Talk:Institute for Justice

August 2006
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)

June 2008
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)

Fair use rationale for Image:IJ-Logo-green.gif
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 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)


 * The rationale, etc., has been added to the image, as demanded by our robot masters. --12.38.2.160 (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

4 cases in which IJ works to free entrepreneurs from opportunity-killing regulations
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)

Article needs much improvement
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)

This article is a company brochure, and it should be tagged as such. Edit: after going over the sources, they're all from the company, I tagged it as Advert|article Jack mcdowell (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not un-tag the article unless it is made into an encyclopedic article. As it stands now it should be marked for speedy deletion, but it seems to be a somewhat relevant organization. Jack mcdowell (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree that better references needed. Rounding up references now.James Cage (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

Criticism?
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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

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

Links
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Public interest law firm
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)
 * 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)
 * 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 citation needed tag.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * That makes sense. James Cage (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

Organization of "Litigation" section
The organization and subsection headings of the "Litigation" section ("Economic Liberty," "Property Rights," "Free Speech," and "School Choice") are not neutral. These are framed the way IJ might want them, not in a more substantive and informative way. The section should be reorganized with subsections such as "Business regulations," "Bone marrow transplants," "Eminent domain," "Civil forfeiture," "Campaign finance," and "School forfeitures." There is also some language here and there that appears to distance IJ from its pro-business focus, e.g. "Not all cases in this category involve business regulations." This type of language should be removed, as the facts speak for themselves and we shouldn't be editorializing in this way. Feedback appreciated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I wrote it, so I don't feel it's editorializing in any way. :) Starting from the end, the line "Not all cases in this category involve business regulations" just shows that cases can overlap in the categories. The article clearly covers the organization's work to promote what it considers "free enterprise" (which the founders contrast with being "pro business"). And it is of course factual. Regarding the grouping of cases, the fact that the organization groups cases in this way informs the reader about how the group organizes itself, which I think is relevant to understanding the organization and the actions it takes. I disagree with reorganizing the section by case topic, as this would be unwieldy, difficult to keep current, and would necessarily leave large gaps in the presentation of what the organization does. For example, "Business regulations" and "Bone marrow transplants" would overlap, and a complete listing of case types that have received press coverage and influenced policy would be dozens, possible 100s of topics long. But given that I contributed to how this was structured, I do think that listening to more voices before deciding to act (or not act) is appropriate. Thanks - James Cage (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think readers care much about how IJ is organized. I think they care a lot more about its activities. If there is a desire to describe how IJ is organized that can be in a separate "Organization" section rather than in the "Activities" section. The fact that, by your own admission, you wrote this section to reflect what IJ is trying to promote, in the language that IJ considers appropriate, suggests to me that the current language is promotional rather than neutral.
 * As for your comment that a complete listing would be unwieldy, overlapping and require "possible 100s of topics," we do this sort of categorization and summarization every day at Wikipedia. IJ's activities can be divided into broad, informative categories. I'm not wedded to the ones I proposed. If there's some overlap, fine, and if there are some leftovers, fine. These concerns don't trump our obligation to write neutrally. