9873 research outputs found
Sort by
Tax Exempt Research Guide
Get PDFFor over a hundred years, organizations have harnessed and relied on tax exempt status to serve the public. Tax exemption is a powerful tool for social, environmental, and community well-being. This Legal Research Guide on Tax Exemption serves as a navigational compass for the public seeking to learn about tax exemption
Why the Rule of Law Matters for Nonprofits
Get PDFThe Rule of Law is what keeps tax exemption from being a political weapon and allows for nonprofit organizations to provide services the government is not providing our communities
A Brief History of Tax Exemption
Get PDFBelow is a condensed history of tax exemption. It contains an analysis of tax exemption before statutory codification in 1894. It explains how the law evolved to provide predictability and fairness in the application of an organization’s tax-exempt status
Brief of Amici Curiae Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, Service Employees International Union, American Federation of Teachers, American Association of University Professors, Center for Civil Rights and Critical Justice, Race and Law Centers, and Civil Rights and Advocacy Organizations in Support of Plaintiff, Jenner & Block v. U.S. Dep\u27t of Justice, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:25-cv-000916-JDB)
Get PDFIntroduction
When Fred Korematsu stood in the San Francisco federal district court in 1942 to challenge the constitutionality of a criminal charge that he had violated an exclusion order issued pursuant to Executive Order 9066, he was represented by pro bono counsel funded by the San Francisco office of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). But just four days after Fred’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss his criminal charges, ACLU director Roger Baldwin—wanting to avoid angering President Roosevelt—conveyed the “national board’s decision to prohibit test cases from challenging Roosevelt’s authority to issue Executive Order 9066.” Instead, local ACLU affiliates could “only argue that [General] DeWitt’s orders were arbitrary because they did not except individuals who were loyal, they covered too wide an area, and they unlawfully discriminated against Japanese Americans.” For cases already filed, the national board “advised defendants … ‘to arrange, if they desire, for counsel who will be free to raise other constitutional issues.’”
In defiance of national ACLU’s orders, Fred’s pro bono counsel appealed his conviction, continuing to argue that the forced exclusion from their homes and incarceration of Japanese Americans in camps were unlawful exercises of executive power: “We undertook to defend Korematsu and we informed him before he accepted our help that in the event he was convicted, we would undertake an appeal, if necessary, because we regarded his as a test case.” Though the Supreme Court ruled against him in 1944, Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), pro bono counsel again raised the failure of justice in his case in 1984—and this time, a federal court agreed, overturning Fred’s wartime conviction, Korematsu v. United States, 584 F. Supp. 1406 (N.D. Cal. 1984). The Supreme Court finally recognized this failure of justice when Chief Justice Roberts, in Trump v. Hawaii, declared that Korematsu had been overruled in the court of history, and that the Government’s treatment of Fred had been “gravely wrong.” 585 U.S. 667, 710 (2018).
Like Fred, countless others have depended on pro bono counsel to defend their constitutional rights. But President Trump’s recent Executive Orders targeting Jenner & Block (“Jenner”) and other law firms, Executive Orders 14230 (the “Perkins EO”), 14246 (the “Jenner EO”), and 14250 (the “WilmerHale EO”) (collectively, the “EOs”), aim to curtail firms’ pro bono work when it conflicts with the Administration’s policy goals. This violates the First Amendment rights of the firms and their clients. As the Supreme Court recently and unanimously held, “[a] government official can share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs . . . . What she cannot do, however, is use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 188 (2024)
A Man’s Home is His Castle ? Intimate Partner Violence, Firearm Surrender, and Home Searches under Article I, Section 7 of the Washington Constitution
Get PDFIntimate partner violence (IPV) remains a vexing problem in Washington. Firearms make intimate partner violence much more dangerous and, frequently, deadly. To protect victims of IPV and to reduce its severity when guns are present, the State of Washington put in place a comprehensive statutory scheme to disarm perpetrators of IPV. In 2022, however, the Washington Court of Appeals for Division II held, in State v. Flannery, that the statutory firearm surrender scheme violates article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution, which prohibits disturbing a person’s private affairs or invading their home without authority of law. This Article develops an analysis of article I, section 7 through the lens of intimate partner violence and feminist critique. It urges Washington courts to consider the historical treatment of IPV victim-survivors, the dynamics of abuse, and current implications of uncritically perpetuating notions of the sanctity of the private sphere and the home for the purpose of interpreting article I, section 7 and determining the constitutionality of home searches to enforce firearm surrender orders. Through this lens this Article revisits key article I, section 7 doctrines and standards and concludes that the firearm surrender scheme should be upheld
