Skip to the page content
Your donations
Passes our checks

Liberty Justice Center

EIN 45-4204425 · Austin, TX

Public records show a registered, tax-exempt organization in good standing.

LegitimacyPassesRegistration and standingFinancial healthStrong93 out of 100GovernanceStrong93 out of 100Impact evidenceDescribes programsHow well its results are evidenced

What it says it does

TO ADVANCE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL LIBERTIES AND A FREE ENTERPRISE SOCIETY THROUGH STRATEGIC LITIGATION, TRAINING, COMMUNICATION AND RESEARCH. IN ADDITION, THE CENTER WILL TRAIN LAW STUDENTS AND LAWYERS IN THE PURSUIT OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION.

Income
$6.2 million
Spending
$6.0 million
Spent on programs
94%
Reserves
6.3 months of spending
Largest source of income
donations and private grants, 97%
Employees
32
Volunteers
2
Highest pay
$235,040, chief operating officer

Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2025, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate

Financial health

Strong: 93 out of 100. Higher than 79% of charities in its peer group (crime and legal services, $1m to $10m).

  • Reserves

    28 of 35

    Spendable reserves would cover 6.3 months of spending.

  • Debt

    20 of 20

    It owes 12% of what it owns.

  • Living within its means

    15 of 15

    Income exceeded spending by 4% of income.

  • Income trend

    15 of 15

    Income rose 94% on the year before.

  • Spending floor

    15 of 15

    94% of spending went to programs and raising each dollar of donations cost 2 cents.

Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2025, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate

Governance

Strong: 93 out of 100. Higher than 48% of charities in its peer group (crime and legal services, $1m to $10m).

  • Independent board

    18 of 25

    2 of 3 voting board members are independent.

  • Conflict of interest policy

    15 of 15

    Has a written conflict of interest policy.

  • Whistleblower policy

    8 of 8

    Has a written whistleblower policy.

  • Record keeping policy

    7 of 7

    Has a written policy on keeping and destroying records.

  • Board minutes

    5 of 5

    Keeps minutes of board meetings.

  • Board sees the tax return

    10 of 10

    Gave the board a copy of this return before filing it.

  • Pay set independently

    5 of 5

    Sets its chief executive's pay through independent review and comparison.

  • Independent check of accounts

    15 of 15

    Its accounts were audited by an independent accountant.

  • No reported misuse

    10 of 10

    Reports no diversion of assets, excess benefits or loans to insiders.

Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2025, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate

Impact evidence

Describes programs. Its tax return describes what it does but we have found no measurable results in it.

