposed restrictions on the campaign’s free speech rights in the guise of a campaign finance law. We are challenging this law because, like all campaign finance laws, it interferes with fundamental constitutional rights and restricts the ability of Americans to speak out and participate in the political process.

But the PDC has threatened to fine the recall committee hundreds of thousands of dollars because of IJ’s legal help. The PDC claims that IJ’s free legal help to Recall Dale Washam in the civil rights lawsuit was a “campaign contribution”—a contribution designed to see the controversial politician removed from office when, in fact, it was free legal help designed to vindicate the free speech rights of our clients. (IJ’s only goal was to ensure the recall committee was freed from arbitrary government-imposed limits on its free speech rights; we had no interest in whether Washam remained in office.) But because the recall committee never knew it needed to file campaign finance reports disclosing the value of IJ’s free legal help, the PDC says that the recall committee broke Washington’s campaign finance laws.

Treating legal services for civil rights lawsuits as “campaign contributions” directly threatens people’s ability to protect their rights in court. To get a campaign finance law struck down, for example, you need a lawyer’s help to file a lawsuit against the government. But the only way for grassroots activists to afford lawyers is through free legal services. This is often where IJ and other groups come in.

IJ, like most public interest law firms, is a tax-exempt organization. This means that we don’t charge clients for our services and instead accept tax-deductible contributions to sustain our mission. But one of the rules for 501(c)(3) organizations is that we cannot participate in candidate elections and must limit our overall political involvement. So, if free civil rights litigation is a “campaign contribution,” IJ’s 501(c)(3) status—and our entire mission—would be in jeopardy. We—and other public interest law firms—could no longer help groups like Recall Dale Washam challenge campaign finance laws.

Treating free civil rights litigation as a campaign contribution also means that the government could regulate legal representation like it regulates campaign contributions. Some campaigns face strict limits on contributions, which would limit lawyers’ ability to volunteer their time to vindicate constitutional rights. And because campaign finance regulations make people less willing to get involved, campaigns will find it harder to get free legal help to protect their civil rights even where there are no absolute limits.

IJ has already secured injunctions in both cases against the government enforcing its ridiculous claims against our clients (and IJ in the second case), but the fight will continue until these would-be political censors in the government are prevented from pursuing their ill-used and unconstitutional power grabs.

When IJ and our clients team up to challenge unconstitutional laws, we are engaging in what the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized as political speech and freedom of association that is highly protected by the First Amendment. That is why IJ has gone back to court against Washington to protect everyone’s right to sue the government to protect constitutional rights.

Paul Avelar is an IJ attorney.

Share

Also in this Issue

This building represents the life savings of Tony Jalali and his family. The city of Anaheim and the federal government are now trying to take it away from him without compensation using civil forfeiture because he leased space to two medical marijuana dispensaries, which was perfectly legal under state law.

Liberty & Law

California Scheming

August 1, 2013

Liberty & Law

The National Law Firm for Liberty

August 1, 2013

Liberty & Law

IJ Refuses to Back Down in Defense of Atlanta Vendors

August 1, 2013

IJ client Ron Hines joins IJ Attorney Jeff Rowes (left) and John Stossel.

Liberty & Law

An IJ Tale of Resiliency

August 1, 2013

Liberty & Law

How IJ Helped Save D.C. Food Trucks

August 1, 2013

Our 2013 summer clerks and interns provided excellent legal research for IJ. Headquarters clerks from left to right, Taylour Equi; Quinnipiac University Law; Jaba Tsitsuashvili, New York University Law; Matt Cavedon, Emory University Law; Janene Senofonte, James Madison University; Bill Lane, Harvard Law; Bethany Pickett, The King's College; Nick Sibilla, University of Pittsburgh; Sarah Lafreniere, American University Law; Phillip Treesh, Columbia Law; Matt Davis, University of Chicago Law; Nate Zimpher, American University; Matt Dimeglio, Washington University in St. Louis Law; Kathleen Rooney, American University. Not pictured: IJ-HQ clerk Hannah Miller, Georgetown University Law; IJ-AZ clerks: Michael Mills, Hofstra University Law; DJ Hill, University of Michigan Law; IJ-FL clerks: Brittany Sitzer, Pepperdine Law; Steven Vandercook, University of Toledo Law; April Larkin, Northwestern Law; IJ-MN clerks: Rebecca Furdek, University of Minnesota Law; Jonathan Gammon, Regents University Law; Christopher Hanson, University of Michigan Law; IJ-TX clerks: Jeff Jennings, George Mason Law; Jeffrey Morrell, Marquette Law; Kirby Thomas, Harvard Law; IJ-WA clerks: Josh Hardy, Georgetown Law; Keith Diggs, University of Michigan Law; Corinne Smith, Harvard Law.

Liberty & Law

IJ Continues Its Proud History of Training Tomorrow’s Fighters for Freedom

August 1, 2013

IJ Attorney Darpana Sheth recently testified in favor of civil forfeiture reform before the D.C. City Council.

Liberty & Law

IJ Promotes Forfeiture Reform in the District of Columbia

August 1, 2013

Liberty & Law

Institute for Justice Receives Walton School Choice Award

August 1, 2013

Subscribe to get Liberty & Law magazine direct to your mailbox!

Sign up to receive IJ's bimonthly magazine, Liberty & Law, along with breaking news updates about the Institute for Justice's fight to protect the rights of all Americans.