The Institute for Justice fights to end government abuses of power and defends constitutional rights, empowering Americans to pursue their dreams. To end these abuses, IJ challenges the government at all legal levels, including the U.S. Supreme Court, where it has argued 13 cases spanning property rights, educational choice, economic liberty, and free speech. By winning at the highest court, IJ aims to create broad, positive impacts for all Americans.

13

Cases Litigated at the Supreme Court

7wins in7years

IJ has won a total of 11 cases before the court, with seven wins in the last seven years.

1out of5

IJ's petitions to the Supreme Court are granted at a rate substantially above the national average, on par with the most respected members of the Supreme Court bar.

Recent Supreme Court Case

WIN

Martin vs. United States

The FBI Raided the Wrong Home—the Government Refuses to Pay for the Damage

Recent Cert Petition Granted

CERT PETITION GRANTED

U.S. Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards

Fines and Fees| Private Property

U.S. Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards

Family Farm Facing Ruinous Fines for Paperwork Mistake Sues Agency that Acts as Prosecutor, Judge and Jury

In 2016, the Department of Labor demanded $550,000 from a family farm in southern New Jersey. In their case, the agency served as prosecutor, judge, and jury, and the agency won every time. The brothers deserve their day in a real court, which is why they've partnered with IJ. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the government's appeal and will consider the case in the fall of 2026. If the government wants to take your property, you should get your day in court-not your day before a bureaucrat.

View Case

Pending Cert Petitions

Jouppi v. Alaska

Alaska Pilot Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Stop State from Taking His $95,000 Airplane for Passenger’s Beer

Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission

Stiffed by a Pipeline Company Wielding Eminent Domain, Plains Ranchers Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

Mendenhall v. Denver

Federal lawsuit seeks to revive the Fourth Amendment's requirements for warrants

South Bend SWAT Destruction

A Police Raid Wrecked Her Home; Now a South Bend Mom Fights for Compensation

Los Angeles SWAT Destruction

Innocent Small Business Owner Seeks Compensation After Shop Destroyed by SWAT Team

King v. Brownback

Taking on The Shell Games That Allow Federal/State Task Force Members To Violate Your Rights

Impact

Timbs v. Indiana

Private Property

Timbs v. Indiana

There Are Limits: IJ Takes Excessive Fines Case to the U.S. Supreme Court

  • In the aftermath of IJ’s landmark win in Timbs v. Indiana, the courts of 19 states have expressly acknowledged that their states are bound by the Excessive Fines Clause. While there is still plenty of work to do in developing caselaw under the Clause, the fact that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states gives advocates two court systems—state and federal—in which they can raise Excessive Fines Clause claims.
  • IJ’s multiple trips to the Indiana Supreme Court in State v. Timbs produced the most rigorous excessive fines clause analysis by any court to date. While other state courts have yet to adopt the reasoning of the Indiana Supreme Court in their own interpretation of the Excessive Fines Clause or their state constitutional counterparts, the opinion will serve as a guide for litigants and courts as the law develops.

View Case
Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas

Economic Liberty

Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas

Can States Bar Newcomers from Owning a Business?

  • Thanks to our win in Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, Tennessee no longer requires residency as a condition for a liquor license.
  • Since then, six other states have amended their laws to remove their durational residency requirements: Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, and Virginia.

View Case
Gonzalez v. Trevino

First Amendment

Gonzalez v. Trevino

Texas Woman Fights Back After Local Officials in Castle Hills Have Her Arrested and Jailed For Criticizing City Government

  • In the first few weeks of the term following Gonzalez, the Court reversed two bad retaliation decisions in Murphy v. Schmitt and Villarreal v. City of Laredo sending an unmistakable message that First Amendment retaliation cases are easier to bring.
  • Since its release, the opinion has been cited over 60 times.

View Case
Cleveland, Ohio, School Choice (Federal Case)
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
Carson v. Makin

Educational Choice

Educational Choice Impact

Fighting to get educational choice for all

For three decades, religion was the main basis on which teachers’ unions and other opponents attacked educational choice programs. They argued that because choice programs offer parents religious, alongside non-religious, options, the programs violated the Establishment Clause of the federal Constitution, as well as the Blaine Amendments found in a majority of state constitutions.

In a trio of victories at the U.S. Supreme Court, IJ roundly defeated this line of attack:

  • In 2002’s Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the Supreme Court held that including religious options in a choice program is perfectly permissibly under the Establishment Clause.
  • In 2020’s Espinoza v. Montana, the Court held that the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution prevents a state Blaine Amendment from being applied to exclude schools from a choice program simply because of their religious status, or affiliation.
  • And in 2022’s Carson v. Makin, the Court held that it likewise violates the Free Exercise Clause for a state to bar a parent’s choice of school because of the religious instruction it provides or the religious activities in which it engages.

With these three victories, IJ established that it is constitutionally permissible to include religious options in educational choice programs, but also that it is constitutionally impermissible to exclude them.

Our Supreme Court Cases