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I didn't write this section to reflect what this organization is trying to promote. I didn't "admit" that. Let's avoid putting people on trial here - we are on the same team. The statement is factual, period. The organization of this section is (in my opinion) convenient, accurate, and adds to the understanding of the reader. I don't agree that readers won't care about how the organization is organized - that would invalidate a lot more of this article than just one sentence, as well as large portions of the articles on basically every organization on Wikipedia. I agree that activities are important - there is no conflict between the two. I could be wrong - I will "admit" that. :) Let's see what some other editors say about this. In the meantime, I understand that you are trying to improve Wikipedia. So am I - let's both keep that in the front of our minds. Thanks James Cage (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it wasn't my intention to put you on the defensive. You did say you wrote this section and that it "clearly covers the organization's work to promote what it considers 'free enterprise' (which the founders contrast with being 'pro business')." What I was clumsily trying to say is that we shouldn't be writing our "Activities" section to reflect what IJ is trying to promote or what it considers to be this or that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. In the line you quoted, I was not referring to the organization of the article. I was referring to the sentence "Not all cases in this category involve business regulations". I think we can separate that sentence (and any other text you feel is distancing or appears to be editorial) from the discussion of the organization of this section. I believe that the way the Institute for Justice has organized their cases gives insight into their activities and adds to the understanding of the reader. There is no intent to reflect its promotion, and I don't agree that the current organization exists to help the organization promote itself or its ideas. I further don't agree that reorganizing would help the reader or make the article more neutral - that's our difference of opinion as I see it. Thanks - James Cage (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What drew me to this issue was some of the heading language that was used, e.g. "Free Speech" for a subsection that's about campaign finance and tour guide licensing. "Free Speech" misleadingly suggests IJ is some sort of ACLU/FSC-type organization. That's merely one specific example of how the current language is non-neutral. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be funny or argumentative, but IJ is an ACLU-type organization. And it's litigating in many of the same areas as the ACLU, including I believe the one you mentioned. To say that "free speech" applies to the ACLU's activities but not to IJ would be non-neutral. They both litigate in the same area (sometimes on the same side, sometimes on different sides), and it's not for me to say which one of them is really for "freedom" and which one isn't. James Cage (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I hear you. I have no problem with the text saying such-and-such case involved free speech issues, or even saying something about how many of IJ's cases touch on free speech issues, but categorizing these cases under a "Free Speech" heading is like headlining Citizens United v. FEC as a free speech case--technically correct, but terribly misleading nonetheless. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is similar to the "civil interest law" discussion. "Free Speech" and "Civil Interest" are categories of law practice, and the ACLU, IJ, and other organizations swim in those waters. Removing these terms would just make it harder for the reader to understand these organizations and how they relate to each other, particularly given that they are liberally applied in articles such as the ACLU Wikipedia entry. Good discussion -thanks. James Cage (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not very informative to label Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett or the tour guide case as free speech cases. It's enough to explain that IJ argued that the regulations violated free speech rights--which is what the article does. By reorganizing the section we're not removing these terms, we're merely framing them in a more informative and disinterested way. (Btw, the tour guide case needs updating - the DC Circuit ruled in favor of the IJ's position.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Re Citizens United v. FEC. I think it's very clearly a free speech case, and not just technically so. It's a 1st Amendment case. Both sides claimed to be in favor of free speech. I think the section heading is misleading only if we decide that one side was fighting for freedom of speech and the other side wasn't. I think the same can be said for all the cases in this section. James Cage (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can certainly take that position, but I doubt it would get much traction at Talk:Citizens United v. FEC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * When I want to know if a case is about free speech, I generally skip the talk page and go to the article itself, which in this case states that this is a 1st Amendment case and refers to freedom of speech thirty times. Hey, this section is getting unwieldy. I will write a summary of arguments for keeping this organization, and I encourage you to do the same for listing it topically, if you still believe that is appropriate. James Cage (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Summary of “Keep Organization As-Is” position
The organization groups cases in this way. This is a fact, and this fact is referenced. This fact is important to the reader’s understanding of the organization, and of its activities. Example: grouping cases involving tour guides and cases opposing campaign financing of public elections into the category of “Freedom of Speech” is not intuitive. Knowing that IJ does this gives the reader insights into how it litigates, and why it litigates. Removing the categories, or changing the description by adding qualifiers that are not supported by references would remove valuable information from this article. Simply listing cases by topic (alphabetically?) would detract from understanding this organization, because the fact that the Institute for Justice believes that they are related is relevant to this article.

