Further, the organization claimed that the licensing rules in this case were designed to protect existing businesses from competition, with the effect of reducing choice and raising prices for consumers.

While institute co-founders Clint Bolick and Chip Mellor have acknowledged the need for health, safety, and consumer protection regulations,[56] the organization continues to litigate against what it sees as abuse.

[62] In defending tour guide operators in Philadelphia and Washington D.C., the Institute for Justice argued that restrictions on these businesses abridged First Amendment rights.

The Institute for Justice lawsuit argued that the development of apheresis meant that donors who gave bone marrow through blood donation should be allowed to receive compensation.

[70] In 2010, the Institute for Justice filed suit on behalf of monks from Saint Joseph Abbey, a century-old Benedictine monastery in Covington, Louisiana.

In December 2018, the Institute for Justice filed suit on behalf of two would-be estheticians[76]—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[77] because each of them had past criminal offenses.

In August 2020, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court struck down[78] the good moral standard clause, clearing the way for Haveman and Spillane to reapply for their licenses.

In 2008, organization president Chip Mellor stated: Frankly, we had not realized just how widespread this phenomenon was until [the Coking case] ... Once we became aware of it, though, we formed a strategic plan to escalate it to national attention and ultimately to the Supreme Court, which we did in the course of the next seven years.

[81][82][83][84] In 2006 (on the first anniversary of the Kelo ruling), President George W. Bush issued an executive order limiting how federal agencies could use eminent domain.

[95] The Institute for Justice and other critics argue that this direct financial reward gives law enforcement agencies a strong incentive to abuse civil asset forfeiture.

Among them: In 2011, the Institute for Justice represented Russ Caswell,[98] a motel owner from Tewksbury, Massachusetts, after the federal government sought to take his property through civil forfeiture.

[105] The Institute filed suit on behalf of Iowa restaurant owner Carole Hinders,[106] who had her bank account of $33,000 seized by the IRS, despite never being accused of a crime.

[110] In 2021, the Institute won a legal battle against the Drug Enforcement Administration after it seized $30,000—the life savings—of shoeshine man Kermit Warren as he was traveling through the airport in Columbus, Ohio.

[112] Additional Institute for Justice lawsuits successfully challenging civil forfeiture have been filed in North Carolina, Kentucky, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Wyoming and elsewhere.

Among its areas of litigation are: The Institute has successfully challenged unconstitutional rental inspection requirements in Marietta, Georgia[113] and Park Forest, Illinois.

[122] 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.

[123] 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.

In 1997, the Institute filed suit on behalf of Internet and software publishers challenging registration requirements by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

[126] In 2003, the Institute for Justice challenged California’s requirement that—unlike newspapers or magazines—Internet advertising companies, including its client ForSaleByOwner.com, had to secure a government-issued real estate brokers license before they could provide information online.

[137] 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.

[138] 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.

[140] 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.

[142] 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.

Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in favor of a Florida dairy farmer represented by the Institute for Justice who challenged the state's regulation that banned her from using the term "skim milk" for her product.

[148] Through litigation, media relations and lobbying, the Institute has successfully challenged five interior-design "titling laws" (in Connecticut,[149] Florida,[150] New Mexico,[135] Oklahoma,[151] and Texas) which restricted its clients' advertising of their services.

Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Blazing Bagels owner Dennis Ballen that the ban amounted to content-based discrimination of free speech.

In 2020, the Institute successfully defended the owners of Lonesome Dove saloon[157] 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.

[16] 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 private school tuition.

[160] In the Carson case, the court ruled that Maine could not exclude children from a publicly funded tuition assistance program because their parent's selected schools that provide religious instruction as part of their curriculum.