Free Speech Arguments

Episode 57: NetChoice v. Jay JonesNetChoice v. Jay Jones, argued before Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Roger L. Gregory, and DeAndrea Gist Benjamin of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on October 28, 2026. Argued by Erin E. Murphy (on behalf of NetChoice) and Tillman J. Breckenridge (on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia).  Case Summary, from the Appellees’ Brief: Virginia Senate Bill 854 is one of the latest attempts in a long line of government efforts to restrict new forms of constitutionally protected expression based on concerns about their potential effects on minors. Books, movies, rock music, and video games have all been accused of endangering minors in the past. Today, similar debates rage about “social media.” Those debates are important, and the government may certainly participate in them. But the First Amendment does not take kindly to government efforts to resolve them. The Constitution instead leaves the power to decide what speech and how much of it is appropriate for minors where it belongs: with their parents. Nevertheless, several states have recently enacted statutes restricting minors’ access to some of the most popular “social media” services. Courts across the country have held that these laws violate the First Amendment. And rightly so. States may certainly take steps to protect minors who use “social media,” but requiring minors to obtain parental consent before accessing those websites is not a narrowly tailored means of advancing a legitimate governmental interest… Like similar state efforts, SB854 violates the First Amendment. The law bans minors from spending more than an hour a day on a covered “social media” website unless they obtain parental consent. SB854, moreover, does not limit its reach to “social media” as that term is commonly understood. It defines “social media” broadly to reach websites like YouTube, blogging platforms like Dreamwidth, and messaging boards like College Confidential. By restricting the ability of minors (and adults, who must now prove their age) to access these websites, Virginia has restricted millions of Virginians “from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.” Issues Presented, from the Opening Brief for Appellant:   Did the district court err in concluding that NetChoice was likely to establish that Virginia’s Parental Control Provision violates the First Amendment? Did the district court err in weighing the public interest, the balance of equities, and irreparable harm against Virginia? Resources:   CourtListener Docket Opening Brief for Appellant Appellees’ Brief ACLU Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiff-Appellees The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. 

Episode 56: Samantha Hallman v. Travis Reeds, et al. Samantha Hallman v. Travis Reeds, et al., argued before Senior Judge Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, and Judge Karen Nelson Moore of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on October 21, 2026. Argued by Sophia Miller (on behalf of Samantha Hallman) and William H. Horton (on behalf of the Oakland County judges). Case Summary, from the Corrected Brief for Appellees: Appellant [Dr. Samantha Hallman] sought access to and copies of audio and video recordings of court proceedings from a Michigan district court and circuit court. The requests were denied pursuant to a Michigan Supreme Court rule requiring trial courts to enter an administrative order adopting a policy regarding access to and copying of court recordings from a list of permissible choices. The district court had entered an administrative order which does not allow access to or copying of such recordings. The circuit court had entered an administrative order allowing the viewing of such recordings but not copying. Appellant claims she has a First Amendment right to both access and copying. The District Court dismissed, holding the Michigan Supreme Court rule and the trial court administrative orders do not implicate the First Amendment. Statement of Issues, from the Corrected Brief for Appellees:  Did the District Court err in deciding the motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and should this Court review that issue since it was not raised or decided in the District Court? Appellant says “yes.” Appellee says “no.” The issue was not raised or decided in the District Court. Did the District Court err in holding there is no constitutional right to access or copy recordings of trial court proceedings? Appellant says “yes.” Appellee says “no.” District Court said “no.” Resources:  District Court Opinion   Appellants’ Brief Corrected Brief for Appellees CourtListener Docket The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. 