Does this organization ACTUALLY support freedom of speech? Is opposing public funding of elections in some cases actually a good thing for freedom of speech? We all have opinions about that, but this article is not about us or our opinions. It is about the Institute for Justice. By stating how the organization organizes its cases, we are not taking a position either way, which is entirely appropriate. James Cage (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't feel the need to re-hash my position. I'll just point out that what you're describing as how IJ organizes its cases is actually how IJ describes its cases to the public. Well, not entirely, IJ describes its "Four Pillars" as "Economic Liberty," "Private Property," "School Choice," and "First Amendment," but we're fairly close to that. In any case, this is merely how IJ markets itself to the public. It might have a completely different way of organizing its cases internally, or to donors. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The four categories you list above do not appear in this article. The categories that do appear in this article are exactly how this organizes its cases to the public. As proof, please see the reference that appears after the sentence which reads, "It groups its cases into four areas: Economic liberty, property rights, free speech, and school choice." The referenced statement is clearly not intended to describe how this organization manages its filing cabinets.

To be clear, the way that a public interest law firm publicly defines the areas that it operates in, and publicly assigns its cases to those areas is important to understanding that organization and its activities. I will modify the sentence to read "It publicly groups its cases into four areas: Economic liberty, property rights, free speech, and school choice." Is this enough for you to remove the POV tag on your own? Can we add references or re-word this sentence to address your concerns, without removing factual, referenced, and important information from this article? Thanks - James Cage (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so. I see these headings as something akin to IJ marketing-speak--I trust that is not your intent, but they come off that way to me at least. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the "Free speech" section heading is the one that disturbs DrF. Could it be rendered more balanced as "Free speech and election law" ? That seems to be accurate. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a step in the right direction, but I'm not comfortable with it. "Election law" is fine, I have no issue with that language beside that "campaign finance" is a touch more specific and informative, but I don't like "free speech." Calling these cases "free speech and election law" cases is like calling Citizens United a "free speech and election law" case. It's just not neutral. It's a campaign finance (or election law) case. Free speech is just the legal mechanism that was used to resolve it, and it's too closely associated with lots of totally unrelated cases (such as wearing a "Fuck the Draft!" jacket in the courthouse and all that). If someone asked you at cocktail party, "Hey, that Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett case, what was that about?" you wouldn't say it was a free speech case, you'd say it was a campaign finance case. The only people who might say it was a free speech case would be ardent opponents of campaign finance regulation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To provide another analogy, saying these are "free speech" cases is like saying a case about abortion is actually a due process case. Or a "due process and abortion" case, under Capitalsmojo's proposal. Technically accurate, but confusing and misleading. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Reading the section it seems the judges disagree with that assessment. They were ruling on free speech grounds, neh? "Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the law forced independent groups to face a choice: "trigger matching funds, change your message, or do not speak." Capitalismojo (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Would "Election law and free speech" or "Election law and First Amendment issues" be better headers? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Election law and First Amendment issues" would be more neutral. It's terribly awkward but I could live with it. Btw, as I noted, the "Free speech" heading was just an example of the neutrality problem. All of these issues would go away if we categorized the cases by more specific subject matter ("eminent domain" instead of "property rights," etc. etc.). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Property rights" sand "School choice" seem pretty standard. The other one...hmmm. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Property rights" and "School choice" are value-laden labels used by one side of these debates. (The labels used by the other side of these debates are "urban blight" and "education funding.") The neutral, non-value laden terms are "eminent domain" and "school vouchers." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Property rights" is a value-laden term? I have literally never heard that expressed. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you haven't. It's the standard rallying cry for libertarians who want less eminent domain and less land use regulation. (Notice how in a Google search for "property rights", the first three hits are the libertarian Econlib, Wikipedia, and the Heritage Foundation. Our article on libertarianism lists property rights as one of 6 items under the "Philosophy" section.) In the eminent domain context, the government says, we need this land to address urben blight (in Kelo) or serve some other perceived public good. The land owner says, hands off, I have property rights. In that sense it represents only one side of the debate and is non-neutral. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It does seem as though the "Free speech" sub-heading is the crux of this issue. Is it at all relevant that other articles have "Free speech" as sub headings, such as the ACLU article? Does having "Free speech" in that subject heading imply that Wikipedia is endorsing the activities of the ACLU? Would removing the section heading here imply that Wikipedia disagrees with the Institute for Justice? I would argue "No" for the first, as "Free speech" is a category of law practice, one that the ACLU self-describes as important to that organization. I would argue that changing the category in the IJ article would be non-neutral for exactly the same reason. We are here to describe the IJ. We have no golden lasso that allows us to judge its sincerity. (And if we did, I don't know how to use "Lasso of Truth" as a reference - this may in fact be impossible.)