Programs described in its return (1)
  1. $5.6 million spent. ADVANCEMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL LIBERTIES AND A FREE ENTERPRISE THROUGH STRATEGIC LITIGATION, TRAINING, COMMUNICATION, AND RESEARCH.SEE SCHEDULE O FOR A SUMMARY LISTING OF CASES LITIGATED DURING THE YEAR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC. DURING THE REPORTING YEAR, THE LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER (LJC) ADVANCED ITS MISSION THROUGH STRATEGIC PUBLIC-INTEREST LITIGATION, LEGAL ADVOCACY, AND PUBLIC EDUCATION. THE ORGANIZATION REPRESENTED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES, STUDENTS, WORKERS, SMALL BUSINESSES, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, AND PUBLIC ENTITIES IN CASES INVOLVING CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT POWER, FREE SPEECH, EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM, PARENTAL RIGHTS, ECONOMIC LIBERTY, WORKPLACE FREEDOM, EQUAL TREATMENT, AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY. MASTER CASE NARRATIVES: 1. V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC. V. TRUMP IN 2025, THE LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER FILED V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC. V. TRUMP ON BEHALF OF FIVE OWNER-OPERATED AMERICAN BUSINESSES CHALLENGING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S IMPOSITION OF SWEEPING WORLDWIDE TARIFFS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC POWERS ACT. THE LAWSUIT CHALLENGED THE ADMINISTRATION'S ASSERTION THAT IEEPA AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO IMPOSE BROAD TARIFFS AFFECTING IMPORTS FROM NEARLY EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL. THE PLAINTIFFS INCLUDED BUSINESSES OPERATING IN A VARIETY OF INDUSTRIES WHOSE OPERATIONS, SUPPLY CHAINS, AND CUSTOMERS WERE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE CHALLENGED TARIFFS. THE CASE RAISED SIGNIFICANT CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE LIMITS OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY. THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED THAT IEEPA DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE PRESIDENT TO IMPOSE TARIFFS AND THAT THE CONSTITUTION ASSIGNS RESPONSIBILITY FOR TARIFFS, DUTIES, AND OTHER FORMS OF TAXATION TO CONGRESS. THE LITIGATION FURTHER CHALLENGED THE GOVERNMENT'S RELIANCE ON EMERGENCY POWERS TO JUSTIFY TARIFFS BASED ON LONGSTANDING TRADE DEFICITS AND OTHER ECONOMIC CONDITIONS. ON MAY 28, 2025, THE UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE ISSUED A UNANIMOUS DECISION HOLDING THAT THE CHALLENGED TARIFFS WERE UNLAWFUL AND PERMANENTLY ENJOINING THEIR ENFORCEMENT. THE GOVERNMENT APPEALED, AND THE CASE PROCEEDED THROUGH FURTHER APPELLATE REVIEW. THE LITIGATION ATTRACTED NATIONAL ATTENTION AND BECAME ONE OF THE LEADING CHALLENGES TO THE ADMINISTRATION'S TARIFF PROGRAM, ADDRESSING QUESTIONS WITH SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL ALLOCATION OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THE LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER CONTINUED TO REPRESENT THE PLAINTIFFS THROUGH APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND COORDINATED WITH A BROAD COALITION OF LEGAL SCHOLARS, ECONOMISTS, AND PUBLIC-INTEREST ADVOCATES CONCERNED WITH CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE AND ECONOMIC LIBERTY. THROUGH THIS LITIGATION, THE ORGANIZATION SOUGHT TO PROTECT SMALL BUSINESSES FROM UNLAWFUL GOVERNMENT ACTION AND TO PRESERVE CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS THAT LIMIT THE CONCENTRATION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 2. C.M.V. DAVIDSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION IN 2025, THE LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER SUCCESSFULLY SETTLED THE CASE REPRESENTING CHRISTIAN MCGHEE, A NORTH CAROLINA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT, IN LITIGATION CHALLENGING A SCHOOL DISTRICT'S SUSPENSION AND DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS ARISING FROM A CLASSROOM DISCUSSION. THE LAWSUIT WAS FILED IN 2024 AFTER CHRISTIAN WAS SUSPENDED AND ACCUSED OF RACIAL BIAS FOR ASKING A CLARIFYING QUESTION DURING AN ENGLISH CLASS REGARDING WHETHER A REFERENCE TO 'ALIENS' MEANT 'SPACE ALIENS OR 'ILLEGAL ALIENS.' THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT VIOLATED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH, DUE PROCESS, AND EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES. ACCORDING TO THE LAWSUIT, CHRISTIAN'S QUESTION CAUSED NO SUBSTANTIAL DISRUPTION IN THE CLASSROOM, YET HE RECEIVED A THREE-DAY SUSPENSION, WAS BARRED FROM PARTICIPATING IN AN IMPORTANT TRACK COMPETITION, AND WAS NOT PROVIDED A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL THE DISCIPLINE. FOLLOWING THE SUSPENSION, CHRISTIAN FACED OSTRACISM, HARASSMENT, AND THREATS FROM OTHER STUDENTS. HIS PARENTS ULTIMATELY WITHDREW HIM FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND ENROLLED HIM IN A PRIVATE SCHOOL. AFTER MORE THAN A YEAR OF LITIGATION, THE PARTIES REACHED A SETTLEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA. THE SETTLEMENT REMOVED REFERENCES TO RACIAL BIAS FROM CHRISTIAN'S EDUCATIONAL RECORD AND INCLUDED A FORMAL APOLOGY FROM THE DAVIDSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION. LJC DID NOT SEEK ATTORNEYS' FEES IN THIS CASE. 3. MENDEZ LOPEZ V. UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO LJC REPRESENTS NINETEEN UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO EMPLOYEES CHALLENGING AN AGREEMENT THAT CONDITIONED A ONE-TIME $3,000 EMPLOYER-FUNDED PAYMENT ON UNION MEMBERSHIP AND BEING CURRENT ON UNION DUES. THE EMPLOYEES HAD RESIGNED FROM THE UNION AFTER JANUS AND ALLEGED THAT UPR AND THE UNION DENIED THE PAYMENT SOLELY BECAUSE THEY EXERCISED THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT NOT TO ASSOCIATE WITH THE UNION. THE CASE SEEKS DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, RESTITUTION OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES EQUAL TO THE WITHHELD PAYMENT, NOMINAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AND FEES AND COSTS. THE CASE CONTINUES LJC'S POST-JANUS ENFORCEMENT WORK AGAINST GOVERNMENT PRACTICES DESIGNED TO PENALIZE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR LEAVING THEIR UNION. BECAUSE LITIGATION IS PENDING IT IS PREMATURE TO SEEK FEES. 4. ABRAHAM V. ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS (CONTINUED) LJC FILED ABRAHAM V. ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS ON BEHALF OF DR. MATTHEW ABRAHAM, A TENURED PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA. THE CASE ALLEGES THAT THE UNIVERSITY EXCLUDED DR. ABRAHAM FROM FACULTY GOVERNANCE COMMITTEES AFTER HE OPPOSED AND SOUGHT RECORDS CONCERNING ALLEGED UNLAWFUL RACE-BASED HIRING AND SELECTION PRACTICES TIED TO DEI INITIATIVES. THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT DR. ABRAHAM ENGAGED IN PROTECTED ACTIVITY, INCLUDING GRIEVANCES, PUBLIC-RECORDS REQUESTS, A DEMAND LETTER, LITIGATION, AND EEOC CHARGES, AND THAT UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS THEN USED UNDISCLOSED CRITERIA TO EXCLUDE HIM FROM COMMITTEES. THE LAWS

Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2025, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate

Legitimacy checks

  1. Is it registered with the IRS? Passed.

    Listed in the IRS master file of tax-exempt organizations as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization.

    Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.

  2. Has the IRS revoked its tax-exempt status? Passed.

    Not on the IRS automatic revocation list.

    Source: Automatic revocation of exemption list, Internal Revenue Service, file dated November 6, 2026.

  3. Are donations tax-deductible? Passed.

    On the IRS list of organizations eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions.

    Source: Publication 78 data: organizations eligible for tax-deductible contributions, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.

  4. Is it keeping up with its IRS filings? Passed.

    Most recent return on file covers the year ending December 2025.

    Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.

  5. How long has it been tax-exempt? Passed.

    Recognized by the IRS since November 2012.

    Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.

  6. Is it in good standing with state regulators? Passed.

    Not on California's list of charities barred from soliciting. Other states are not yet checked.

    Source: May Not Operate or Solicit for Charitable Purposes list, California Attorney General, Registry of Charities and Fundraisers, file dated November 4, 2026.

Ratings and checks are our reading of public records, using the published method. They are not a statement about anyone's honesty. If you work for this organization, you can send corrections or results, confirm you want gifts through Veridonate, or ask to be removed from giving.