Upper Midwest Law Center
Public records show a registered, tax-exempt organization in good standing.
What it says it does
THE UMLC PROVIDES PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL REPRESENTATION, WITHOUT CHARGE, FOR INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS WHICH HAVE SUFFERED HARM TO THEIR PERSONS OR RIGHTS DUE TO ABUSIVE, OVERREACHING OR OPPRESSIVE ACTION BY GOVERNMENTAL, LABOR UNION AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS/AGENCIES. THE CENTER SEEKS TO OBTAIN REDRESS FOR SUCH WRONGS BY PURSUING LEGAL ACTION UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY AND COMMON LAW LEGAL THEORIES AND TO THEREBY ESTABLISH LEGAL PRINCIPLES WHICH EXPAND INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS AGAINST SUCH ABUSE, OVERREACHING AND OPPRESSION.
- Income
- $1.3 million
- Spending
- $1.2 million
- Spent on programs
- 91%
- Reserves
- 5.7 months of spending
- Largest source of income
- donations and private grants, 93%
- Employees
- 5
- Volunteers
- 10
- Highest pay
- $234,277, attorney
Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate
Financial health
Good: 81 out of 100. Higher than 59% of charities in its peer group (crime and legal services, $1m to $10m).
Reserves
20 of 35Spendable reserves would cover 5.7 months of spending.
Debt
16 of 20It owes 29% of what it owns.
Living within its means
15 of 15Income exceeded spending by 8% of income.
Income trend
15 of 15Income rose 21% on the year before.
Spending floor
15 of 1591% of spending went to programs and raising each dollar of donations cost 7 cents.
Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate
Governance
Good: 86 out of 100. Higher than 39% of charities in its peer group (crime and legal services, $1m to $10m).
Independent board
18 of 253 of 4 voting board members are independent.
Conflict of interest policy
15 of 15Has a written conflict of interest policy.
Whistleblower policy
8 of 8Has a written whistleblower policy.
Record keeping policy
0 of 7Reports no written policy on keeping and destroying records.
Board minutes
5 of 5Keeps minutes of board meetings.
Board sees the tax return
10 of 10Gave the board a copy of this return before filing it.
Pay set independently
5 of 5Sets its chief executive's pay through independent review and comparison.
Independent check of accounts
15 of 15Its accounts were audited by an independent accountant.
No reported misuse
10 of 10Reports no diversion of assets, excess benefits or loans to insiders.
Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, 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)
- $1.1 million spent. IN SEVERAL OF UMLC'S CURRENT CASES, WE ARE FIGHTING TO PROTECT FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED BY THE MINNESOTA AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS AND AGAINST GOVERNMENT AND UNION OVERREACH. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES' ATTEMPTS TO SUPPRESS FREE SPEECH HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY ALARMING, AND UMLC IS FIGHTING BACK IN SCHOOLS, UNIVERSITIES, THE WORKPLACE, ELECTION SETTINGS, UNION ACTION AND EVEN PRISONS. MOST OF OUR CASES ARE FILED IN FEDERAL COURT, AND THEREFORE OUTCOMES HAVE NATIONWIDE LEGAL PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.UMLC SCORED A SIGNIFICANT VICTORY IN ITS CAJUNE V. ISD 194 CASE WHEN THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT RULED THAT LAKEVILLE SCHOOL'S DISCRIMINATORY POSTING OF "BLACK LIVES MATTER" POSTERS WAS NOT PROTECTED BY THE "GOVERNMENT SPEECH" DOCTRINE. ALSO, WE ACHIEVED A FAVORABLE SETTLEMENT IN OUR NORGREN V. MDHS CASE CHALLENGING FORCED CRT AND GENDER IDENTITY INDOCTRINATION AFTER OUR LEGAL POSITION WAS SUSTAINED BY THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.OTHER CASES ON APPEAL AT THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT INCLUDE MINNESOTA VOTERS ALLIANCE V. ELLISON, IN WHICH WE CHALLENGE A NEW MINNESOTA LAW THAT PENALIZES RESIDENTS IF A STATEMENT THEY MAKE IS DEEMED TO BE FALSE AND SAID TO BE INTENDED TO IMPEDE OR PREVENT SOMEONE FROM VOTING. OTHERS INCLUDE OUR SCHMITT V. REBERTUS CASE IN WHICH MR. SCHMITT'S SUCCESSFUL PRISON CHRISTIAN MINISTRY REHABILITATION PROGRAM WAS CANCELED AS ALLEGEDLY IN CONFLICT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS' "DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION" VALUES, AND GUSTILO V. HHS AFTER DR. GUSTILO WAS RETALIATED AGAINST FOR OPPOSING EMPLOYER MANDATED RACE-BASED TREATMENT PROTOCOLS AND CRT IDEOLOGICAL INDOCTRINATION.ALSO, UMLC IS AWAITING DECISIONS AT THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT IN OUR APPEALS IN HUIZENGA V. ISD 11, IN WHICH TAXPAYERS ARE FORCED TO SUBSIDIZE A UNION'S POLITICAL ACTIVITY, AND TODD V. AFSCME IN WHICH TODD'S FORGED SIGNATURE WAS USED FOR UNION DEDUCTIONS. AT THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT LEVEL, UMLC HAS A CASE AGAINST THE MINNESOTA BOARD OF MEDICAL PRACTICE UNDERWAY FOR REPEATEDLY INVESTIGATING DR. SCOTT JENSEN BASED ON HIS COVID 19 POLITICAL SPEECH.RECENTLY, UMLC AND THE LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER SUED STUDENTS UNITED AND ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY OVER THE REQUIREMENT THAT STUDENTS PAY FEES TO SUPPORT A FAR-LEFT ORGANIZATION (LACKIE V. STUDENTS UNITED), AND UMLC AND THE HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE HAVE CHALLENGED A NEW MINNESOTA LAW THAT CRIMINALIZES THE USE OF DEEP FAKE TECHNOLOGY RELATING TO ELECTIONS (KOHLS V. ELLISON).AND FINALLY, ON OCTOBER 29, 2024, UMLC HAD A HUGE WIN WHEN THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT ORDERED HENNEPIN COUNTY, WHICH HAD FAILED TO INCLUDE ANY REPUBLICAN-AFFILIATED ELECTION JUDGES ON ITS ABSENTEE BALLOT BOARD, TO FOLLOW THE LAW AND EXHAUST ALL MAJOR PARTY LISTS FOR THOSE POSITIONS.FINALLY, UMLC AND THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF WITH THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN SUPPORT OF JEWISH PROFESSORS AT THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK OVER THEIR FORCED REPRESENTATION AND SUPPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY'S ANTI-ISRAEL, PRO-HAMAS UNION.ADMINISTRATIVELY, UMLC WORKED ON INTEGRATING ITS TWO NEWER ATTORNEYS, MOVED INTO NEW OFFICES REPLACING THOSE DESTROYED IN AN ARSON ATTACK IN JANUARY, 2024, AND HIRED A PARALEGAL TO ASSIST OUR GROWING PRACTICE.
Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate
Legitimacy checks
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.
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 October 13, 2026.
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.
Is it keeping up with its IRS filings? Passed.
Most recent return on file covers the year ending December 2024.
Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.
How long has it been tax-exempt? Passed.
Recognized by the IRS since May 2019.
Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.
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 October 21, 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.