 * We could change the name of this section heading - but do we have references for new section names? Again, the article clearly demonstrates, with references, that the section headings are simply the categories that this organization uses. In any case, this article is about the Institute for Justice, and not the issues that it litigates. James Cage (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The ACLU's "free speech" practice is completely different from IJ's "free speech" practice - the ACLU's practice conforms much more closely with the average reader's expectation of what "free speech" generally means. In any case, we shouldn't get too hung up on keeping the IJ and ACLU articles consistent--consistency shouldn't a a barrier to improving both articles. And, I'm certain we can find reliable sources associating these cases with labels such as "eminent domain" and the other categories I've proposed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Value-laden Terms: Not sure what the best practice is for replying to a discussion in the middle of a text block, so I called it out here. Regarding this comment by Dr F.: "'Property rights' and 'School choice' are value-laden labels used by one side of these debates. (The labels used by the other side of these debates are 'urban blight' and 'education funding.')" Note that Wikipedia has separate articles on "Property Rights" and "Urban Blight", so they are not the same issue. Wikipedia has an article on "School Choice," but no article on "Education Funding." An attempt to change the labels in the IJ article will, necessarily, change the meaning. Terms like "Property rights," "Free speech", etc. may be value-laden, but this is a public interest law firm working in value-laden areas. Using value laden terms is unavoidable, and should not be avoided if these terms are used by the organization to describe its activities.
 * The effort to change these section headings seems to be completely based on the belief that members of this organization (and other who agree) are only using free speech as an excuse to oppose campaign finance laws. (With similar beliefs for the other areas mentioned.) The people who claim to support free speech in this way are therefore lying. This is clearly a non-neutral judgment, and basing changes on this judgmental belief will yield non-neutral and inaccurate results. The converse is NOT true - using a section heading like "Free speech" does NOT imply that most of these people (or in fact any of these people) are sincere. These are simply the words they use to describe their activities. Even if we knew they are lying (we don't), that would not give us the right to change the words they use, or to put words in their mouths that we find more agreeable. We can't take away someone else's right to use words. Thanks - James Cage (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we have a fundamental disagreement over how WP:NPV is to work. The process of creating articles of neutral tone and language necessarily requires the input of editors' subjective perceptions. We arrive at neutral, disinterested language by sharing those perceptions and coming to some mutual understanding of them. Please trust me that I do believe IJ considers itself to be fighting for freedom and free speech. But that doesn't mean our article should adopt that perspective. The precise goal here, as for any WP article, is to present the material in a way that an a neutral, independent third party would, and specifically not how the subject of the article (or its opponents) would (unless the two are the same, of course). Pardon the strong language, but I honestly think your approach is fundamentally incompatible with the community's NPV standard. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Combining my response to your last two comments: I respect your opinion, but I disagree. The fact that IJ's perspective on "Free speech" may be different than the average reader's expectation is exactly why that term should be used here. This article cannot inform the reader about IJ's perspective on free speech if we are not allowed to use the words "Free speech." Censoring their words is not neutral and does not lead to a neutral article. Thanks again - good discussion. James Cage (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we're at loggerheads. DR? RFC or NPOVN? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Now you're just making up words! Just kidding. We could leave this for a week or two, and see what other editors contribute to this discussion. Or take one of the other routes on your list. I will leave this up to your judgement. James Cage (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's wait a week. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * While we wait - here's an idea. The "Property Rights" sub-section starts with this sentence: "The organization's litigation in the area of private property rights includes cases involving perceived abuse of eminent domain and civil forfeiture." Would something similar at the start of the "Free Speech" subsection address your concerns? I believe that the first sentence in the Litigation section demonstrates that these are the IJ's definition of these terms, but perhaps a clarification would help. I've added this sentence, "The Institute for Justice's litigation in this area involves what it considers limitations on political and commercial speech." Does this clarify that IJ uses these terms in a way that may not be what the reader might have expected? Thanks - James Cage (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This type of language is equivalent to a POV-section tag. It signals to the reader that the material that follows isn't neutral--but it still doesn't absolve us of the duty to make the material neutral. So, I support the inclusion of this language in the interim, despite its redundancy with the existing tag, but not as a long-term solution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, but I see they do fall into WP:WEASEL. I will undo this edit. I will plan to change the sentence in the Property Rights section, but I will wait until this disagreement is resolved. Are you asking that only the section headings be removed, or are you also proposing that we delete the quote at the beginning of the Litigation section? In other words, would we state how the organization groups its cases, then present the cases in alphabetical order? Or remove a quote and the information it contains? Or would we reword the subject organization's quotation because we don't like the words they used? Thanks - James Cage (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was unclear. The indirect quote I refer to is the sentence that starts, "It publicly groups its cases ..." and not the one that begins "According to the organizatin ..." James Cage (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment, Litigation Section
This section groups this public interest law firm's cases by subject. This has triggered an NPOV dispute. See above. Thanks James Cage (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * How about each side in this dispute write one sentence of not more than 20 words stating their position.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Leave As Is: This organization believes cases are related by underlying principles. These relationships, and the terms the organization uses to describe these principles, are key to understanding the organization. Separating the cases removes relevant information, and changing "free speech" (for example) to some other term eliminates information on how this organization views free speech. James Cage (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Change: The categories are non-neutral because they use libertarian catchphrases and reflect how IJ markets itself rather than how these cases would be described by a non-ideological observer. E.g. a neutral observer would call Kelo v. City of New London an "eminent domain" case, not a "property rights" case. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Change "Free Speech" to "Campaign Finance." The other sections should be left as is, as they adequately describe the cases. GregJackP   Boomer!   07:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey – The section includes cases involving tour guides. The fact that IJ’s concept of “free speech” includes helping tour guides and opposing some campaign finance reform is important in an article about IJ. Changing the category labels (or removing them entirely) will remove this valuable information from the article. Changing this category to “Campaign finance” will also contradict the reference: http://www.ij.org/cases. This article is not about free speech, property rights, etc. We don’t need to debate those topics. This article is about IJ, and we should cover what IJ actually does. It is a referenced fact that IJ groups its cases in the way described in our existing article.