Episode 55: Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the ArtsRhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts, argued before Judges David J. Barron, Julie Rikelman, and Seth R. Aframe of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on October 7, 2026. Argued by Vera Eidelman (on behalf of Rhode Island Latino Arts) and Jennifer L. Utrecht (on behalf of the federal government / National Endowment for the Arts).Case Summary, from the Corrected Brief for Appellants:  The NEA opens applications for grants from the Grants for Arts Project—the NEA’s premier grant program—on a semiannual basis. Depending on the availability of congressionally appropriated funds, approved grant applications will typically receive between $10,000 to $100,000 for “specific, definable activities” outlined in the application. In advance of these application cycles, NEA historically has encouraged applications for projects covering certain topics, which often reflect issues of contemporary significance or other administration priorities… Approximately three weeks before the application deadline for the Grants for Arts Project, President Trump signed Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”… The NEA responded by updating its grant procedures to require applicants to certify that federal funds would not be used to promote gender ideology, in compliance with the Executive Order. Statement of Issues, from the Corrected Brief for Appellants: Whether the district court erred in concluding that the process outlined in the NEA’s final notice is unlawful or arbitrary and capricious under the APA. Whether the district court erred in concluding that the final notice is facially unconstitutional. Whether the district court’s remedy is overbroad.Resources:   Corrected Brief for Appellants Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellees District Court Summary Judgment Opinion CourtListener Docket The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. 

Episode 54: NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, et al.NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, et al., argued before Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Judge Patricia A. Millett, and Judge Bradley N. Garcia of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on October 6, 2026. Argued by Robert Corn-Revere (on behalf of NewsGuard Technologies) and Alex Potapov (on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission).  Case Summary, from the Opening Brief for Appellant:  NewsGuard is a journalistic service founded in 2018 to provide assessments and reporting about the reliability of online news sources for consumers, businesses, and the public…NewsGuard developed a rating process for assessing reliability based on nine criteria that assess adherence to long-established practices of journalistic credibility and transparency—such as whether a news source references multiple sources and differing viewpoints in its reporting; takes action to correct errors; discloses ownership and financing of the site; or publishes demonstrably false information… Over the years, NewsGuard has faced criticisms from across the political spectrum that its ratings are biased in one direction or another. In one year, for example, one advocacy group produced a report claiming NewsGuard’s ratings are biased against conservative publishers while another published a separate report claiming NewsGuard’s ratings are biased in favor of conservatives. Most attacks have come from news publishers that receive lower scores based on NewsGuard’s application of journalistic criteria… As a Commissioner on the FTC and continuing after he was appointed Chairman by President Trump, Appellee Andrew Ferguson has promoted an ideologically motivated effort to pursue and censor NewsGuard and other organizations that address the reliability of online sources. As reflected in his public statements and those of others in the administration (notably Brendan Carr, Chairman of the FCC), Ferguson’s view is that (1) the federal government can regulate “purely private censorship,” i.e., the government can investigate and punish private parties’ speech and editorial views if the government thinks they are biased; (2) providing website ratings or analyses to advertisers to help them protect brand safety constitutes collusive and impermissible “ad boycotts”; and (3) the government can use its full panoply of powers to pressure, intimidate, and coerce parties—directly and indirectly—to censor speech the government cannot ban outright. Statement of Issues: Whether the district court erred in denying NewsGuard’s motion for a preliminary injunction on irreparable harm grounds where NewsGuard alleged ongoing First Amendment injury from a campaign of retaliation— both directly and through coercion of intermediaries—severely limiting NewsGuard’s ability to disseminate its speech to news consumers, advertisers and other subscribers, including its news ratings, daily newsletters, and journalism about online misinformation. Resources:  Statement by NewsGuard Co-CEOs Steven Brill and Gordon Crovitz Titled “Why We’ve Just Sued the Government” Brief of Appellant Response Brief of Defendants-Appellees CourtListener Docket The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Episode 53: Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Anthony AlbenceAmericans for Prosperity Foundation v. Anthony Albence, argued before Judges Thomas M. Hardiman, Stephanos Bibas, and Marjorie O. Rendell of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on August 10, 2026. Argued by Allen Dickerson (on behalf of Americans for Prosperity Foundation) and Emily Burton (on behalf of the state of Delaware). Case Summary, from the Opening Brief for Appellants: …Delaware administers perhaps the most staggeringly overbroad donor disclosure regime in the nation. It reaches any mention of a candidate for office—including an incumbent officeholder—in a public communication made sixty days before a general election. A mere $500.01 in aggregate spending triggers the reporting requirement. Once triggered, any speaker that falls into Delaware’s regulatory maw must publish the name and address of every one of its donors giving more than $100, in aggregate, over a period of up to four years. Delaware makes no effort to connect the dots between an organization’s donor and a reporting organization’s often much later speech. There is no requirement that a donor earmark a contribution for a particular advertisement, for activity in Delaware, or even for ostensibly political purposes generally. There is no opportunity to opt out of funding regulated speech and thereby, through an act of unlikely prescience, proactively safeguard one’s privacy. There is not even a requirement that a contribution be given with knowledge that an organization might engage in a paltry amount of political speech in Delaware at some point in the future. Delaware simply asserts that its voters need to know every donor to an organization that dips a toe into advocacy within its borders—in this case, thousands of individuals, across the nation and across multiple years… Statement of Issues, from the Opening Brief for Appellants: Whether Appellants are likely to show that Delaware violates the First Amendment by requiring that any entity sponsoring any public communication that references a Delaware candidate near a Delaware election disclose all persons everywhere who donated more than $100 to that entity during a period up to four years; and Whether the equitable factors governing injunction requests favor First Amendment rights over First Amendment deprivations.  Resources:  Opening Brief for Appellants Brief for Appellees Reply Brief for Appellants District Court ruling Third Circuit docket The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. 

