Do you want to use your law degree to work on cutting-edge constitutional cases, stop government abuse of power, set long-range precedent, and champion the rights of all Americans?
The Institute for Justice offers unique opportunities for attorneys.
Outlined below is detailed information for attorneys interested in litigation. For a full list of our openings, visit our Careers Page.
Lateral Attorney Hires
Committed to using your litigation experience to advance liberty? IJ offers an unparalleled opportunity to use your law degree to make a difference while handling high-impact litigation. Each year we look to grow our attorney ranks with outstanding lateral attorneys with three or more years of litigation experience.
Tired of taking the backseat on cases? Attorneys develop their own cases, direct legal strategy, take depositions, and present oral arguments through each stage of litigation up to and including the Supreme Court. Often, attorneys gain deposition and oral argument experience within their first 18-24 months.
Looking to expand your skillset? IJ attorneys are also expected to be active outside the courtroom, with responsibilities including media writing and appearances, public speaking, grassroots activism, and direct advocacy to policymakers and legislators.
We accept applications throughout the year, with the bulk of our new hires joining each August/September.
For me, IJ made the decision easy: Real work-life balance, brilliant and friendly colleagues, competitive salaries and generous benefits, and ample opportunities to develop, litigate, and win cutting-edge constitutional cases.”
Judicial Clerks
At the Institute for Justice, we find that our top attorney recruits are those with clerkship experience. These attorneys have the intellectual firepower, best on-the-job training, and strong legal writing skills necessary to hit the ground running on our cutting-edge litigation. We have three opportunities for attorneys coming from clerkships. Read more below to see which position is best for you:
- Litigation Fellowship: Our Litigation Fellowship is IJ’s preferred path for junior attorneys looking to start their career in public interest litigation. This is a two-year program for attorneys with less than three years of litigation experience. Fellows are full members of case teams, and they get to work directly with clients. They benefit from additional programming including mentorship opportunities and expert media training. IJ offers tiered clerkship bonuses for Litigation Fellow candidates coming directly from a clerkship at the federal district and appellate court level as well as the highest court in any state or the District of Columbia.
- Bingham Fellowship (in-between clerkships): We recognize that judicial clerks often have gaps in between clerkships. We offer an opportunity to use that time to gain meaningful experience and training in public interest litigation. Bingham Fellows come to IJ for 1-2 years either before or in between clerkships. During this time, Bingham Fellows are immersed in IJ litigation. They are full members of case teams, work directly with clients and, like all new litigation recruits, benefit from expert media training and our mentorship program.
- Lateral Hire: Attorneys with more than 3 years of litigation experience often join us as lateral attorneys.
Find out how you can contribute to IJ’s mission to expand individual liberty while gaining unparalleled strategic litigation experience.
“Practicing law wasn’t part of the plan—I studied music in college. That plan, however, changed forever when the government persecuted my parents for the crime of running a small business. Our freedoms are as vulnerable as they are precious, and I am thrilled and humbled that I joined IJ following my 5th Circuit clerkship. Through the Litigation Fellowship and now as an IJ Attorney, I’ve been able to help IJ defend and advance freedoms that make a difference in people’s lives. During my fellowship, I participated in case-dispositive oral argument; I deposed key government witnesses; and I cross-examined hostile witnesses at trial—experiences I doubt I’d have had in my first year or two as an associate at Big Law.”
New Lawyers & Recent Law School Graduates
The Institute for Justice is dedicated to training young lawyers from the moment they graduate law school. For attorneys with 0-3 years of litigation experience, a commitment to IJ’s mission, and an interest in pursuing public interest law, IJ offers its Litigation Fellowship:
- The Litigation Fellowship is a two-year program in which Fellows work alongside IJ attorneys to litigate cutting-edge constitutional cases and advance a rule of law under which individuals can control their own destinies. This Fellowship is now IJ’s preferred path for candidates with less than three years of litigation experience.
- Upon completion, Fellows are considered for permanent employment.
- Fellows are full members of case teams and participate in every stage of litigation, including working directly with clients. Fellows, like all new litigation recruits, benefit from professional development, mentorship opportunities, and expert media training.
- We actively seek applicants who have judicial clerkship experience, and recognize the benefits of the insights and training conferred by a judicial clerkship. Judicial clerkship experience (not required, but strongly preferred). IJ offers tiered clerkship bonuses for Litigation Fellow candidates coming directly from a clerkship at the federal district and appellate court level as well as the highest court in any state or the District of Columbia.
- Base salary compensation exceeds the government’s General Schedule (GS) pay scale.
- Hiring for the Litigation Fellowship begins in December.
