[3] The group, founded by attorney Brad W. Dacus, describes itself as focusing on representation relating to "...religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties."

[9] Defunct Newspapers Journals TV channels Websites Other Congressional caucuses Economics Gun rights Identity politics Nativist Religion Watchdog groups Youth/student groups Miscellaneous Other PJI has been involved in legislation, has filed amicus curiae briefs in legal cases[10] and testified in state and federal legislatures.

[20] In 2013, Media Matters for America described the Pacific Justice Institute as the "LGBT Misinformer of The Year", because it had publicized a press release containing false claims against a transgender student that were based only on the complaints of an angry parent, as part of its campaign against the law.

[31] Hartman v. Santa Clara County – PJI represented a doctor and a radiation therapist who objected to their employer's vaccine mandate.

Criminal charges were dropped, but attorneys with PJI filed suit challenging the mall's restrictions on conversations between strangers.

[37] The District settled after the court ruled that the club must be given equal access to meet, use school supplies, have an advisor, and a yearbook listing.

[38][39][40][41] After PJI filed a lawsuit, the city changed its municipal code to not discriminate against religious gatherings by requiring costly use permits.

After the couple was married, the officiating minister signed and mailed marriage certificate to the county clerk, who rejected it because of the interlineation.

PJI filed a lawsuit on behalf of the couple, and after the case was reported in the press, poll numbers supporting Proposition rose from 38% to 47%.

[44][45] Murrieta Red-light case – There was an effort to repeal a law in Murrieta, California that mandated that all traffic lights be installed with cameras in order to catch the license plates of people who blew red-lights and the effort to repeal the law came in the form of a private petition in order to put it on the ballot for the next election.

[46][47][48] However, a lawsuit was levied against the private petition claiming that "residents don't have the authority to change traffic laws, and thus remove the cameras.