Episode 52: Dinner Table Action, et al. v. Schneider, et al.Dinner Table Action, et al. v. Schneider, et al. argued before Judges Lara E. Montecalvo, O. Rogeriee Thompson, and Seth R. Aframe of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on July 29, 2026. Argued by Charles “Chip” Miller (on behalf of Dinner Table Action) and Neal Katyal (on behalf of Equal Citizens) and Jonathan Bolton (on behalf of the State of Maine). Case Summary, from the Institute for Free Speech case page: A federal lawsuit seeks to stop a 2024 ballot initiative from placing limits on Mainers’ free speech rights. The suit challenges Maine’s newly enacted restrictions on contributions to independent expenditure groups, sometimes called “Super PACs.” The lawsuit also challenges requirements that force the disclosure of all donors who contribute toward independent expenditures, regardless of amount. Question 1, passed by voters in 2024, imposes a $5,000 limit on contributions to such groups. The measure, also known as the “Act to Limit Contributions to Political Action Committees That Make Independent Expenditures,” contradicts established U.S. Supreme Court precedent, as well as numerous subsequent decisions by multiple federal courts of appeal. Thirty federal appellate judges have considered such limits, and all reached the same conclusion: contribution limits cannot be applied to independent expenditure groups. Meanwhile, the law’s broad disclosure requirement threatens to chill the speech and damage the associational rights of donors who wish to maintain their privacy when participating in the political process. Under current law, donors contributing less than $50 to candidates or political committees can do so without public disclosure of their identity. The new law would force disclosure of all contributors to independent expenditures, regardless of amount, a change that multiple donors have specifically told the plaintiffs would stop them from participating in the political process. Statement of Issues, from Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Response Brief: Whether the First Amendment bars Maine from infringing political speech rights by limiting independent donations for independent expenditures. Whether Maine can require disclosure of small dollar donors who donate towards independent expenditures. Resources: Institute for Free Speech case page (includes all filings) Opening Brief for Defendants-Appellants Equal Citizens, Cara Mccormick, Peter Mccormick, Richard A. Bennett Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Response Brief Reply Brief for Defendants-Appellants Equal Citizens, Cara Mccormick, Peter Mccormick, Richard A. Bennett District Court Order The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Episode 51: Perkins Coie LLP v. Department of JusticePerkins Coie LLP v. Department of Justice, argued before Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, and Judge Neomi Rao of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 14, 2026. Argued by Paul Clement (on behalf of the Law Firm Appellees), Abbe Lowell (on behalf of Appellee Mark Zaid), and Abhishek Kambli (on behalf of the federal government).Case Summary, From the Brief of Appellee Perkins Coie LLP:  One year ago, the President did something no other president had done before: issue an executive order declaring a law firm whose clients and representations he dislikes “dishonest and dangerous” and deploying the levers of federal power to try to put the firm out of business. That was a perilous moment for appellee Perkins, the legal profession, and the rule of law. Nine law firms, cowed by the threat of firm-ending sanctions, “settled” with the President. But Perkins, followed by Jenner, WilmerHale, and Susman, sued to defend themselves and their clients. Four different district judges recognized the President’s executive orders for what they are: shocking abuses of power that trample the constitutional rights of the law firms and their clients. This Court should recognize the same.The government cannot “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Yet here, the President did not hide his intent to punish Perkins for its expression and that of its clients. He openly declared that he targeted Perkins because it represented his “failed” opponent in the 2016 election, challenged election laws alongside so-called “activist donors,” and brought purportedly “partisan lawsuits,” including “against the Trump Administration.” The President designed the Order to do more than just damage Perkins; he intended to intimidate the bar into submission.Case Summary, From the Brief of Appellee Mark Zaid: The government cannot “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Vullo. This case concerns an unconstitutional policy enacted to do just that. Shortly after taking office, the President issued a memorandum (the Presidential Memorandum) targeting the security clearances of a sprawling group of his perceived enemies, their lawyers, and their family members. As interpreted