Law Students
The Institute for Justice offers a variety of opportunities for law students to contribute to IJ’s cutting-edge constitutional litigation and advocacy work throughout the year.
Find out how you can contribute to IJ’s mission to expand individual liberty while gaining unparalleled strategic litigation experience.
Our opportunities include:
- Law Student Conference: IJ’s signature summer event brings law students from across the country together for an immersive weekend experience. Students learn about IJ and public interest law. This annual tradition of nearly thirty years takes place in our Arlington, VA headquarters.
- Legal Intensive: This new format is a one-day introduction to public interest law held at law schools or in other cities around the country.
- Dave Kennedy Fellowship: IJ’s summer program for talented rising 2L and 3L law students. Fellows work closely with IJ attorneys to develop litigation strategies and assist in the nuts and bolts of cutting-edge civil rights litigation, including propounding and responding to discovery requests, drafting motions and briefs, and preparing for hearings.
- Semester Clerks: IJ offers fall and spring semester clerkships at all six of our offices around the country!
Hear From Our Attorneys
At IJ, we are passionate about empowering individuals to fight for their rights. But what is it like to be on the front lines of this fight? Read these testimonials to hear directly from our attorneys about their favorite aspects of working at IJ.
Dave and Amy Carson challenged Maine’s exclusion of religious schools from the state’s tuitioning program. They took on that battle not only for their daughter, but also to advocate for other Maine families who wanted the freedom to choose the best education for their children. In what was an incredible opportunity for a young lawyer, I got to join the IJ team (led by the inimitable Michael Bindas) representing the Carsons when their case made it to the Supreme Court. In a landmark 6-3 ruling, the Court ruled that Maine’s exclusion of religious schools violated the Carsons’ First Amendment rights. You can’t ask for more inspiring clients than the Carsons, and it was profoundly satisfying to win a ruling that will benefit families across the country for years to come.
IJ is a special place for a young attorney not only because it offers meaningful experiences like these, but also because IJ’s “merry band of litigators” really is second to none. I have learned so much from my colleagues (like Justin Pearson, who in my first year as an IJ lawyer dropped everything to fly to Pennsylvania to accompany me at a hearing in a case that he hadn’t even been working on). And I’m constantly energized by the enthusiasm and passion they bring to their work. We also just have a ton of fun.
It’s easy—especially for those of us accustomed to work-now-so-you-can-be-happy-later gratification—to put off enjoying our work to a future day. Mantras such as “after I get experience at a firm, I’ll go public interest” or “once I have enough money to [insert financial goal], I’ll change jobs” abound in the legal field.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. I first learned about the Institute for Justice from Anya Bidwell and Jeff Rowes. During my interactions with both of them, I thought “maybe someday.” It was not until conversations with Michelle Fernald and Lisa Newman (who are also making the world a better place and paying the bills) that I realized that I didn’t have to wait for a mythical someday to arrive. Today, I am incredibly fortunate to be part of IJ, an organization that champions constitutional rights and fights tirelessly for freedom.
Take the Brinkmann family. With IJ’s help, the Brinkmanns are fighting back against a town that is using eminent domain as a weapon. The town decided to take the Brinkmanns’ property for a passive public park—a park with no improvements—after all legal routes to stop the Brinkmanns from opening their hardware store failed. I’m grateful to be part of the team working to end abuse of eminent-domain power for the Brinkmanns and for all those who find themselves in a similar situation.
Beyond the courtroom battles, collaborating with passionate and dedicated colleagues like Joshua Windham who share the same drive for justice has been an incredible source of inspiration. We motivate each other, share knowledge, and have fun at work (shocking, I know)!
Kermit, a grandfather and head deacon of his church, had his money seized by DEA Drug Enforcement Administration agents, while he was traveling to inspect a tow truck he hoped to purchase for his scrapping business. He was treated like a criminal–even though traveling with cash is perfectly legal–they seized all of Kermit’s money for forfeiture. The seizure left him penniless and unable to even afford Christmas presents for his grandchildren. Fortunately, Kermit got in touch with the Institute for Justice. We opposed the forfeiture and got Kermit’s money back!
If fighting back against government Civil Rights abuses to rescue the dreams of everyday Americans–alongside intrepid colleagues like Kirby Thomas West–sounds like an appealing career to you, consider applying to work at IJ.
Just a few years out of law school, I found myself working alongside the incomparable Dan Alban at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. On behalf of Elmer and several other mom-and-pop tax preparers like him, the case team at the Institute for Justice won a resounding victory against the IRS–a victory that we’ve worked hard to preserve to this day.
