Zadekpedia

Ask BobAsk a question of every episode, 2009–2023 — answers cite the minute

Institute for Justice

8 min read

The Institute for Justice (IJ) is a public interest law firm that appears repeatedly across episodes of The Bob Zadek Show. Host Bob Zadek describes it as his “very favorite public interest law firm” and, in another episode, as “the most important, at least in my opinion, public interest law firm” The Great Founding Fathers (2010) Abusive Fines and Fees (2022). In a third episode he says he cannot read IJ’s work “without getting emotional, even sometimes misty-eyed” Revenge of the Pen and the Phone (2018). Guests appearing on the show have included staff attorneys, managing attorneys, and research directors associated with the organization.

Personnel and areas of litigation

Anthony Sanders appeared as a staff attorney at the Institute for Justice The Great Founding Fathers (2010). Sam Gedge was introduced as an attorney at the Institute for Justice Awaiting the Verdict in Timbs v. Indiana (2018). Bill Maurer was identified as a managing attorney in the Washington State office of IJ The Hidden Cause of BLM Riots (2022). Mike Greenberg was described as a litigation attorney with the Institute for Justice, handling cases promoting personal property rights, economic liberty, and free speech, and particularly active in civil asset forfeiture abuse Civil Asset Forfeiture Revisited (2023). Dick Carpenter was introduced as Senior Director of Strategic Research at the Institute for Justice New data shows that occupational licensing does nothing to increase quality (2022).

Bob Zadek stated that IJ litigates in the area of economic liberty, private property rights, educational choice, and freedom of speech The Hidden Cause of BLM Riots (2022). Sheldon Gilbert, before serving at the National Constitution Center, was the director of IJ’s Center for Judicial Engagement Revenge of the Pen and the Phone (2018).

Economic liberty and occupational licensing

In an episode on pumpkins and puppies, Sanders described IJ cases in which a license is required for an occupation so far removed from the license that it functions as a bar to entry. He said IJ had represented clients who perform African hair braiding, in California and elsewhere including Minnesota, where he said the requirement was typically something like 2,000 hours of training in cosmetology The Great Founding Fathers (2010). Zadek characterized the requirement as having to be trained as a nuclear physicist in order to braid hair; Sanders called that essentially the correct analogy.

Sanders also discussed a San Francisco pet store ban, saying that even the most careful, trained pet seller who vets all customers could not sell pets, and that the law effectively makes pets contraband. He noted that giving away a kitten would not be banned, but charging for one would be. Zadek argued that if puppy mills are the concern, the answer is to regulate the puppy mills and humane treatment rather than close the pet stores, and predicted pet stores would appear in Daly City along the San Francisco border. Sanders said the last thing on the regulator’s mind is the consumer or the business owner, and that he suspected the measure made officials feel good and put them on the right side of extreme animal rights people The Great Founding Fathers (2010).

In a later episode, Zadek interviewed Dick Carpenter about a new IJ study on occupational licensing. Zadek said the study provided hard data to support what IJ and most libertarians know about occupational licensing: that there is no economic, political, or social reason to require the permission of a bureaucrat for so many lawful, relatively harmless, low-threat activities New data shows that occupational licensing does nothing to increase quality (2022). Zadek framed the issue around two consenting adults entering a transaction based on whatever information the hiring party has.

Policing for profit and civil asset forfeiture

Zadek said that about a decade before a 2022 episode, IJ published a data-filled compendium entitled “Policing for Profit,” which pointed out an abuse existing throughout the country whereby law enforcement was allowed to keep and enjoy the benefits of citizens’ property obtained through forfeiture Abusive Fines and Fees (2022). He described the process as property being taken from a law-abiding citizen who has not committed a crime and is not accused of one, retained by the police department or municipality, without any conviction at all. He said this creates distrust, anger, and tension between citizens and law enforcement where there should be cooperation.

In a separate episode, Zadek gave a nearly identical introduction to the same topic, again citing the “Policing for Profit” compendium and describing forfeiture as a word listeners would learn to abhor The Hidden Cause of BLM Riots (2022). He introduced Bill Maurer as a managing attorney in IJ’s Washington State office and said he had asked Maurer to join after Maurer wrote a piece for an IJ publication calling attention to abusive fines and fees. Zadek described a system by which municipalities live off fines and fees paid by the portion of their voters least able to afford it, taking property “under the guise of fines and fees.”

Mike Greenberg discussed civil asset forfeiture in a 2023 episode, described as particularly active in that area Civil Asset Forfeiture Revisited (2023). The excerpt’s introduction notes that the conversation explored how policing for profit creates perverse incentives for law enforcement to seize private property without criminal convictions, often bypassing state-level protections through federal equitable sharing programs.

Constitutional litigation

Sam Gedge appeared to discuss Timbs v. Indiana, a Supreme Court case concerning civil asset forfeiture, the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th Amendment, and a challenge to the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause Awaiting the Verdict in Timbs v. Indiana (2018). The excerpt breaks off at the start of the discussion, before Gedge speaks.

The 2010 episode with Sanders also covered eminent domain through Kelo v. New London, with the introduction noting the discussion of the history of eminent domain and the argument that the original intent of the Constitution was to foster a national free trade zone and protect the right of individuals to earn an honest living without undue state interference The Great Founding Fathers (2010). The excerpt of that section breaks off before the substantive exchange.

Across episodes

Civil asset forfeiture and policing for profit are the topics treated most often, in the 2018 episode with Sam Gedge, the two 2022 episodes with Bill Maurer, and the 2023 episode with Mike Greenberg. The two 2022 episodes share nearly identical introductory framing by Zadek, both citing the “Policing for Profit” compendium; the later 2023 episode shifts the framing toward the Fourth Amendment and equitable sharing, with Greenberg rather than Maurer as guest. Economic liberty and occupational licensing recur from the 2010 episode with Sanders to the 2022 episode with Carpenter, the later treatment resting on an IJ study providing data where the earlier rested on case examples. The excerpts show no argument or position changing between episodes; what changes is the guest and the specific case or study under discussion.

What the sources do not cover

The excerpts do not state when the Institute for Justice was founded, where it is headquartered, how it is funded, or who leads it. They do not give the outcomes or holdings of Timbs v. Indiana, Kelo v. New London, or any other case discussed, and several excerpts break off before the guest speaks. The San Francisco pet store measure is described as not yet passed at the time of the 2010 episode, and the excerpts do not report whether it later passed. The specific findings of the occupational licensing study and the “Policing for Profit” compendium are not detailed beyond Zadek’s characterization.

Guests and episodes

8 appearances by 5 guests, 2010–2023.

Backlinks