 * It has been suggested elsewhere that we make up new topic headings that we think are neutral, and then go looking for references that support our new labels. In my opinion, deciding what to say and then looking for references is not "neutral". It's more accurate (and far, far easier) to let the facts lead us, and not the other way around. Thanks! James Cage (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Update - Since this discussion started, IJ has changed the term it uses for these cases. It now uses "First Amendment" (see http://www.ij.org/cases). Can we agree to change "Free speech" to "First Amendment", and leave it at that? Thanks! James Cage (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia article, not a marketing pamphlet for IJ. Whether they choose to change terms or not is their right, but doesn't effect what occurs here. LavaBaron (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , I respect that, but this is an article about IJ. These categories show how IJ views issues in society, and applies those views to litigation. We can't do that unless we show that eminent domain (for example) is viewed by IJ as being a private property rights issue. Changing the category to "Eminent Domain" (one proposal) would be changing the message to say that IJ views eminent domain to be an eminent domain issue ... which is pointless. Regarding First Amendment, I don't believe that anyone is saying that any of the cases in that section are NOT First Amendment cases, so that may be a good compromise in any case. Thanks! James Cage (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Leave as is. Frankly I don't see what the fuss is about.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , the issue (for me at least) is that the current categorization scheme reflects IJ's marketing efforts rather than the bulk of reliable independent sources; it uses libertarian catchphrases rather than more informative, non-ideological terms. E.g. "eminent domain" is more informative and less value-laden than "property rights," which only reflects one side of Kelo v. City of New London. Mainstream sources do not call Kelo a "property rights" case, nor does our article on the case. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Change - the headers should be as un-POV as possible. For example, what is categorized here as "economic liberty" might be described by folks on the other side as "economic anarchy"; simply grouping them as "commerce" would allow much the same grouping without judging one way or th'other. If the titles are to remain describing the Institute's POV, then that should be made explicit in the text (i.e., "Cases that the IfJ consider as representing their defense of economic liberty include the following:") Note: I am entering this discussion because Fleischman suggested it to those of us who had been involved in a similar discussion over at Talk:Thomas More Law Center; I don't think that qualifies as WP:CANVASS because the discussion involved just two editors, who were on opposite sides of the issue, so it does not appear to be an attempt to unbalance the discussion.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , the intro to the Litigation section handles this. It reads, "[IJ] groups its cases into four areas ..." Further, the property rights section includes the following: "The organization's litigation in the area of private property rights includes cases involving perceived abuse of eminent domain and civil forfeiture." Thanks!James Cage (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Close RfC and Consider Renaming all Sections  Weak Leave as is I find DrFleischman's and User:NatGertler's points convincing in that some of the sectional titles represent obvious argument framing. However, responding strictly to the structure of the RfC - should this be grouped sectionally - I agree it should be; I also, however, support a renaming of those sections to more value neutral terms and would like to see a separate proposal for that. LavaBaron (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , perhaps the RfC is a bit ambiguous, but I'm confident would agree with me that the dispute isn't about whether the cases should be grouped sectionally (he and I both think it should be), but about how they should be grouped sectionally and specifically about what section headings we should use. Since James opened the RfC I'll let him tweak it for clarity. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I came here from the feedback request service so don't know the background. If the RfC is amended, I'd appreciate it if someone pinged me so I can adjust my !vote accordingly. As it is, it's a little unconventional since it doesn't propose a question so I was left to guess what kind of comments were being requested. LavaBaron (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , all of the proposals for new section headings I've seen leave cases out. Changing "Property Rights" to "Eminent Domain" leaves out civil forfeiture. "Campaign Finance" leaves out tour guides, etc. Are we just going to add categories until we cover everything? If so, we'll just end up listing the cases in alphabetical order, which and I both think is a very bad idea. Simply reporting the facts, with an unequivocal reference, is easier, factual, and useful to the reader. But if we must change the categories, how should we change the intro, which currently reads, "[IJ] groups its cases into four areas ..." Should it be changed to read, "We, the editors of Wikipedia, group its cases as follows ..."? If the five or six of us agree on a few dozen new categories (we won't), is there a citation template that covers our blah blah blah? :) The way this organization actually groups cases is factual and referenced. (And although I don't think it matters, if "property rights" is a libertarian catchphrase, then the Wikipedia article on that subject is wildly inaccurate. I suggest we edit that article too ... you do have a reference stating that this is a catchphrase, right?) I'm not trying to be insulting - but I seriously want us to think before we start spewing out a dozen (or possibly dozens) of new categories, which won't add anything to the readers' understanding of IJ. And IJ is the subject of this article, not Kelo or campaign finance reform or ... Thanks! James Cage (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty confident we can come up with a neutral categorization scheme with a handful (maybe 5-6) categories, the last one being "Other cases" or somesuch for the cases that don't fit into the others. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If we are going to move cases out of some categories and into new categories, do we also remove the information on how IJ groups the cases? In any case, I am not the right person to propose new categories. Further, I don't think we can decide to make this change without knowing what those categories are. Perhaps we should close this request for comment, and open a new one for a new set of categories. We can debate the wording of each of those categories. We can debate which cases belong in which category. In my opinion, this will add nothing to the readers' understanding of the subject of this article. Or we can work to make it as clear as possible that the categories, and the terms involved, are the ones that IJ uses. That doesn't have to be neutral, because it is factual. (Actually, it's inherently neutral because it is factual.) But if we must have new categories, I am certainly not the person to propose them. Thanks! James Cage (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As per Dr. Fleischman, this is clearly what the RfC should be asking. As a neutral and disinterested recent arrival I will open a new one that places concrete options for a discussion so we can rapidly achieve a consensus one way or the other. LavaBaron (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * RfC withdrawn. This RfC was withdrawn by because another editor opened a more specific, actionable RfC (below). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Litigation section category names
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)