One day, City Hall called and told Jeremy and Marie to close the U-Haul rental business they had operated at their auto shop for nearly ten years. Why? City Hall wanted to impress a developer who had said U-Hauls looked ugly and made the city look “old.” City Hall didn’t care that Jeremy and Marie would lose thousands in revenue and countless customers, and would have to lay off at least one employee. With help from Ari Bargil, Andrew Wimer, me, and dozens of others at the Institute for Justice, Jeremy and Marie stood up and filed a lawsuit. If you’re ever in Upstate S.C. and need a U-Haul, you’ll be happy to know you can still rent one from Jeremy and Marie today.
I did not take a typical path to the Institute for Justice. Before IJ, I practiced law for ten years, including seven years running my own law practice dedicated to representing small-business owners. The amount of government abuse I witnessed would make your blood boil, as it certainly did to mine. But fighting with the government is expensive, so most small-business owners can’t afford to do it. The government has a giant army of lawyers, and so does big business, but small-business owners are a different story.
As a result, I kept receiving the same phone calls describing the same government abuses over and over again from different clients. But they could not afford to pay me to attack the underlying problems, only to provide some modest form of “pain management.” It was soul-crushing.
Then I joined IJ eleven years ago. Ever since, I have been litigating cases that actually take on the underlying government abuse. And I have done so knowing that we have the resources to fight for as long as we need to in order to see justice done. It’s a whole different ballgame.
This work is extremely gratifying, but it is more than that: It is a dream come true. I get to work with amazing colleagues (like Diana Simpson, who victoriously argued for a temporary injunction in our case against Pasadena, Texas’ insane parking requirements) on important cases brought on behalf of truly inspiring clients. I think of them often, but I also think of my old clients from my pre-IJ days. And every time I file a new case on behalf of a small-business owner, I think to myself that this is for them too.
If suing the government and winning sounds like fulfilling work to you, then you are right!
In my first months at IJ, our Fines & Fees Coordinator flagged a news article about Humboldt County, CA, fining innocent people millions of dollars because they bought their homes from someone who used to grow weed. Humboldt is a 5-hour drive north of San Francisco and sprawls over 4,000 sq. miles. Building a class action took five separate trips to meet potential clients and tour properties. Our Activism Team helped organize a town hall out there and our Communications Team drove all over the county to produce an amazing case video (complete with drone footage). No one batted an eye at doing everything necessary to make our case as strong as possible.
On the legal side, it’s definitely been a luxury to have the team that won Timbs v. Indiana at the Supreme Court around to help sharpen our claims that Humboldt’s penalties violate the Excessive Fines Clause. And there’s nothing like IJ moots to make sure you’re ready for anything when you walk into court.
IJ is always bringing on new top talent to work across our five offices. Not long after I started, we hired Christie Mason Hebert & Brian Morris, both of whom jumped right in and made our team even stronger. If you’re sick of your corporate firm crushing your soul, come work at IJ!
One of these is the Catherine H. Barber Memorial Shelter in North Wilkesboro, NC. The shelter, which first opened more than 30 years ago and is the only homeless shelter in Wilkes County, sought to move to a new location that had been donated by a local dentist. But the town’s zoning board stood in the way. The board refused to grant a necessary permit, claiming that the shelter wasn’t harmonious with the neighbors despite meeting all the requirements of the zoning code.
That’s not right, and it’s unconstitutional. So the Barber Shelter teamed up with IJ (with my incredible co-counsel Jeff Rowes) to stand up for its rights—and we won! Check it out: 576 F. Supp. 3d 318. Today, the shelter is hard at work renovating the property and looking forward to opening soon. And we have yet another case to cite where a federal court struck down irrational government action.
Up next: New York City’s Department of Buildings, which imposes unreviewable fines to enforce the City’s building code. I’m challenging that draconian system with Jared McClain and Bill Maurer, and it’s a lot of fun already.
Join me for the next one!
Filing a lawsuit can be a daunting prospect—especially against the government. But my clients are courageous. They want to fight for their constitutional rights. My clients are also generous. They’re not just fighting for themselves but for principles that will help vindicate everyone’s constitutional rights to pursue their dreams and to be free from abuses of government power.
And, oh boy, are my clients inspirational. For example: Forming a nonprofit to tackle the housing affordability crisis (but being blocked by their city’s zoning code). Or fleeing their country with just $60 and building a home healthcare business in America from nothing (only to learn that they can’t drive their clients to the doctor or pharmacy unless their competitors grant them permission). The list goes on. It’s such an honor to fight injustice alongside them.