by the relevant agencies, the Presidential Memorandum constituted a directive to disregard then-existing procedures and institute a blanket revocation of the security clearances of those it named. Appellant Mark S. Zaid, an attorney who has represented government whistleblowers, is among those whose clearances were revoked...Rather than contesting whether they retaliated against Mr. Zaid or deprived him of the processes to which he was entitled under the applicable regulations, Appellants double down on the extraordinary position that their unlawful actions are entirely insulated from judicial review.Statement of Issues, From the Brief of Appellee Perkins Coie LLP:  Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment Whether Perkins is entitled to summary judgment on the additional ground (raised but not reached below) that Sections 1, 3, and 5 violate the separation of powers.Statement of Issues, From the Brief of Appellee Mark Zaid:  Whether a court may review a policy providing for the revocation of a group of security clearances without process or individualized review.Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.Resources:    Brief of Appellee Perkins Coie LLPBrief for the Government AppellantsCourtListener Docket (includes all filings for the law firms’ cases)Brief of Appellee Mark ZaidBrief for the Government AppellantsCourtListener Docket (includes all filings in the appeal of Mark Zaid v. Executive Office of the President)

Episode 50: The Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue ServiceThe Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue Service, argued before Senior Judge R. Guy Cole, Jr., Judge Richard Allen Griffin, and Judge Chad A. Readler of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 29, 2026. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Brett Nolan (on behalf of The Buckeye Institute) and Michael Weisbuch (on behalf of the federal government). Case Summary, from the Institute for Free Speech website:  The Buckeye Institute filed a lawsuit challenging a tax law that forces the IRS to demand that nonprofit charities disclose the private information of their largest donors each year. Represented by attorneys at the Institute for Free Speech and its own attorneys, Buckeye’s lawsuit says the law violates the First Amendment and the requirement chills free speech and association. The IRS has admitted that it does not need these donor records, and it issued a rule in 2020 to stop collecting the same from other tax-exempt groups that are not classified as section 501(c)(3) nonprofit charities. The agency noted in that 2020 rulemaking that its collection of this sensitive personal data on Form 990 Schedule B “poses a risk of inadvertent disclosure” of private, non-public information. Even though the IRS has stated in similar contexts that it would prefer not to collect this information from charities, federal law requires doing so for 501(c)(3)s.  The lawsuit claims that Buckeye’s work “would be significantly damaged” if it could not maintain the confidentiality of its donor relationships, as Buckeye’s supporters “risk retribution from some who oppose its mission.” The recent leak to ProPublica of “a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data on the tax returns of thousands” of individual taxpayers and other IRS leaks understandably give financial supporters of certain charities, including Buckeye, justified pause...A special procedure in federal law allows federal appellate courts to review a ruling before the case is decided. That’s the situation in this appeal. The government disagreed with Judge Watson’s ruling that exacting scrutiny applied, and asked the appeals court for permission to review his opinion. Both Judge Watson and the Sixth Circuit granted the request for review. Statement of Issues, from the Appellee’s Brief:Whether exacting scrutiny governs a First Amendment challenge to 26 U.S.C. § 6033(b)(5)’s requirement that nonprofit organizations disclose their “substantial contributors.”Whether the Court can enter judgment against the plaintiff-appellee, determining that § 6033(b)(5) does not violate the First Amendment, without affording the plaintiff-appellee an opportunity for discovery or factual development. Resources:    Institute for Free Speech case page (contains all documents)Opening Brief for the AppellantAppellee’s BriefSixth Circuit Order Granting the Petition for Interlocutory ReviewInstitute for Free Speech Blog Post, “Court: IRS Donor Disclosure Law Must Overcome Exacting Scrutiny”The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Episode 48: Media Matters for America (MMFA) v. Federal Trade Commission Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission, argued before Judges Patricia A. Millett, Robert L. Wilkins, and Gregory G. Katsas of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on April 13, 2026. Argued by Nathaniel A.G. Zelinsky (on behalf of Media Matters of America) and H. Thomas Byron, III (on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission).Case