Survey ("yes" !vote indicates "make changes"; "no" indicates do not; if using other terms, please explain intent)

 * 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)
 * No to the proposed changes. (However, I do support closing the RfC above and considering this one instead. Thanks, LavaBaron.) "Economic liberty" (referred to as Economic freedom on Wikipedia) is a recognized civil rights subject with an article on Wikipedia. It is not the same thing as commercial regulation, as evidenced by the fact that this is a separate article. Ditto for Private property rights. First Amendment is NOT a catch phrase, and every case in this section was litigated based on the First Amendment, including cases that have nothing to do with campaign finances. School choice is the worst example - IJ was founded in large part to promote school choice, not education funding. They are absolutely different subjects. Censoring this term is like writing an article about GM and not being allowed to use the word "cars." The need for an "Other" category illustrates the fact that we are removing information from this article by substituting how IJ groups its cases with our own opinions. James Cage (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Snooze. Frankly I don't see what the fuss is about.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. The current categorization scheme reflects IJ's marketing efforts rather than the bulk of reliable independent sources; it uses libertarian catchphrases rather than more informative, non-ideological, neutral terms. E.g. "eminent domain" is more informative and less value-laden than "property rights," which only reflects one side of Kelo v. City of New London. Mainstream sources do not call Kelo a "property rights" case, nor does our article on the case. Mainstream sourced also do not call campaign finance cases "First Amendment" cases. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is an easy call. Dr. Fleischman explained it well; we should avoid contentious value-laden labels. As for school choice, if "education funding" is unsuitable I would go with "education reform" or simply "education." Neutralitytalk 22:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, I like "Education." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. Per DrFleischman & Neutrality. GregJackP   Boomer!   22:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the Snooze comment, yet if we are being this pedantic than YES, as the current phraseology can be construed as campaign slogans. If we care, make it neutral.  Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC), which ones are supposed to be NPOV?.


 * Meh It doesn't seem to be that different...if they are could we merge? Say, for example "Education funding and school choice", etc. My thought being education funding is a big bucket, this clarifies their niche and self-designated areas of litigation. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Closing Comment - I have closed this RfC as an uninvolved editor. While I was the editor who opened it, I believe I meet the qualifications of "uninvolved" on the basis of non-participation in the discussion, abstention from the survey, and no edit history on the article proper. After seven days discussion the !votes were as follows: 3 Yes, 1 Weak Yes (originally lodged as "if we are being this pedantic than YES"), 3 Abstain (originally lodged as "Abstain," "Snooze," and "Meh"), and 1 No. On this basis I feel there is a consensus to enforce the changes. An unrequested consensus also emerged during the discussion by which "School choice" should be changed to "Education" instead of "Education funding" as originally proposed. An involved editor should make these changes at this time. Dr. Fleischman and James Cage are to be congratulated for their civility in this edit disagreement and have been awarded barnstars. LavaBaron (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Use of "School Choice" in text of article
Wikipedia has articles on school choice and school vouchers. These topics are relevant to the section on education reform. I have added a link to "school choice" (in quotes, to show this term was not viewed as neutral - see discussions above) to the text of the article. Given the organization's Supreme Court litigation, I felt that including "school vouchers" in the section heading was appropriate. James Cage (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I changed the wording to match the consensus, above. GregJackP   Boomer!   16:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with the consensus and am against the use of "school choice" for two reasons. First, the term appears to be non-neutral, as the top two hits in a Google web search are to the Friedman Foundation and National School Choice Week, two political advocacy groups, and most of the hits in a Google News search are to op-eds and a handful of right-leaning media outlets. Mainstream reliable sources overwhelmingly use "school vouchers." Second, the term "school vouchers" is more specific and informative; as our article on School choice explains, school vouchers are a subset of school choice, and as far as I can tell all of the cases IJ has worked on in this area are about school vouchers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there any acceptable way to link to the Wikipedia article on school choice? It is not the same as vouchers (separate article). Organization has litigated cases regarding tax credits as well. James Cage (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , just to be clear, I believed that the consensus had to do with the section sub-headings in the litigation section, and not the text of the article itself. I believe this is a real distinction, as there is a real "school choice" movement. It includes real activities (including activities such as tax credits) not covered by vouchers. It merits a separate article in Wikipedia, and not just a re-direct of "school vouchers" or some other article., I believe you recommendations have now been followed completely. Do you feel that the neutrality warning can now be removed? If so, feel free.