Take my client, Ashley N’Dakpri, for example. She’s a lifelong hair braider who wants to use her skills to support herself and her family. But the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology says she can’t do that. Why? Because they think she needs to spend 500 hours and thousands of dollars to attend classes at a private cosmetology school and pass a written and practical exam just to braid hair. That’s not just irrational, it’s a national outlier–33 states don’t even regulate natural hair braiding, and those that do impose far less onerous licensing requirements than Louisiana. The Board says it created these requirements to protect public health and safety, but the truth reflects Huey Long-esque corruption and protectionism. By law, the Board is composed of licensed cosmetologists (who are exempt from the Board’s braiding regulations) and the owners of private cosmetology schools (who benefit directly from the braiding regulations). Aka, the Board’s members enacted these requirements to benefit themselves, not the general public.
In 2019, we filed a lawsuit against the Board on Ashley’s behalf. After 4 years of litigation, the case went to trial last month. If Ashley was a private client and had to pay for our legal services herself, this case probably wouldn’t have been filed. Even if it had, there’s no way Ashley could have shouldered 4 years of litigation costs AND a trial. But she never had to worry about that, and neither did we. As an attorney, that means I get to spend my time and energy doing what I enjoy most: winning cases, working alongside (and on behalf of) wonderfully talented and passionate people, and ruining a government bureaucrat’s day. And we get paid better than those bureaucrats do, too.
That’s all especially true in First Amendment retaliation cases, where bad constitutional doctrine and immunity doctrines combine to shield even the most obvious bad behavior by vindictive officials–and where relatively small economic damages scare off non-public-interest lawyers. Take, for example, the case of William Fambrough, who campaigned against his city’s mayor using his truck. The most senior officials at city hall conspired to have the truck towed and severely damaged under an ordinance the city literally *never* enforced . Or take Waylon Bailey, who made a zombie joke on Facebook at the beginning of the pandemic at the expense of his local sheriff’s office. A SWAT team descended upon him, said the next thing he wrote online “should be not to f*** with the police,” and arrested him for terrorism. Abuses like this happen far too often, but IJ is there to hold government accountable.
If mayors, city attorneys, code enforcers, sheriffs, or other officials can selectively deploy the raft of laws on the books to target the constitutional rights of citizens they don’t like, nobody’s rights are safe. I’m proud to work every day to fight back and protect the Constitution for everyday Americans across the country.
When a SWAT team from McKinney, TX, destroyed my client’s home while trying to catch a fugitive, the City refused repair the damage (it told her she “wouldn’t see a dime”), even though it acknowledged that she was not at fault. We sued the City, and IJ gave me the resources and support we needed to win, including a fantastic litigation team: Suranjan Sen, Gretchen Embrey, Casey Nasca, Robert McNamara, and Will Aronin. The federal court held that even though apprehending dangerous criminals is a legitimate and important governmental activity, the Fifth Amendment to the constitution requires the government to compensate innocent people who are injured by the intentional acts of law enforcement.
It is a fact that lawyers and lawyering costs money. Most people could never afford to hire an attorney to fight back against the government, especially when, in the name of judicial deference, there is a thumb on the scale already. And lawyers have to be honest with their clients and say it will often cost more to fight than to just give in.
IJ makes sure we have the resources, support, and time we need to litigate the right way. And because we only represent our clients for free, we, and they, are free to fight for principles.
So we have the ability to do things other lawyers cannot. Spending hundreds of hours to fight hair braiding licensing. Dropping everything to fly to a different state to help a community oppose redevelopment eminent domain at a hearing that is next week. Or litigating for years for the right to sue for $1, because that is the only way your clients will ever get have their due process rights vindicated.
My clients, Bryan Singer and Erika Nordyke, have lived in their home in Orange City, Iowa, for several years. In 2021, after enacting a new inspection program, Orange City officials threatened to search Bryan and Erika’s home without *any* evidence of a code violation or wrongdoing. So, as many people would, Bryan and Erika refused to let a stranger poke around their home for no good reason. And if Bryan and Erika *owned* their home, that would be the end of this story; after all, the government normally needs a warrant supported by “probable cause” to enter someone’s home without their consent. But because Bryan and Erika *rent* their home (like more than a third of Americans), Orange City is trying to search their home using a suspicionless “administrative” warrant.
In 2021, we filed a lawsuit against Orange City on behalf of Bryan, Erika, and other people threatened with suspicionless home searches. Despite our Nation’s historical respect for the home and opposition to suspicionless, drag-net searches, federal courts have gradually diminished those protections for renters. Many attorneys would have told Bryan and Erika that they were out of luck. But part of what makes my work so enjoyable is that IJ pursues legal avenues that have been ignored or, just as often, not considered. This May, after two years of litigation, I argued in state court that the Iowa Constitution protects Bryan and Erika’s right to be secure in their home.