2026-09-14T10:14:31-05:00 2025-12-31 362170602 WARADY & DAVIS LLP 1717 DEERFIELD RD SUITE 300S DEERFIELD IL 60015 990 2025-01-01 454204425 LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER LIBE 5124814400 7500 RIALTO BLVD 1-250 AUSTIN TX 78735 SARA ALBRECHT CHAIRMAN 5124814400 2026-09-13 1 CHRISTOPHER STRAUB P01278490 8472679600 2025 SARA ALBRECHT 7500 RIALTO BLVD 1-250 AUSTIN TX 78735 6411821 0 X LIBERTYJUSTICECENTER.ORG X 2011 TX TO USE STRATEGIC LITIGATION TO ADVANCE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL LIBERTIES AND A FREE ENTERPRISE SOCIETY 3 2 32 2 0 0 3049433 5999522 0 58750 141089 138896 2662 12122 3193184 6209290 0 0 0 0 2475405 2528355 0 0 122594 701356 3435686 3176761 5964041 16423 245249 3237473 3850673 111280 479231 3126193 3371442 X TO ADVANCE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL LIBERTIES AND A FREE ENTERPRISE SOCIETY THROUGH STRATEGIC LITIGATION, TRAINING, COMMUNICATION AND RESEARCH. IN ADDITION, THE CENTER WILL TRAIN LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS IN THE PURSUIT OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION. 0 0 5617074 58750 ADVANCEMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL LIBERTIES AND A FREE ENTERPRISE THROUGH STRATEGIC LITIGATION, TRAINING, COMMUNICATION, AND RESEARCH.SEE SCHEDULE O FOR A SUMMARY LISTING OF CASES LITIGATED DURING THE YEAR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC. 5617074 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 32 0 32 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 AL AK AR CA CO CT DC FL GA HI IL KS KY ME MD MA MI MN MS NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC TN UT VA WA WV WI X SARA ALBRECHT 5124814400 7500 RIALTO BLVD 1-250 AUSTIN TX 78735 JACOB HUEBERT PRESIDENT (THRU 4.28.25) 40.00 X X 83333 0 3333 SARA ALBRECHT CHAIR, CEO 50.00 X X 176758 0 19126 BRIAN TIMPONE SECRETARY 1.00 X X 0 0 0 COREY DEANGELIS TREASURER 1.00 X X 0 0 0 MORGAN BOWLES CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER 40.00 X 226000 0 9040 EMILY RAE SENIOR COUNSEL 40.00 X 139963 0 26166 DEAN MCGEE SENIOR COUNSEL 40.00 X 134962 0 36680 JEFFREY SCHWAB DIRECTOR OF LITIGATION 40.00 X 197236 0 32254 REILLY STEPHENS SENIOR COUNSEL 40.00 X 149011 0 44437 1107263 0 171036 6 0 1 0 MILBANK LLP 1101 NEW YORK AVE NW WASHINGTON DC 20005 LEGAL CASE SERVICES 1879953 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 1700 K STREET NW FIFTH FLOOR WASHINGTON DC 20006 LEGAL CASE SERVICES 700000 ROTUNDA PUBLIC AFFAIRS LLC 1209 10TH AVE N NASHVILLE TN 37208 MEDIA AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS 110004 3 5999522 202531 5999522 SETTLEMENT REVENUE 541100 58750 58750 58750 133811 133811 207616 202531 5085 5085 5085 OTHER REVENUE 900099 12122 12122 12122 6209290 70872 0 138896 X 282550 270995 4492 7063 1870032 1728551 57206 84275 54471 52242 867 1362 163028 146572 8281 8175 158274 147158 4275 6841 15000 15000 81626 81626 2785182 2768402 15779 1001 264940 262428 33 2479 8510 4856 3464 190 36796 32606 3190 1000 3011 2012 814 185 49497 45016 2441 2040 48354 42466 5769 119 43944 24985 18959 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS 58868 49412 1592 7864 WEBSITE 20519 20239 280 0 COURT FEES AND COSTS 19439 19134 305 0 5964041 5617074 224373 122594 2591617 3807632 603000 18553 24303 43041 3237473 3850673 111280 479231 111280 479231 X 3126193 3121442 250000 3126193 3371442 3237473 3850673 X 245249 1205220 -1205220 X X 0 1 X 1 0 X 6255929 2330667 2663338 3049433 5999522 20298889 6255929 2330667 2663338 3049433 5999522 20298889 5707573 14591316 616 98915 144639 133811 377981 8088 2662 12122 22872 20699742 92599 0.70490 0.67070 X RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED 0 X 7414510 1205220 1205220 6209290 0 6209290 7169261 1205220 1205220 5964041 0 5964041 PART X, LINE 2: MANAGEMENT BELIEVES THE ORGANIZATION HAS APPROPRIATE SUPPORT FOR ANY TAX POSITIONS TAKEN, AND AS SUCH, DOES NOT HAVE ANY UNCERTAIN TAX POSITIONS THAT ARE MATERIAL TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE ORGANIZATION'S FEDERAL AND RELATED STATE EXEMPT ORGANIZATION TAX RETURNS ARE SUBJECT TO THE EXAMINATION BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND STATE AUTHORITIES, GENERALLY FOR THREE YEARS AFTER THEY WERE FILED. X X X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SARA ALBRECHT CHAIR, CEO 176758 0 0 0 0 0 7197 0 11929 0 195884 0 0 0 MORGAN BOWLES CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER 175000 0 51000 0 0 0 9040 0 0 0 235040 0 0 0 EMILY RAE SENIOR COUNSEL 139963 0 0 0 0 0 5925 0 20241 0 166129 0 0 0 DEAN MCGEE SENIOR COUNSEL 134962 0 0 0 0 0 5764 0 30916 0 171642 0 0 0 JEFFREY SCHWAB DIRECTOR OF LITIGATION 162236 0 35000 0 0 0 8133 0 24121 0 229490 0 0 0 REILLY STEPHENS SENIOR COUNSEL 122011 0 27000 0 0 0 6413 0 38024 0 193448 0 0 0 X 1 202531 STOCK VALUE 0 0 1 PART I, COLUMN (B): THE NUMBER OF DONATIONS IS BEING REPORTED. PART I, LINE 32B: THE CENTER HAS A SECURITIES ACCOUNT WITH A THIRD PARTY SECURITIES BROKER. THE BROKER PROCESSES STOCK SALE TRANSACTIONS ON THE CENTER'S BEHALF. FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A DURING THE REPORTING YEAR, THE LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER (LJC) ADVANCED ITS MISSION THROUGH STRATEGIC PUBLIC-INTEREST LITIGATION, LEGAL ADVOCACY, AND PUBLIC EDUCATION. THE ORGANIZATION REPRESENTED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES, STUDENTS, WORKERS, SMALL BUSINESSES, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, AND PUBLIC ENTITIES IN CASES INVOLVING CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT POWER, FREE SPEECH, EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM, PARENTAL RIGHTS, ECONOMIC LIBERTY, WORKPLACE FREEDOM, EQUAL TREATMENT, AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY. MASTER CASE NARRATIVES: 1. V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC. V. TRUMP IN 2025, THE LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER FILED V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC. V. TRUMP ON BEHALF OF FIVE OWNER-OPERATED AMERICAN BUSINESSES CHALLENGING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S IMPOSITION OF SWEEPING WORLDWIDE TARIFFS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC POWERS ACT. THE LAWSUIT CHALLENGED THE ADMINISTRATION'S ASSERTION THAT IEEPA AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO IMPOSE BROAD TARIFFS AFFECTING IMPORTS FROM NEARLY EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL. THE PLAINTIFFS INCLUDED BUSINESSES OPERATING IN A VARIETY OF INDUSTRIES WHOSE OPERATIONS, SUPPLY CHAINS, AND CUSTOMERS WERE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE CHALLENGED TARIFFS. THE CASE RAISED SIGNIFICANT CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE LIMITS OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED THAT IEEPA DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE PRESIDENT TO IMPOSE TARIFFS AND THAT THE CONSTITUTION ASSIGNS RESPONSIBILITY FOR TARIFFS, DUTIES, AND OTHER FORMS OF TAXATION TO CONGRESS. THE LITIGATION FURTHER CHALLENGED THE GOVERNMENT'S RELIANCE ON EMERGENCY POWERS TO JUSTIFY TARIFFS BASED ON LONGSTANDING TRADE DEFICITS AND OTHER ECONOMIC CONDITIONS. ON MAY 28, 2025, THE UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE ISSUED A UNANIMOUS DECISION HOLDING THAT THE CHALLENGED TARIFFS WERE UNLAWFUL AND PERMANENTLY ENJOINING THEIR ENFORCEMENT. THE GOVERNMENT APPEALED, AND THE CASE PROCEEDED THROUGH FURTHER APPELLATE REVIEW. THE LITIGATION ATTRACTED NATIONAL ATTENTION AND BECAME ONE OF THE LEADING CHALLENGES TO THE ADMINISTRATION'S TARIFF PROGRAM, ADDRESSING QUESTIONS WITH SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL ALLOCATION OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THE LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER CONTINUED TO REPRESENT THE PLAINTIFFS THROUGH APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND COORDINATED WITH A BROAD COALITION OF LEGAL SCHOLARS, ECONOMISTS, AND PUBLIC-INTEREST ADVOCATES CONCERNED WITH CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE AND ECONOMIC LIBERTY. THROUGH THIS LITIGATION, THE ORGANIZATION SOUGHT TO PROTECT SMALL BUSINESSES FROM UNLAWFUL GOVERNMENT ACTION AND TO PRESERVE CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS THAT LIMIT THE CONCENTRATION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 2. C.M.V. DAVIDSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION IN 2025, THE LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER SUCCESSFULLY SETTLED THE CASE REPRESENTING CHRISTIAN MCGHEE, A NORTH CAROLINA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT, IN LITIGATION CHALLENGING A SCHOOL DISTRICT'S SUSPENSION AND DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS ARISING FROM A CLASSROOM DISCUSSION. THE LAWSUIT WAS FILED IN 2024 AFTER CHRISTIAN WAS SUSPENDED AND ACCUSED OF RACIAL BIAS FOR ASKING A CLARIFYING QUESTION DURING AN ENGLISH CLASS REGARDING WHETHER A REFERENCE TO 'ALIENS' MEANT 'SPACE ALIENS OR 'ILLEGAL ALIENS.' THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT VIOLATED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH, DUE PROCESS, AND EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES. ACCORDING TO THE LAWSUIT, CHRISTIAN'S QUESTION CAUSED NO SUBSTANTIAL DISRUPTION IN THE CLASSROOM, YET HE RECEIVED A THREE-DAY SUSPENSION, WAS BARRED FROM PARTICIPATING IN AN IMPORTANT TRACK COMPETITION, AND WAS NOT PROVIDED A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL THE DISCIPLINE. FOLLOWING THE SUSPENSION, CHRISTIAN FACED OSTRACISM, HARASSMENT, AND THREATS FROM OTHER STUDENTS. HIS PARENTS ULTIMATELY WITHDREW HIM FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND ENROLLED HIM IN A PRIVATE SCHOOL. AFTER MORE THAN A YEAR OF LITIGATION, THE PARTIES REACHED A SETTLEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA. THE SETTLEMENT REMOVED REFERENCES TO RACIAL BIAS FROM CHRISTIAN'S EDUCATIONAL RECORD AND INCLUDED A FORMAL APOLOGY FROM THE DAVIDSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION. LJC DID NOT SEEK ATTORNEYS' FEES IN THIS CASE. 3. MENDEZ LOPEZ V. UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO LJC REPRESENTS NINETEEN UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO EMPLOYEES CHALLENGING AN AGREEMENT THAT CONDITIONED A ONE-TIME $3,000 EMPLOYER-FUNDED PAYMENT ON UNION MEMBERSHIP AND BEING CURRENT ON UNION DUES. THE EMPLOYEES HAD RESIGNED FROM THE UNION AFTER JANUS AND ALLEGED THAT UPR AND THE UNION DENIED THE PAYMENT SOLELY BECAUSE THEY EXERCISED THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT NOT TO ASSOCIATE WITH THE UNION. THE CASE SEEKS DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, RESTITUTION OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES EQUAL TO THE WITHHELD PAYMENT, NOMINAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AND FEES AND COSTS. THE CASE CONTINUES LJC'S POST-JANUS ENFORCEMENT WORK AGAINST GOVERNMENT PRACTICES DESIGNED TO PENALIZE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR LEAVING THEIR UNION. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 4. ABRAHAM V. ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A (CONTINUED) LJC FILED ABRAHAM V. ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS ON BEHALF OF DR. MATTHEW ABRAHAM, A TENURED PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA. THE CASE ALLEGES THAT THE UNIVERSITY EXCLUDED DR. ABRAHAM FROM FACULTY GOVERNANCE COMMITTEES AFTER HE OPPOSED AND SOUGHT RECORDS CONCERNING ALLEGED UNLAWFUL RACE-BASED HIRING AND SELECTION PRACTICES TIED TO DEI INITIATIVES. THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT DR. ABRAHAM ENGAGED IN PROTECTED ACTIVITY, INCLUDING GRIEVANCES, PUBLIC-RECORDS REQUESTS, A DEMAND LETTER, LITIGATION, AND EEOC CHARGES, AND THAT UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS THEN USED UNDISCLOSED CRITERIA TO EXCLUDE HIM FROM COMMITTEES. THE LAWSUIT SEEKS TO STOP THE USE OF PROTECTED ACTIVITY AS A DISQUALIFIER, REQUIRE NEUTRAL AND PUBLISHED CRITERIA FOR FACULTY-GOVERNANCE APPOINTMENTS, PROHIBIT UNLAWFUL RACE-BASED SELECTION PRACTICES, EXPUNGE STIGMATIZING LABELS, AND RESTORE FAIR CONSIDERATION. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 5. RIGAU V. PUERTO RICO INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION LJC REPRESENTS LUIS RIGAU, A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE OF THE PUERTO RICO INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, IN A FEDERAL CIVIL-RIGHTS LAWSUIT CHALLENGING PRIC'S AND UFCW LOCAL 481'S ALLEGED POLICY OF COMPELLING UNION MEMBERSHIP AND DEDUCTING UNION DUES FROM HIS WAGES WITHOUT CONSENT. PRIC HAD HONORED MR. RIGAU'S POST-JANUS RESIGNATION AND STOPPED DEDUCTIONS IN 2018, BUT LATER REINSTATED DEDUCTIONS IN 2022. THE CASE ALLEGES THAT PRIC AND THE UNION CONTINUED COLLECTING DUES DESPITE MR. RIGAU'S REPEATED WRITTEN OBJECTIONS IN 2018, 2022, 2023, AND 2025. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 6. CARBONELL ET AL. V. LOPEZ FIGUEROA LJC REPRESENTS CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE PUERTO RICO POLICE BUREAU CHALLENGING PRPB'S PRACTICE OF PAYING AN ADDITIONAL EMPLOYER HEALTH-CARE CONTRIBUTION ONLY TO UNION MEMBERS WHILE DENYING THE SAME BENEFIT TO ELIGIBLE NONMEMBERS. THE CONTRIBUTION WAS PUBLICLY FUNDED AND PROVIDED $25 PER MONTH IN ADDITIONAL HEALTH-INSURANCE SUPPORT TO UNION MEMBERS. IN 2024, THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO GRANTED DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, HOLDING THAT IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR A PUBLIC EMPLOYER TO PAY A DISCRETIONARY MONETARY HEALTH BENEFIT TO UNION MEMBERS WHILE DENYING IT TO ELIGIBLE NONMEMBERS. THE MATTER REMAINS PART OF LJC'S JANUS-ENFORCEMENT WORK. PLAINTIFFS FILED A MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES ON DECEMBER 2, 2024, AND FEE-RELATED PROCEEDINGS CONTINUED DURING 2025. 7. JAKICHE V. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO LJC REPRESENTS MICHAEL JAKICHE IN A CHALLENGE TO THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE'S ADMISSIONS PRACTICES. THE CASE ALLEGES THAT UNM CONTINUED TO REFERENCE "DIVERSITY" AS A FACTOR IN RANKING AND SELECTION AFTER THE SUPREME COURT'S STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS DECISION AND THAT MR. JAKICHE WAS DENIED ADMISSION IN CONSECUTIVE CYCLES DESPITE A STRONG ACADEMIC RECORD, RESEARCH EXPERIENCE, AND CLINICAL EXPERIENCE. THE COMPLAINT SEEKS A DECLARATION THAT UNM'S POLICIES AND PROCEDURES VIOLATE TITLE VI OF THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, A PERMANENT INJUNCTION BARRING USE OF RACE IN ADMISSIONS, AND FEES AND COSTS. THE CASE FOLLOWS LJC'S BROADER POST-SFFA EFFORT URGING MEDICAL SCHOOLS TO COMPLY WITH RACE-NEUTRAL ADMISSIONS REQUIREMENTS. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 8. NESTED BEAN, INC. V. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION LJC REPRESENTS NESTED BEAN, INC. IN LITIGATION AGAINST THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION ARISING FROM STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS BY COMMISSIONER RICHARD TRUMKA REGARDING WEIGHTED INFANT SLEEP PRODUCTS. THE CASE ALLEGES THAT COMMISSIONER TRUMKA ISSUED OFFICIAL-LOOKING WARNINGS AND LETTERS TO MAJOR RETAILERS WITHOUT LEGAL OR SCIENTIFIC BASIS AND OUTSIDE MANDATORY CPSC PROCEDURES. THE LITIGATION CHALLENGES ALLEGED REGULATORY OVERREACH AND DUE-PROCESS VIOLATIONS AFTER RETAILERS CUT TIES WITH COMPANIES NAMED OR IMPLICATED IN THE COMMISSIONER'S STATEMENTS. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 9. CALIFORNIA POLICY CENTER V. GARCIA-BROWER LJC FILED THIS FIRST AMENDMENT CASE CHALLENGING CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 399, WHICH PROHIBITS EMPLOYERS FROM DISCUSSING POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS MATTERS AT MANDATORY MEETINGS. LJC REPRESENTS THE CALIFORNIA POLICY CENTER, A NONPROFIT THAT CONDUCTS POLICY RESEARCH AND REGULARLY HOLDS STAFF MEETINGS ABOUT POLITICAL MATTERS DIRECTLY RELATED TO ITS MISSION. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGES THAT SB 399 IS A CONTENT-BASED RESTRICTION ON EMPLOYER SPEECH AND ASKS THE COURT TO ENJOIN THE LAW. AFTER DISMISSAL BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN JUNE 2025, LJC APPEALED TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 10. KLEINSCHMIT V. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS CHICAGO LJC REPRESENTS PROFESSOR STEPHEN KLEINSCHMIT, FORMERLY A CLINICAL ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN UIC'S DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY, MANAGEMENT, AND ANALYTICS. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGES THAT UIC TERMINATED HIS CONTRACT AFTER HE CRITICIZED UNIVERSITY HIRING PROGRAMS THAT HE BELIEVED USED RACE AS A PRIMARY OR EXCLUSIVE FACTOR IN EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS. THE CASE ALLEGES RETALIATION AND EQUAL-PROTECTION VIOLATIONS BY A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY AND SEEKS TO HALT RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY HIRING AND RETENTION PRACTICES AND RECOVER COMPENSATION FOR EARNINGS AND BENEFITS ALLEGEDLY LOST DUE TO UIC'S ACTIONS. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A (CONTINUED) 11. JOHNSON V. JACOBSON LJC FILED JOHNSON V. JACOBSON ON BEHALF OF JEFFREY JOHNSON, A LONG-HAUL TRUCKER WITH FLORIDA AND GEORGIA FIREARM LICENSES WHO IS PREVENTED FROM CARRYING A FIREARM FOR SELF-DEFENSE IN MINNESOTA BECAUSE MINNESOTA DOES NOT RECOGNIZE PERMITS FROM THOSE STATES AND MANY OTHERS. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGES THAT MINNESOTA'S FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE OTHER STATES' FIREARM PERMITS DEPRIVES NONRESIDENTS OF THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND ASKS THE COURT TO FIND THE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND REQUIRE MINNESOTA TO HONOR PERMITS ISSUED BY OTHER STATES. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 12. WEISS V. CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION IN 2025, THE LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER REPRESENTED MEMBERS OF THE CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION IN LITIGATION SEEKING TO COMPEL THE UNION TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL AUDITS REQUIRED BY ITS OWN GOVERNING DOCUMENTS. THE LAWSUIT WAS FILED AFTER CTU MEMBERS ALLEGED THAT THE UNION HAD FAILED TO PUBLISH REQUIRED AUDITED FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR SEVERAL CONSECUTIVE YEARS, DESPITE PROVISIONS IN THE UNION'S CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS REQUIRING SUCH DISCLOSURES TO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS. THE PLAINTIFFS CONTEND THAT UNION MEMBERS ARE ENTITLED TO MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO INFORMATION REGARDING THE ORGANIZATION'S FINANCES AND EXPENDITURES AND THAT LABOR ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD COMPLY WITH THEIR OWN TRANSPARENCY AND GOVERNANCE REQUIREMENTS. PRIOR TO FILING SUIT, THE LJC SOUGHT VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE THROUGH A DEMAND LETTER. AFTER THE REQUESTED AUDITS WERE NOT PRODUCED, THE ORGANIZATION FILED SUIT ON BEHALF OF UNION MEMBERS SEEKING DECLARATORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF. LJC CANNOT SEEK FEES IN THIS CASE. 13. CUBIN V. GORDON LJC FILED CUBIN V. GORDON ON BEHALF OF DR. ERIC CUBIN, A WYOMING RADIOLOGIST WHOM GOVERNOR MARK GORDON REMOVED FROM THE WYOMING BOARD OF MEDICINE AFTER DR. CUBIN PRIVATELY EMAILED THE WYOMING HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN SUPPORT OF CHLOE'S LAW. THE LAW RESTRICTED CERTAIN MEDICAL PROCEDURES AND HORMONE TREATMENTS FOR MINORS AND WAS LATER SIGNED BY GOVERNOR GORDON. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGES THAT DR. CUBIN WAS REMOVED FROM HIS GOVERNMENT POSITION BECAUSE OF PROTECTED SPEECH ON A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN, IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE CASE SEEKS TO HOLD GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALLEGED RETALIATION AGAINST SPEECH BY PEOPLE SERVING IN PUBLIC POSITIONS. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 14. ILLINOIS POLICY INSTITUTE V. FLANAGAN LJC FILED A FIRST AMENDMENT LAWSUIT CHALLENGING ILLINOIS SENATE BILL 3649, THE "WORKER FREEDOM OF SPEECH ACT," WHICH PROHIBITS EMPLOYERS FROM HOLDING MANDATORY MEETINGS TO DISCUSS RELIGIOUS OR POLITICAL MATTERS. THE CASE ALLEGES THAT THE LAW INFRINGES EMPLOYERS' FREE-SPEECH RIGHTS AND PARTICULARLY BURDENS ORGANIZATIONS WHOSE WORK NECESSARILY INVOLVES PUBLIC POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE OR REGULATORY ISSUES. THE COMPLAINT CHALLENGES THE LAW'S BROAD DEFINITION OF POLITICAL MATTERS, ITS PENALTIES, AND ITS EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING UNIONS, POLITICAL PARTIES, GOVERNMENT ENTITIES, AND COMMITTEES, WHILE LEAVING 501(C)(3) POLICY ORGANIZATIONS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTION. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 15. PARKS V. LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT LJC REPRESENTS JOHN PARKS, AN OREGON HIGH SCHOOL TRACK-AND-FIELD COACH FIRED AFTER WRITING A LETTER PROPOSING AN OPEN DIVISION FOR TRANSGENDER ATHLETES IN TRACK-AND-FIELD COMPETITIONS. THE LETTER ARGUED THAT AN OPEN DIVISION COULD PROTECT OPPORTUNITIES FOR FEMALE ATHLETES WHILE ALLOWING TRANSGENDER ATHLETES TO COMPETE AND BE RECOGNIZED. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGES THAT THE LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SCHOOL BOARD FIRED COACH PARKS IN RETALIATION FOR PROTECTED SPEECH AND DENIED HIM DUE PROCESS. THE CASE SEEKS RESTORATION OF HIS COACHING POSITION AND PROTECTION OF HIS FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 16. CHINO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NEWSOM LJC FILED THIS CASE CHALLENGING CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL 1955, WHICH PROHIBITS SCHOOL DISTRICTS FROM ADOPTING PARENTAL-NOTIFICATION POLICIES REQUIRING ADMINISTRATORS TO INFORM PARENTS IF A CHILD ASKS TO USE A NAME OR PRONOUNS DIFFERENT FROM THE CHILD'S SEX AT BIRTH OR REQUESTS ACCESS TO SEX-SEGREGATED PROGRAMS OR BATHROOMS FOR THE OPPOSITE SEX. LJC REPRESENTS CHINO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SEVERAL CALIFORNIA PARENTS. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGES THAT AB 1955 VIOLATES THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS AND THE FAMILY EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS AND PRIVACY ACT BY PREVENTING SCHOOLS FROM COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO PARENTS. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 17. LACKIE V. STUDENTS UNITED LJC REPRESENTS TAYAH LACKIE, A GRADUATE OF ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY, IN LITIGATION CHALLENGING A MINNESOTA SYSTEM THAT REQUIRED STUDENTS ATTENDING PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES TO FUND AND BECOME MEMBERS OF STUDENTS UNITED, A STATEWIDE STUDENT ORGANIZATION THAT ENGAGES IN POLITICAL ADVOCACY ON A VARIETY OF CONTROVERSIAL PUBLIC ISSUES. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGES THAT FORCING STUDENTS TO FINANCIALLY SUPPORT AND ASSOCIATE WITH A POLITICAL ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION AS A CONDITION OF ENROLLMENT VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S PROTECTIONS AGAINST COMPELLED SPEECH AND COMPELLED ASSOCIATION. THE CASE CHALLENGES A STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK UNDER WHICH MANDATORY STUDENT FEES WERE COLLECTED BY PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES AND TRANSFERRED TO STUDENTS UNITED, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS AGREED WITH THE ORGANIZATION'S POLITICAL POSITIONS. IN 2025, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ISSUED A SIGNIFICANT RULING ALLOWING THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS AGAINST STUDENTS UNITED TO PROCEED. THE DECISION ALLOWED THE PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO CONTINUE AND RECOGNIZED THAT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS MAY APPLY WHEN PRIVATE ENTITIES EXERCISE AUTHORITY DELEGATED BY THE GOVERNMENT. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 18. LEVINE V. ASSOCIATION OF LEGAL AID ATTORNEYS IN 2025, THE LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER REPRESENTED ARNOLD LEVINE AND ALLEN POPPER, TWO JEWISH PUBLIC DEFENDERS IN NEW YORK CITY, IN LITIGATION CHALLENGING A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY FINANCIALLY SUPPORT A LABOR UNION WHOSE POLITICAL POSITIONS THEY BELIEVED TO BE ANTISEMITIC. ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFFS WERE EMPLOYED BY THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY, THEIR POSITIONS WERE FUNDED THROUGH GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS UNDER WHICH THEY PROVIDED CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO INDIGENT CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS ON BEHALF OF NEW YORK CITY. THE PLAINTIFFS OBJECTED TO RESOLUTIONS AND PUBLIC STATEMENTS ADOPTED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF LEGAL AID ATTORNEYS THAT THEY BELIEVED WERE HOSTILE TOWARD ISRAEL AND INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND PERSONAL CONVICTIONS. THE LAWSUIT ARGUES THAT INDIVIDUALS MAY NOT BE COMPELLED TO SUBSIDIZE UNION SPEECH WITHOUT THEIR AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT AND THAT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS RECOGNIZED BY JANUS APPLY WHERE GOVERNMENT-FUNDED WORKERS ARE REQUIRED TO FINANCIALLY SUPPORT A UNION AS A CONDITION OF PERFORMING PUBLIC FUNCTIONS. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 19. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION V. ROCKLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT LJC REPRESENTS ROCKLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT IN DEFENDING ITS PARENTAL-NOTIFICATION POLICY AGAINST A WRIT OF MANDATE FILED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. THE POLICY REQUIRES EMPLOYEES TO NOTIFY PARENTS IF A CHILD REQUESTS USE OF A NAME OR PRONOUNS DIFFERENT FROM THE CHILD'S SEX AT BIRTH OR ACCESS TO SEX-SEGREGATED PROGRAMS OR BATHROOMS FOR THE OPPOSITE SEX. LJC ARGUES THAT THE POLICY IS CONSTITUTIONALLY SOUND AND THAT THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION LACKS AUTHORITY TO DEMAND THAT THE DISTRICT CHANGE A VALIDLY ADOPTED POLICY. LJC CANNOT SEEK FEES IN THIS CASE. FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A (CONTINUED) 20. NATIONAL LEGAL AND POLICY CENTER V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION LJC FILED THIS CASE CHALLENGING THE SEC'S CLIMATE DISCLOSURE RULE. LJC REPRESENTS THE NATIONAL LEGAL AND POLICY CENTER, WHICH ADVOCATES FOR SHAREHOLDER INTERESTS AND OPPOSED THE RULE IN PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND THE OIL & GAS WORKERS ASSOCIATION, WHOSE MEMBERS' LIVELIHOODS ARE AFFECTED BY THE RULE. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGES THAT THE SEC EXCEEDED ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY BY REQUIRING EXTENSIVE CLIMATE-RELATED DISCLOSURES AND THAT THE RULE COMPELS SPEECH IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT BY REQUIRING COMPANIES TO FILE REPORTS IMPLICITLY ENDORSING CONTESTED VIEWS ON CLIMATE CHANGE. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 21. SCHERER V. GLADSTONE SCHOOL DISTRICT LJC REPRESENTS GLENDA SCHERER, AN OREGON MOTHER AND EDUCATION ADVOCATE, IN A FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO GLADSTONE SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICIES RESTRICTING HER SPEECH ONLINE AND AT PUBLIC MEETINGS. THE DISTRICT ALLEGEDLY PROHIBITED HER FROM POSTING IN A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE FACEBOOK GROUP, REQUIRED HER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS TO BE PRE-SCREENED BEFORE MEETINGS, BANNED DISCUSSION OF CURRENT OR FORMER SCHOOL EMPLOYEES, AND SOUGHT TO BAR HER FROM ATTENDING MEETINGS. AFTER LJC SENT A DEMAND LETTER, THE DISTRICT AGREED TO REPEAL THE PRIOR-SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND WITHDREW THE MEETING BAN, BUT LJC PROCEEDED WITH LITIGATION BECAUSE OTHER SPEECH RESTRICTIONS REMAINED. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 22. FRISARD'S TRANSPORTATION, LLC V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR LJC FILED THIS CASE CHALLENGING THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'S 2024 RULE REDEFINING THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. THE LAWSUIT WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF CULLY FRISARD AND FRISARD'S TRANSPORTATION, A FAMILY-OWNED LOUISIANA TRUCKING COMPANY THAT WORKS WITH OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGES THAT THE RULE EXCEEDS THE DEPARTMENT'S STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND THREATENS THE INDEPENDENT-CONTRACTOR BUSINESS MODEL BY CREATING A VAGUE TEST THAT REDUCES WORKERS' ABILITY TO CONTROL THEIR HOURS, SERVICES, AND BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 23(A). NFOA V. LINCOLN LJC REPRESENTS THE NEBRASKA FIREARMS OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND INDIVIDUAL GUN OWNERS IN A CHALLENGE TO LINCOLN, NEBRASKA FIREARM RESTRICTIONS. THE CASE CHALLENGES LOCAL ORDINANCES AND A MAYORAL EXECUTIVE ORDER BANNING FIREARMS ON CITY PROPERTY, INCLUDING PARKS AND SIDEWALKS, AFTER NEBRASKA ENACTED LEGISLATIVE BILL 77 ADOPTING CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY AND PREEMPTING LOCAL FIREARM REGULATION. THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE CASE FOR LACK OF STANDING IN 2024. IN 2025, THE NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT ACCEPTED THE APPEAL, HEARD ORAL ARGUMENT, AND RULED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS HAD STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE EXECUTIVE ORDER AND MOST OF THE ORDINANCES BECAUSE THEY FACED A CREDIBLE THREAT OF PROSECUTION. THE COURT AFFIRMED THE DISMISSAL OF NFOA'S ASSOCIATIONAL CLAIMS AND ONE INDIVIDUAL CLAIM BUT REVERSED THE REMAINDER AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. THE LITIGATION BENEFITS THE PUBLIC BY SEEKING UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT OF NEBRASKA LAW AND PROTECTING THE ABILITY TO BRING PRE-ENFORCEMENT CHALLENGES TO LAWS THAT ALLEGEDLY BURDEN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 23(B). NFOA V. OMAHA LJC REPRESENTS THE NEBRASKA FIREARMS OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND INDIVIDUAL GUN OWNERS IN A CHALLENGE TO OMAHA, NEBRASKA FIREARM RESTRICTIONS. THE CASE CHALLENGES LOCAL ORDINANCES AND A MAYORAL EXECUTIVE ORDER BANNING FIREARMS ON CITY PROPERTY, INCLUDING PARKS AND SIDEWALKS, AFTER NEBRASKA ENACTED LEGISLATIVE BILL 77 ADOPTING CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY AND PREEMPTING LOCAL FIREARM REGULATION. IN 2024, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PROHIBITING OMAHA FROM ENFORCING THE MAYOR'S GENERAL BAN ON FIREARMS ON CITY PROPERTY WHILE ALLOWING CERTAIN OTHER CHALLENGED ORDINANCES TO REMAIN IN EFFECT. IN FEBRUARY 2025, THE MAYOR RESCINDED THE EXECUTIVE ORDER. LITIGATION CONCERNING THE REMAINING ORDINANCES CONTINUED THROUGH THE END OF 2025. THE LITIGATION BENEFITS THE PUBLIC BY SEEKING UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT OF NEBRASKA'S STATEWIDE FIREARM LAWS AND PREVENTING LOCAL OFFICIALS FROM EXERCISING REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITHHELD BY STATE LAW. 24. MINNESOTA VOTERS ALLIANCE V. ELLISON LJC REPRESENTS MINNESOTA VOTERS ALLIANCE AND INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS CHALLENGING A MINNESOTA LAW THAT CRIMINALIZES CERTAIN ELECTION-RELATED SPEECH. THE CASE ALLEGES THAT HOUSE FILE 28 ALLOWS PROSECUTION OF DISFAVORED OPINIONS ABOUT MINNESOTA VOTING LAWS WITHIN 60 DAYS OF AN ELECTION. THE PLAINTIFFS CONTEND THAT THE LAW VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT BY OUTLAWING SPEECH ABOUT DISPUTED LEGAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING VOTING QUALIFICATIONS AND ELECTION RULES. THE CASE IS PENDING IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF MINNESOTA. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 25. WEISENSTEIN V. RAOUL LJC REPRESENTS ILLINOIS PLAINTIFFS CHALLENGING HOUSE BILL 3062, A LAW THAT RESTRICTS WHERE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO STATE LAWS, RULES, AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS MAY BE FILED. THE LAW LIMITS SUCH CHALLENGES TO CIRCUIT COURTS IN COOK COUNTY AND SANGAMON COUNTY. THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE MAY NOT LIMIT THE SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION OF STATE CIRCUIT COURTS IN THIS WAY, THAT THE LAW DENIES EQUAL PROTECTION TO RESIDENTS OUTSIDE THOSE COUNTIES, AND THAT IT DISENFRANCHISES VOTERS BY FORCING RESIDENTS TO LITIGATE BEFORE JUDGES THEY DID NOT ELECT. IN NOVEMBER 2025, THE TRIAL COURT RULED AGAINST PLAINTIFFS ON STANDING. LJC CANNOT SEEK FEES IN THIS CASE. 26. STUDENTS FOR LIFE ACTION V. JACKLEY LJC REPRESENTS STUDENTS FOR LIFE ACTION IN A FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING SOUTH DAKOTA DONOR-DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS. THE LAW REQUIRES CERTAIN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS SPEAKING ABOUT PUBLIC OFFICIALS, CANDIDATES, OR POLITICAL PARTIES TO DISCLOSE THEIR TOP FIVE DONORS IN COMMUNICATIONS. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGES THAT COMPELLED DONOR DISCLOSURE VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF ORGANIZATIONS AND DONORS BY FORCING SPEECH THE ORGANIZATION DOES NOT CHOOSE AND EXPOSING SUPPORTERS TO RETALIATION OR HARASSMENT. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 27. SMITH V. STILLIE (NOW GRIFFIN V. STILLIE) LJC REPRESENTS ALASKAN CITIZENS AND TWO ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS, THE ALASKA FREE MARKET COALITION AND FAMILIES FOR THE LAST FRONTIER, IN A FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO ALASKA ELECTION-DISCLOSURE LAWS. THE CASE WAS ORIGINALLY FILED AS SMITH V. HELZER AND LATER BECAME SMITH V. STILLIE; THE CASE PAGE IS TITLED GRIFFIN V. STILLIE. THE CHALLENGED LAWS REQUIRE INDEPENDENT GROUPS SPEAKING ABOUT ELECTIONS TO ANNOUNCE THEIR TOP THREE DONORS IN BROADCAST OR ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS, USE ALL-CAPS DISCLAIMERS WHEN MOST FUNDING COMES FROM OUT OF STATE, REPORT DONORS' DONORS TO TRACE MONEY TO ITS ORIGINAL SOURCE, AND REQUIRE DONORS TO REDUNDANTLY REPORT DONATIONS. 28. THORNE V. SHELBY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION LJC REPRESENTS BARTON THORNE, PRINCIPAL OF CORDOVA HIGH SCHOOL IN TENNESSEE, WHO WAS PLACED ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE AFTER A "PRINCIPAL'S MINUTE" IN WHICH HE ENCOURAGED STUDENTS TO THINK CRITICALLY ABOUT FREE SPEECH, CENSORSHIP, CANCEL CULTURE, AND THE POWER OF SOCIAL-MEDIA PLATFORMS FOLLOWING THE EVENTS OF JANUARY 6, 2021. THE CASE ALLEGES THAT PRINCIPAL THORNE WAS CENSORED AND DISCIPLINED FOR PROTECTED SPEECH. HIS REMARKS TOOK NO POLITICAL POSITION AND FOCUSED ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS AND THE DANGERS OF DEPLATFORMING. 29. RIO GRANDE FOUNDATION V. OLIVER FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A (CONTINUED) 29. RIO GRANDE FOUNDATION V. OLIVER (CONTINUED) LJC REPRESENTS THE RIO GRANDE FOUNDATION IN A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO NEW MEXICO'S DONOR-DISCLOSURE REGIME FOR NONPROFIT, NONPARTISAN ISSUE ADVOCACY. THE LAW REQUIRES NONPROFITS THAT SPEAK ABOUT PUBLIC ISSUES, ESPECIALLY WHEN REFERENCING PUBLIC OFFICIALS OR CANDIDATES NEAR ELECTIONS, TO REPORT DONORS TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR PUBLIC POSTING. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGES THAT THE LAW CHILLS SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION BY EXPOSING SUPPORTERS TO POTENTIAL HARASSMENT, RETALIATION, AND SOCIAL STIGMA, AND THAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE OVERBROAD BECAUSE THEY REACH ISSUE ADVOCACY NOT TIED TO QUID PRO QUO CORRUPTION CONCERNS. THE CASE HAS PROCEEDED THROUGH DISTRICT COURT AND APPELLATE LITIGATION. 30. METZGER V. CITY OF MONROE LJC FILED A FEDERAL FIRST AMENDMENT LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF MONROE, NORTH CAROLINA, AND MAYOR ROBERT BURNS CHALLENGING RULES GOVERNING PUBLIC COMMENT AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. THE RULES REQUIRED SPEAKERS TO STATE THEIR FULL HOME ADDRESSES ON THE RECORD BEFORE SPEAKING AND PROHIBITED VAGUE CATEGORIES OF SPEECH, INCLUDING "INSULTING," "RUDE," "ABUSIVE," "PERSONAL" COMMENTS AND "PUBLIC RIDICULE." AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2025, THE CASE REMAINED PENDING. 31. FIRST SUPPLY, LLC V. CARUANA LJC REPRESENTED FIRST SUPPLY, LLC, A FAMILY-OWNED PLUMBING AND HVAC DISTRIBUTOR, IN A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE WINNEBAGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND STATE'S ATTORNEY AFTER OFFICIALS SEIZED AND HELD FIRST SUPPLY'S DELIVERY TRUCK FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS. THE TRUCK HAD BEEN STRUCK BY AN ALLEGED DRUNK DRIVER WHILE LAWFULLY STOPPED, AND FIRST SUPPLY WAS AN INNOCENT BYSTANDER. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED THAT THE TRUCK WAS SEIZED WITHOUT A WARRANT AND HELD INDEFINITELY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OR A TIMELINE FOR RETURN, FORCING THE COMPANY TO PAY FOR A TRUCK IT COULD NOT USE AND A REPLACEMENT TRUCK. THE CASE WAS DISMISSED IN SEPTEMBER 2025 AFTER THE TRUCK WAS RETURNED. LJC DID NOT SEEK ATTORNEYS' FEES IN THIS CASE. 32. PEYTON V. BARNES LJC REPRESENTED JOEL PEYTON, A KENTUCKY RESIDENT WHO UNCOVERED AND PUBLICIZED ETHICS CONCERNS INVOLVING SIMPSON COUNTY OFFICIALS. AFTER AN ETHICS COMPLAINT CONFIRMED THAT JUDGE EXECUTIVE MASON BARNES HAD VIOLATED THE SIMPSON COUNTY CODE OF ETHICS, BARNES BLOCKED PEYTON FROM AN OFFICIAL SOCIAL-MEDIA PAGE AND PUBLICLY ATTACKED SIGNERS OF THE COMPLAINT. LJC SUED, ALLEGING FIRST AMENDMENT VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION IN AN OFFICIAL ONLINE FORUM. THE CASE SETTLED IN 2025, WITH PROTECTIONS REQUIRING BARNES TO UNBLOCK MR. PEYTON, ACKNOWLEDGE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS, AND REFRAIN FROM FUTURE VIEWPOINT-BASED DISCRIMINATION ON OFFICIAL SOCIAL MEDIA. IN 2025, LJC RECEIVED $15,000 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO THE CONSENT DECREE. 