 * We've created an article about the Institute for Justice that does not contain the phrase "school choice." I had to write that down - frankly, I'm stunned. I understand that this conforms to some view of neutrality, but I regret that we have eliminated factual information, and links to a real movement that exists in the real world, for the sole reason that we don't like the phrase that they use to describe their efforts. I understand that you don't agree, but I wish someone would explain why there is a separate article on our project, if the movement is in fact just a misnomer. Best regards, James Cage (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Neither case dealt with school choice, per se. It dealt with the use of vouchers, in other words, tax dollars to send children to religious schools (or public schools). The other case dealt with the use of school tax credits, sort of a vouchers in reverse. However, there is nothing on magnet schools, charter schools, homeschooling, etc., all of which make up portions of school choice. Finally, the term is POV, in that it has become a euphemism for using tax dollars to send children to schools where they will not be taught science, but will be taught religious dogma instead. Now, if that is what IJ stands for, it would be better to come out and say it rather than couch it in a euphemism. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   18:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with a reliably sourced statement explaining IJ's involvement in the school choice movement or describing IJ as an advocate for school choice. What I have a problem with is describing these cases as school choice cases. That's a subtle but important distinction. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay.James Cage (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

2018 - needs update for timbs v indiana
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)

May I get an editor's assistance in updating this page?
My name is John Kramer. I’m the Vice President for Strategic Relations at the Institute for Justice.

I have studied Wikipedia pages related to the work of the Institute for Justice, specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Justice. In the next month or so, I would like to work with a Wikipedia editor to offer some suggested updates to this page.

As required by Wikipedia standards, I want to ensure I am:

·        Being transparent about my role at the Institute for Justice,

·        Suggesting only factual edits—not making suggestions that are opinions,

·        Offering neutral third-party sources/links to verify each of the updates I’m suggesting, and

·        In the rare instance where the Institute for Justice is the only source of the information shared (such as the number of employees within our organization), I’ve provided you with a link to our website where that information can be verified. Lyrical42 (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Here are three examples (among others) of edits I would like to suggest:


 * ·       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 copious independent news links I will provide) 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. Lyrical42 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I can get around to looking at this in a couple of hours when I’m back on my laptop if someone else doesn’t get to it first. Could you also have a look at WP:COI please and add the template to your user page so anyone checking your edits in future will know you’ve declared. Thanks. Equine-man (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Very much appreciated. COI statement now added to my user page. Lyrical42 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Edits to Institute for Justice boxed material on the right
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)

Edits to "Commercial regulation" section of Institute for Justice page
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)

Suggested overhaul of "Eminent domain and civil forfeiture" section
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.

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/03/23/jerry-johnson-arizona-police-civil-asset-forfeiture/11532462002/ 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, [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/opinion/sunday/policing-for-profit-in-st-louis-county.html? 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)

Suggested changes to current "Campaign finance" section of Institute for Justice page
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 [https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/arizona-free-enterprise-clubs-freedom-club-pac-v-bennett/ 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)

Update to "Education" section on the Institute for Justice page
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)

Reply 30-JUN-2023

 * 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:

Bare URL reference formatting: 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:

Citation Style 1 formatting: 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. Which displays as: 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)


 * 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)

Suggested edits to "Commercial regulation" subsection
As previously noted, I have a declared COI as I work at the Institute for Justice.

