The Institute for Justice (IJ) is a libertarian non-profit public interest law firm in the United States. As of 2026, IJ has litigated thirteen cases before the United States Supreme Court, winning eleven of them. The cases addressed issues of eminent domain, interstate commerce, public financing for elections, school vouchers, tax credits for private school tuition, civil asset forfeiture, and residency requirements for liquor license. The organization was founded in September 1991. As of 2023, it employed a staff of 157 full-time staff members (including 64 attorneys) in Arlington, Virginia and seven offices across the United States.
History William H. "Chip" Mellor and Clint Bolick co-founded the organization in 1991. Mellor was the organization's President & General Counsel through 2015. Bolick was the Vice President and Director of Litigation from 1990 until he left the organization in 2004. In March 2015, the organization announced that Mellor would become the chairman of its board of directors in January 2016. Senior Attorney Scott Bullock replaced Mellor as President.
The organization's methods were modeled in part on work Bolick had done as the director of the Landmark Center for Civil Rights in Washington, D.C. For example, in the late 1980s Bolick represented Washington shoeshine stand owner Ego Brown in his attempt to overturn a Jim Crow-era law against bootblack stands on public streets. The law was designed to restrict economic opportunities for African Americans but was still being enforced 85 years after its passage. Bolick sued the District of Columbia on Brown's behalf, and the law was overturned in 1989. In 1991, Bolick joined former Department of Energy Deputy General Counsel Chip Mellor to create the Institute for Justice. Mellor had served as president of the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, a think tank in San Francisco. 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".
Supreme Court cases
The organization has litigated cases that reached the Supreme Court: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, : The court ruled in favor of a Cleveland, Ohio school voucher program, allowing the use of public money to pay tuition at private and parochial schools. The institute represented the pro-voucher parents. Swedenburg v. Kelly, : The court struck down laws in New York and Michigan that made it illegal for consumers to buy wine directly from out-of-state wineries. The institute represented small vintners in Virginia and California. (This case was consolidated with Granholm v. Heald prior to consideration by the Supreme Court.) Kelo v. City of New London, : The court ruled that the state of Connecticut could use eminent domain to take property from the plaintiffs (a group of homeowners) and transfer it to a private business. The institute represented the homeowners. Garriott v. Winn, : The court upheld an Arizona program that gave tax credits for private school tuition. This case was consolidated with Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn prior to consideration by the Supreme Court. Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, : The court struck down part of a public campaign financing law in Arizona that provided additional public funding to candidates based on the amount of spending by their opponents. The institute represented several challengers to the law. This case was consolidated with McComish v. Bennett prior to consideration by the Supreme Court. Timbs v. Indiana, : The court ruled that the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, thus grossly disproportionate asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas, : The court ruled the residency requirement for retail liquor licenses violates the Commerce Clause and the 21st Amendment does not save it. Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, : The court ruled that excluding religious schools from a tax-funded scholarship program available to non-religious private schools violates the Free Exercise Clause under a strict scrutiny analysis. Brownback v. King, : The court ruled that a failure to state a claim ruling in a district court is a judgement on merits and thus triggers the Federal Tort Claims Act's judgement bar, precluding additional claims to be brought under Bivens. Carson v. Makin, : The petitioners, represented by the Institute, argued that Maine's requirement that schools be "non-sectarian" to receive tuition assistance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on December 8, 2021. The Court decided the case in favor of the plaintiffs on June 21, 2022. Gonzalez v. Trevino, Devillier v. Texas, The Institute represented a farmer seeking to be allowed to sue the state of Texas regarding a Fifth Amendment issue. The court agreed with the farmer.
Litigation
The organization provides pro bono legal advice and representation to clients. According to the organization, it selects cases based on the client's ability to pay (giving preference to clients who do not have the means to obtain other representation), and on the case's potential to publicize and educate the public on the issues involved.
Occupational licensing IJ opposes many kinds of business licensing. The organization's first case began in 1991, defending Taalib-Din Uqdah, a Washington, DC businessman who owned a salon to braid hair. Local authorities informed Taalib-Din that he would need a cosmetology license in order to continue operating his business. The institute contended that the licensing requirements did not apply to Taalib-Din's business. Further, the organization claimed that the licensing rules in this case were designed to protect existing businesses from competition, with the effect of reducing choice and raising prices for consumers. The case was dismissed in 1992, but later in that year the city council repealed the cosmetology regulations that prevented Taalib-Din from opening his business. While institute co-founders Clint Bolick and Chip Mellor have acknowledged the need for health, safety, and consumer protection regulations, the organization continues to litigate against what it sees as abuse. It has defended a variety of small business owners across the United States in similar cases involving food cart and street vendors, vendors and makers of caskets, florists, interior designers, and independent taxi drivers. In defending tour guide operators in Philadelphia and Washington D.C., the Institute for Justice argued that restrictions on these businesses abridged First Amendment rights.,
In 2005, the organization litigated on behalf of small wineries in California and Virginia. The institute's case, Swedenburg v. Kelly, was consolidated with Granholm v. Heald and considered by the Supreme Court. The court ruled that laws in Michigan and New York that prohibited consumers from buying wine directly from out-of-state wineries were unconstitutional.
In 2009, the organization sued to allow donors to be compensated for giving bone marrow. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 (NOTA) made it illegal to compensate organ donors but did not prevent payment for other forms of donations (such as human plasma, sperm, and egg cells). Although bone marrow is not an organ or a component of an organ, the act made paying bone marrow donors punishable by up to 5 years in prison. At the time the act was passed, donating bone marrow involved a painful and risky medical procedure. In the years after the act was passed, a new procedure (apheresis) made it possible to harvest bone marrow cells through a non-surgical procedure similar to the donation of blood components such as platelets or plasma. The Institute for Justice lawsuit argued that the development of apheresis meant that donors who gave bone marrow through blood donation should be allowed to receive compensation. The organization predicted that allowing compensation would increase the pool of available donors, and claimed that 3,000 Americans die each year while waiting for compatible marrow donors. Critics argued that allowing compensation could reduce donation, increase the risk of disease, and lead to exploitation of the poor. In December 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that donors giving bone marrow via apheresis were eligible for compensation. In November 2013, the federal government proposed a regulation that would change legal definitions to cover bone marrow regardless of how it is obtained. This would have the effect of keeping the ban on compensating donors in place. However, HHS withdrew the proposed rule in 2017, clearing the way for compensating those who donate via apheresis.
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—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.
Property rights
Eminent domain