33. WILLIAMS V. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LJC REPRESENTED THREE CTA BUS OPERATORS AND MEMBERS OF ATU LOCAL 241 SEEKING FINANCIAL AUDITS AND AUDIT REPORTS REQUIRED BY THE UNION'S BYLAWS. THE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THAT THE UNION FAILED TO PROVIDE ANNUAL AUDITS AND SEMIANNUAL AUDIT REPORTS DESPITE MEMBER REQUESTS. THE LAWSUIT SOUGHT TO COMPEL THE UNION TO PROVIDE THE AUDITS AND REPORTS TO DUES-PAYING MEMBERS. THE CASE SETTLED ON AUGUST 12, 2025. LJC DID NOT SEEK ATTORNEYS' FEES IN THIS CASE. 34. UNIATOWSKI V. OAPSE LOCAL 579 LJC REPRESENTED MARTINE UNIATOWSKI, A PART-TIME EMPLOYEE OF BAY VILLAGE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT IN OHIO, AGAINST OAPSE LOCAL 579. THE CASE ALLEGED THAT UNION REPRESENTATIVES PRESSURED HER INTO SIGNING A MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT WHEN SHE COULD NOT READ IT, AND THAT AFTER SHE RESIGNED AND SOUGHT TO STOP DUES DEDUCTIONS, THE UNION DENIED HER REQUESTS AND CONTINUED TAKING DUES FOR MORE THAN A YEAR. THE CASE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF HER FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER JANUS. THE PARTIES SETTLED ON APRIL 10, 2025, AND THE CASE IS CLOSED. LJC DID NOT SEEK ATTORNEYS' FEES IN THIS CASE. 35. SNEED V. LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LJC REPRESENTED ANDRE SNEED, A COOK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS EMPLOYEE, AGAINST LIUNA LOCAL 1092. AFTER MR. SNEED RESIGNED UNION MEMBERSHIP, THE UNION ALLEGEDLY CONTINUED DEDUCTING DUES BASED ON AN AUTHORIZATION IT CLAIMED WAS IRREVOCABLE FOR THE DURATION OF HIS BARGAINING-UNIT EMPLOYMENT. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED THAT COMPELLING CONTINUED PAYMENTS AFTER RESIGNATION VIOLATED JANUS. THE PARTIES SETTLED ON APRIL 24, 2025, AND THE CASE IS CLOSED. LJC DID NOT SEEK ATTORNEYS' FEES IN THIS CASE. 36. ROCKLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD LJC REPRESENTS ROCKLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT IN APPELLATE LITIGATION CHALLENGING A PERB DECISION ORDERING THE DISTRICT TO RESCIND PARENTAL-NOTIFICATION REGULATIONS. THE DISTRICT'S POLICY REQUIRED PARENTS TO BE NOTIFIED IF A CHILD REQUESTED TO BE IDENTIFIED BY A GENDER, NAME, OR PRONOUNS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CHILD'S BIOLOGICAL SEX OR REQUESTED ACCESS TO SEX-SEGREGATED FACILITIES INCONSISTENT WITH BIOLOGICAL SEX. THE CASE AROSE AFTER THE ROCKLIN TEACHERS PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION CHALLENGED THE POLICY BEFORE PERB. THE CASE PROCEEDED THROUGH ADVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE AND CALIFORNIA APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS DURING 2025. AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2025, LJC HAD NOT YET PETITIONED FOR U.S. SUPREME COURT REVIEW. LJC DID NOT SEEK ATTORNEYS' FEES IN THIS CASE. 37. GLENNON V. JOHNSON LJC REPRESENTED ILLINOIS RESIDENT MARK GLENNON IN LITIGATION CHALLENGING RACE- AND SEX-BASED RESTRICTIONS IN AN INVESTMENT OFFERING CONNECTED TO CHICAGO'S FIRST CASINO PROJECT. THE CITY OF CHICAGO'S HOST COMMUNITY AGREEMENT WITH BALLY'S INCLUDED MINORITY-PREFERENCE REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING OWNERSHIP, BOARD COMPOSITION, WORKFORCE COMPOSITION, AND THE IPO STRUCTURE. AFTER MR. GLENNON WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE IPO BECAUSE HE DID NOT MEET THE CITY'S MINORITY-INVESTOR DEFINITION, LJC SUED MAYOR BRANDON JOHNSON, THE CITY, TREASURER MELISSA CONYEARS-IRVIN, BALLY'S, AND MEMBERS OF THE ILLINOIS GAMING BOARD. FOLLOWING THE LAWSUIT, BALLY'S REVISED ITS OFFERING TO REMOVE EXPLICIT RACE- AND GENDER-BASED ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. LJC DID NOT SEEK ATTORNEYS' FEES IN THIS CASE. 38. DEANGELIS V. PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION LJC REPRESENTED COREY DEANGELIS IN A FIRST AMENDMENT LAWSUIT AGAINST PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT AFTER DISTRICT OFFICIALS USED OFFICIAL SOCIAL-MEDIA PAGES AND A WEBSITE TO LOBBY AGAINST KENTUCKY AMENDMENT 2 AND THEN RESTRICTED CRITICISM OF THOSE ACTIONS. THE DISTRICT FROZE PUBLIC DISCOURSE ON POSTS AND TEMPORARILY BLOCKED MR. DEANGELIS AFTER HE CRITICIZED THE USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES. IN JULY 2025, LJC SECURED A FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE REQUIRING THE DISTRICT TO PROTECT AGAINST VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION ON OFFICIAL SOCIAL-MEDIA PLATFORMS, PROVIDE FIRST AMENDMENT AND TRANSPARENCY TRAINING TO COMMUNICATIONS STAFF, AND PAY ATTORNEYS' FEES. IN 2025, LJC RECEIVED $30,000 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO THE CONSENT DECREE. 39. CAMPBELL V. CABARRUS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS LJC REPRESENTED JAMES CAMPBELL IN A FIRST AMENDMENT LAWSUIT AFTER THE CABARRUS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REMOVED HIM FROM A PUBLIC MEETING AND BANNED HIM FROM ATTENDING MEETINGS FOR 90 DAYS. MR. CAMPBELL HAD REQUESTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO REPORTED CORRUPTION IN LOCAL AGENCIES AND NAMED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES DURING PUBLIC COMMENT. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND TO PETITION GOVERNMENT. IN 2025, THE CASE SETTLED WITH THE COUNTY ACKNOWLEDGING PROBLEMS WITH THE STATED PUBLIC-PARTICIPATION POLICY AND PROVIDING TRAINING TO OFFICIALS ON ITS PROPER APPLICATION. IN 2025, LJC RECEIVED $13,750 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO THE CONSENT DECREE. FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A 40. GIANGRASSO V. UA LOCAL 9 LJC REPRESENTED NICOLO GIANGRASSO, A PLUMBER EMPLOYED BY HAMILTON TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT, IN A JANUS-ENFORCEMENT CASE AGAINST UA LOCAL 9. AFTER MR. GIANGRASSO RESIGNED UNION MEMBERSHIP AND REQUESTED AN END TO PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS, THE UNION REFUSED, ARGUING THAT JANUS DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE MONEY DEDUCTED WAS LABELED "ASSESSMENTS" RATHER THAN DUES. LJC SUED, ARGUING THAT JANUS PROHIBITS DUES, AGENCY FEES, OR ANY OTHER FORM OF PAYMENT TO A PUBLIC-SECTOR UNION WITHOUT AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT. THE UNION SETTLED WITHOUT ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, AND MR. GIANGRASSO VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED THE CASE. LJC DID NOT SEEK ATTORNEYS' FEES IN THIS CASE. 41. BASED POLITICS, INC. V. GARLAND LJC REPRESENTED BASED POLITICS, INC., A NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHER WITH SUBSTANTIAL TIKTOK REACH, IN A CHALLENGE TO THE FEDERAL TIKTOK DIVEST-OR-BAN LAW. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED THAT THE FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT WOULD EFFECTIVELY BAN TIKTOK IN THE UNITED STATES AND THEREBY SUPPRESS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH BY USERS AND CREATORS. THE CASE WAS FILED IN THE D.C. CIRCUIT AND LATER REACHED THE SUPREME COURT. ON JANUARY 17, 2025, THE SUPREME COURT ALLOWED THE LAW TO PROCEED, PERMITTING THE DIVEST-OR-BAN REGIME TO TAKE EFFECT ACCORDING TO THE STATUTORY TIMETABLE. THE CASE IS CLOSED. LJC DID NOT SEEK ATTORNEYS' FEES IN THIS CASE. 42. OIL & GAS WORKERS ASSOCIATION V. BIDEN LJC REPRESENTED THE OIL & GAS WORKERS ASSOCIATION IN A CHALLENGE TO THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S PAUSE ON NEW AND PENDING LNG EXPORT APPLICATIONS. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LACKED AUTHORITY UNDER THE NATURAL GAS ACT TO HALT ALL LNG EXPORT APPROVALS AND THAT THE PAUSE VIOLATED SEPARATION-OF-POWERS PRINCIPLES AND RULEMAKING REQUIREMENTS. THE ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED APPROXIMATELY 47,000 WORKERS WHOSE LIVELIHOODS DEPENDED ON THE LNG EXPORT INDUSTRY. ON JANUARY 22, 2025, PRESIDENT TRUMP ISSUED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER REVERSING THE LNG PAUSE AND DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT TO RESUME CONSIDERATION OF PENDING APPLICATIONS. THE CASE WAS DISMISSED AFTER THE PLAINTIFFS NO LONGER NEEDED RELIEF. LJC DID NOT SEEK ATTORNEYS' FEES IN THIS CASE. 43. SCHOLL V. ILLINOIS STATE POLICE LJC REPRESENTS COOK COUNTY RESIDENTS CHALLENGING ILLINOIS' AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM. THE CASE ALLEGES THAT ILLINOIS INSTALLED AND EXPANDED HUNDREDS OF HIGHWAY CAMERAS THAT CAPTURE IMAGES, DATES, TIMES, GPS COORDINATES, AND IDENTIFYING FEATURES OF VEHICLES PASSING BY, STORING TRAVEL DATA FOR FUTURE LAW-ENFORCEMENT USE. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGES THAT STATEWIDE COLLECTION AND RETENTION OF VEHICLE-LOCATION DATA WITHOUT WARRANT OR SUSPICION CONSTITUTES AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. THE CASE REMAINS PENDING AFTER 2025 LITIGATION ACTIVITY. AMICUS BRIEFS FILED DURING CALENDAR YEAR 2025 (JANUARY 1, 2025 - DECEMBER 31, 2025): DRUMMOND V. OKLAHOMA STATEWIDE VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD GARLAND V. TEXAS TOP COP SHOP TEXAS TOP COP SHOP V. BONDI DUBASH V. CITY OF HOUSTON CROWE V. STATE BAR OF OREGON OLIVER V. CITY OF BRANDON LITTLEJOHN V. SCHOOL BOARD OF LEON COUNTY PROJECT VERITAS V. SCHMIDT CHILES V. SALAZAR JONATHAN R. V. MORRISEY VITSAXAKI V. SKANEATELES CENTRAL SCHOOL REAM V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY HEAPS V. DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION TODD V. AFSCME FIRST CHOICE WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTERS, INC. V. PLATKIN NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION FOOTE V. LUDLOW SCHOOL COMMITTEE OLIVIER V. CITY OF BRANDON WOOLARD V. THURMOND FILYAW V. CORSI UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT V. UNITED STATES BUCKEYE V. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WOLFORD V. LOPEZ FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11B PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO THE IRS, THE FORM 990 IS GIVEN TO ALL INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS OF THE BOARD AND THEY REVIEW IT WITH THE AUDITOR. FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C THE ORGANIZATION REVIEWS THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST POLICY ONCE A YEAR WITH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND EMPLOYEES AND INQUIRES OF ANY MATERIAL CHANGES. THE BOARD ALSO COMPLETES PERIODIC REVIEWS TO IDENTIFY ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15 THE ANNUAL PROCESS FOR DETERMINING COMPENSATION IS AS FOLLOWS: THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE SHALL ANNUALLY EVALUATE THE PRESIDENT AND OTHER HIGHLY COMPENSATED INDIVIDUALS ON HIS/HER PERFORMANCE, AND ASK FOR HIS/HER INPUT ON MATTERS OF PERFORMANCE AND COMPENSATION. THE COMMITTEE ALSO EXAMINES COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS DATA IN COMPARABLE POSITIONS AT SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS IN THE INDUSTRY COUNTRYWIDE. THE DATA USED FOR COMPARABILITY INCLUDE COMPENSATION STUDIES BY INDEPENDENT SOURCES, WRITTEN JOB OFFERS FOR POSITIONS AT SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS, AND REVIEW OF IRS FORM 990 FOR SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS. THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE THEN SENDS ITS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL. FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 ALL GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, POLICIES, AND AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WILL BE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. FORM 990, PART IX, LINE 11G CONSULTING: PROGRAM SERVICE EXPENSES 31. MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL EXPENSES 0. FUNDRAISING EXPENSES 924. TOTAL EXPENSES 955. OTHER: PROGRAM SERVICE EXPENSES 0. MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL EXPENSES 15,779. FUNDRAISING EXPENSES 77. TOTAL EXPENSES 15,856. LEGAL CASEWORK: PROGRAM SERVICE EXPENSES 2,768,371. MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL EXPENSES 0. FUNDRAISING EXPENSES 0. TOTAL EXPENSES 2,768,371. FORM 990, PART XI, LINE 9: DONATED LEGAL SERVICES -1,205,220. FORM 990, PART XII, LINE 2C: THE PROCESS HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE THE PRIOR YEAR.