Here are suggested edits to the page’s “Commercial regulation” subsection that will improve it accuracy and bring it up to date.

==

Under the “Activities” section under “Litigation,” it would be more accurate to change the “Commercial regulation” subsection title to “Occupational licensing.”

Why?

Because IJ does not get involved generally in “commercial regulation” generally but, instead, focuses more narrowly in the area of government licensing of occupations. Therefore, it would more accurate and descriptive of IJ’s work to use the headline “Occupational licensing” here.

In addition, the initial link in that subsection is quite dated; it is from a story that ran in 2014. A great deal of independent reporting and research has been done on this issue over the ensuing decade. Here are three much more recent independent news stories (with footnotes in their proper form) 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/ FOOTNOTE: ''Demsas, Jerusalem (February 24, 2023). “Permission-Slip Culture is Hurting America”. The Atlantic. Retrieved September 15, 2023.''

https://reason.com/2023/03/27/how-bad-are-your-states-occupational-licensing-requirements/ FOOTNOTE: ''Tuccille, J.D. (March 27, 2023). “How Bad Are State’s Occupational Licensing Requirements? Reason. Retrieved September 15, 2023.''

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/02/27/who-benefits-who-loses-from-the-occupational-licensing-system FOOTNOTE: ''Sutherland, Paige; Chakrabarti, Meghna; and Skoog, Tim (February 27, 2023). “Who Benefits, who loses from the occupational licensing system?” WBUR. Retrieved September 15, 2023.'' Lyrical42 (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * With regards to your first request, the terms Commercial regulation and Occupational licensing appear to describe the same thing, in that occupational licensing is a commercial regulation. I would need a better reason why this should be changed. With regards to your second request, the three sources you provided appear to all be editorials, which are generally not usable in Wikipedia, per WP:RSEDITORIAL. The link that is dead can still be used for now, but I would suggest checking to see if the link has already been archived at Archive.org Regards, Spintendo  21:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is understandable that you might not appreciate the myriad government regulations that can be imposed on businesses and how they differ.  Although, as I stated, the Institute for Justice litigates against occupational licensing, it does not litigate in general against government-imposed “Commercial regulation” in a host of other areas, for example:
 * ·       Environmental Regulations: Control emissions, waste disposal, and resource usage.
 * ·       Health and Safety Standards: Ensure workplace safety for employees and customers.
 * ·       Taxation Rules: Govern income, sales, property, and other taxes that businesses must pay.
 * ·       Import and Export Regulations: Control the international movement of goods.
 * ·       Intellectual Property Laws: Protect patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
 * ·       Anti-Discrimination Laws: Prohibit discrimination in hiring and workplace practices.
 * ·       Food Safety Regulations: Ensure the safety and quality of food products.
 * ·       Immigration Regulations: Determine rules for hiring foreign workers.
 * ·       Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Regulations: Set safety and health standards for various industries.
 * ·       Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): Regulate employer-sponsored retirement plans.
 * ·       Export Control Laws: Restrict the export of sensitive technologies and products.
 * ·       Intellectual Property Enforcement: Lawsuits and penalties for IP infringement.
 * ·       Hazardous Materials Handling and Storage Regulations: Govern the handling of dangerous substances.
 * ·       Clean Air Act Regulations: Control air pollution emissions from businesses.
 * ·       Affordable Care Act (ACA) Compliance: Mandate healthcare coverage for certain employers.
 * ·       Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA): Require unpaid leave for eligible employees.
 * ·       Truth in Lending Act (TILA): Ensure transparency in lending practices.
 * ·       Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Rules: Govern aviation safety and operations.
 * ·       Import Tariffs and Duties: Taxes on imported goods.
 * ·       Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Rules: Oversee the energy industry.
 * ·       Social Security Contributions: Mandate employer and employee contributions to the social security system.
 * ·       Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) Regulations: Ensure mine safety and health standards.
 * ·       Agricultural Regulations: Oversight of farming and agricultural practices.
 * ·       Federal Reserve Regulations: Regulate financial institutions and monetary policy.
 * This is a relatively short list, but with a little digging, I could provide literally thousands of other examples of areas of “Corporate regulation” IJ does not litigate.  So, in this context, my suggested edit to this section of the Institute for Justice Wikipedia page—changing “Commercial regulation” to “Occupational licensing” improves the page’s accuracy. Lyrical42 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree with Lyrical42, "Commercial Regulation" is an umbrella term that covers a *lot* of ground. There are law firms that specialize in specific areas, such as tax law, OSHA law, and especially IP and patent law. Occupational licensing is a more precise term. Jbmcb (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)