Dear John,

2024 is coming to a close and I am so proud of what IJ has accomplished this year thanks to our supporters.

Together, we secured 64 victories—including two at U.S. Supreme Court. We launched 31 new cases, bringing our active case count to a record 111. We also launched our newest project, Zoning Justice. As you’ve seen in the last few weeks, IJ is ending the year strong, notching several key wins that set the stage for success in 2025.

But when you take on the government, the road to victory is rarely easy or straightforward. So today I want to tell you about a setback we recently experienced—and why I’m optimistic that, with you by our side, justice will ultimately prevail.

Please consider a donation to IJ today. ([link removed] )

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up our case on behalf of Vicki Baker—whose Texas home was destroyed in a SWAT raid.

You may recall Vicki’s harrowing story. In July 2020, a SWAT team ransacked her home while pursuing a fugitive who had taken refuge there. They used explosives and tear gas. In addition to destroying Vicki’s fence and garage door with tanks, the SWAT team broke every window in the house, damaged the roof, and burst the pipes. The assault left Vicki’s dog blind and deaf—and the chemicals from the gas canisters were so toxic that a hazmat team had to dispose of all of Vicki’s clothing and furniture.

Both the city and Vicki’s insurance refused to cover the repair costs, leaving her with the financial burden. If the city decides it needs to destroy a home to get a dangerous person off the streets, that’s a public obligation that the public as a whole should bear the cost of, rather than a single innocent homeowner. That’s a fundamental principle of the Constitution’s Takings Clause.

Initially, we won this case at trial, where the judge and a jury held that the city was obligated to pay for destroying her home and awarded Vicki nearly $60,000. But the city appealed, and the 5th Circuit ruled against us. So, in June, we petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Vicki’s case. We knew it would be a longshot—the Court accepts fewer than 1% of petitions it receives.

The denial is disappointing, but an encouraging aspect of this case is that Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch issued a statement on the denial making it clear that the law is unsettled in this area and that the lower courts should decide more cases on this vital constitutional question before the Supreme Court weighs in. At IJ, we are doing just that. We have two more cases on this issue percolating in the lower courts and we are about to add a third.

Moreover, it is not the end of the road for Vicki.

We were able to design this case in such a way that we had both federal claims and state claims. And although the Supreme Court’s decision is the final word on our claim under the U.S. Constitution, the claim under the Texas Constitution is still alive.

We could not have gotten this far—and we wouldn’t be able to continue under the Texas Constitution—without our supporters' generosity. The cost of litigation and the emotional burden of being embroiled in a court case would be enough for most people to give up.

Vicki is not most people. Your support means she won’t pay a dime in legal fees and sends a powerful message: Vicki is not alone. And she’s determined to keep fighting to make sure no one else loses their home to government action without just compensation.

IJ will continue to stand with Vicki in 2025 and beyond. I hope you will join us. Join IJ with a donation today. ([link removed] )

 

Scott

Scott G. Bullock

President and Chief Counsel

Institute for Justice

Donate Today ([link removed] )

Institute for Justice, 901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900, Arlington, Virginia 22203

Unsubscribe ([link removed] )
Manage preferences ([link removed] )