Summary, adapted from the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee Media Matters:When Elon Musk purchased X, he modified the rules about violent posts and misinformation, laid off staff responsible for moderating the site, and reinstated accounts of white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. As a result, MMFA alleged that extremist content surged.MMFA is a nonprofit media watchdog that chronicled what it described as the increasingly disturbing content on X. In November 2023, one of Media Matters’ articles about X went viral. It claimed advertisements for some companies, including Apple and IBM, were still appearing alongside pro-Nazi and antisemitic content.The article struck a nerve and, along with other reporting about X, has made MMFA a target for Musk and his allies, including FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, who blamed the organization for advertisers leaving the site. Musk immediately vowed to bring a “thermonuclear lawsuit” against MMFA.Musk’s company also filed suit in the Northern District of Texas—not in California, as required by X’s terms of service. Meanwhile, Stephen Miller—today, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff—called on “conservative state Attorneys General” to investigate MMFA for its speech. In response, Texas and Missouri issued intrusive document demands to MMFA.The district court granted a preliminary injunction blocking the FTC investigation of MMFA, finding that it violated the First Amendment. The FTC appealed.Statement of the Issues, from the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee MMFA:Whether the district court had jurisdiction.Whether Media Matters has a cause of action.Whether the FTC forfeited its exhaustion argument.Whether the district court clearly erred in finding retaliation.Whether the district court clearly erred in finding the CID would deter a person of ordinary firmness from speaking.Whether the district court abused its discretion in balancing the equities. Resources:    Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee – Media Matters for AmericaBrief for the Appellants – Federal Trade Commission, et al.CourtListener DocketDistrict Court Opinion Granting the Motion for Preliminary Injunction The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Episode 47: Hussey v. City of Cambridge, et al.Hussey v. City of Cambridge, et al. argued en banc before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on April 8, 2026. Argued by Jack Bartholet (on behalf of Brian Hussey) and Robert M. Loeb (on behalf of the City of Cambridge officials).  Case Summary, from the Appellants’ Opening Brief: “This case raises fundamental questions about a state employee’s right as a citizen to speak out on pending federal legislation — on his own time, at home, via his own private Facebook page, and in a manner that caused no disruption in the eight days before the post came to the attention of his superiors and two months before his suspension — under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution…Plaintiff Brian Hussey is a veteran police officer (and now Sergeant) who is a lifelong resident of the City of Cambridge… “In February 2021, Hussey re-posted a WHDH news article on his private Facebook page. The article, entitled “House Democrats reintroduce police reform bill named in honor of George Floyd,” referenced proposed federal legislation on police reform —H.R. 7120, titled the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020.” Hussey, believing that naming this landmark legislation after someone who had a long criminal and drug history was inappropriate, posted a comment along with the article’s link (featuring a preview that included its headline), writing, “This is what its come to ‘honoring’ a career criminal, a thief and druggie … the future of this country is bleak at best.”  “Hussey did not identify himself as a Cambridge police officer on his Facebook page or in the post, nor did the post in any way reference his position with the police department…The Department then placed Officer Hussey on administrative leave for approximately two months while they investigated…and ultimately issued him a four-day suspension.”   Statement of the Issue, from the Appellants’ Opening Brief:  Whether the District Court incorrectly applied the balancing test set out in Pickering v. Bd. of Ed. of Tp. High Sch. Dist. 205, Will Cnty., Illinois, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) by determining that the City of Cambridge’s interest in suppressing plaintiff`s speech on a clear matter of public concern based on its distaste for the speech without any evidence of disruption in operations outweighed the interest of Plaintiff and the public at large in free expression and robust public debate.Resources:    Plaintiff-Appellant’s Opening Brief Defendants-Appellees’ Brief Appellees’ En Banc Brief  Appellants’ En Banc Supplemental Brief The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org