named programs · 8 · from sources
What they call their work
Beating Book Bans
Defends against extreme state-level book bans by representing schools, libraries, students, and parents in constitutional challenges.
Challenging School Censorship
Challenges unconstitutional bans on classroom discussions of "prohibited concepts" through litigation on behalf of educators and teacher organizations.
Defending Strong Gun Laws
Defends local governments against lawsuits seeking to overturn restrictions on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines following the Bruen decision.
Fighting Executive Overreach
Challenges the creation of unauthorized civilian militias by local executives, such as in Nassau County, NY, to prevent abuse of emergency powers.
Fighting Voter Intimidation
Represents voting rights organizations in lawsuits against state officials accused of voter intimidation and disenfranchisement.
Fighting the Abuse of Military Power
Challenges the unlawful domestic deployment of National Guard troops by the federal government in cities like Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
Protecting Free and Fair Elections
Challenges executive overreach in election administration, including filing amicus briefs on behalf of bipartisan former governors to block presidential interference in state election processes.
Stopping Genetic Surveillance
Challenges the unlawful collection of DNA from individuals arrested for non-serious offenses, particularly during protests, through the case Briggs v. Mullin.
activities · 4 groups
What they do
-
Constitutional and Government Accountability Litigation 3 activities
- Challenging unlawful genetic surveillance and DNA collection practicesLeads litigation to stop the unconstitutional collection and retention of DNA from individuals detained during protests or charged with minor offenses, including representing specific plaintiffs such as a U.S. Air Force veteran. Successfully challenged federal practices through major lawsuits.
- Constitutional litigation against executive overreach and authoritarian threatsFiles and litigates high-impact lawsuits challenging executive actions that undermine democratic principles, including presidential expansion of election control and state-level creation of unauthorized militias. Focuses on cases with potential for national precedent, often proceeding through appellate courts and the Supreme Court.
- Monitoring legislation and executive actions for constitutional challengesTracks federal and state laws and executive actions to identify and initiate legal challenges against those posing authoritarian threats or violating constitutional norms.
-
-
Civic Engagement and Voter Mobilization 2 activities
- Defending voting rights and challenging voter intimidationSecures voting rights through constitutional litigation, including restoring voting rights to 1.4 million Floridians and representing voting rights organizations in lawsuits against state officials for disenfranchisement and intimidation tactics.
- Filing amicus briefs in defense of constitutional governance and electionsSubmits amicus briefs in key appellate cases to defend state authority in election administration, including challenging the FBI's seizure of 2020 election ballots in Georgia and opposing executive orders that expand presidential control over elections.
-
-
Gun Violence Prevention & Intervention 1 activity
- Challenging illegal local militias and gun violence policiesProvides pro bono legal representation to Nassau County legislators in Mulé v. Nassau County, successfully opposing a motion to dismiss and defeating a counterclaim related to the dissolution of a taxpayer-funded civilian militia. Also defends local governments’ authority to restrict assault weapons and large-capacity magazines post-_Bruen_.
-
-
Free Expression Defense & Advocacy 1 activity
- Opposing unconstitutional book bans and school censorshipRepresents educators and organizations in litigation against extreme classroom and library restrictions, including successfully challenging Idaho’s book ban law on First Amendment grounds, resulting in its repeal by the legislature and a Ninth Circuit ruling of unconstitutionality.
-
financials · form 990 · fy2024
revenue
Total revenue$2.28M
Contributions & grants$2.25M99%
Program service revenue$00%
Investment income$27K1%
Other revenue$0
expenses
Total expenses$1.46M
Program expenses67%
Admin / overhead18%
Fundraising15%
Salaries & benefits$1.20M
Grants paid out$0
Largest expense lineCompensation
balance sheet
Total assets$2.35M
Cash$2.25M
Investments$0
Liabilities$4K
Net assets$2.35M
Liquid reserves18.5 mo
3 years on record · 2022–2024 · YoY revenue +27.2%
leadership · form 990 part vii · fy2024
Who runs it
paid leadership · 4
| Name | Title | Hours/wk | Compensation |
|---|---|---|---|
| KEVIN TROWEL | PRINCIPAL | 40 | $401K |
| DANIEL FROST | EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR | 40 | $284K |
| MARTHA REISER | ASSOCIATE | 40 | $198K |
| BETSY GELL | CHIEF PHILANTHROPY OFFICER | 40 | $154K |
board members · 7
- CAREY DUNNE — CHAIR, PRESIDENT, SECRETARY
- ELENA KIAM — DIRECTOR
- MARK POMERANTZ — VP & TREASURER
- MICHELE ROBERTS — VP & TREASURER
- ROBIN MAXWELL — DIRECTOR
- SUDIP THAKOR — DIRECTOR
- TIFFANY LISTON — DIRECTOR
relationships · 22
Who they work with
- Ballard Spahr Partner — Co-counsel representing plaintiffs _pro bono_ in the NWAIS v. Labrador case.
- Bipartisan group of former governors Partner — Supports litigation efforts by urging federal courts to block executive overreach on election authority.
- California Partner — Co-litigant in litigation challenging federal executive overreach on election authority.
- DSCC Partner — Co-litigant in litigation challenging federal executive overreach on election authority.
- Florida Rights Restoration Coalition Partner — Represented the organization in a lawsuit against Governor Ron DeSantis over voter intimidation and disenfranchisement.
- Fordham Law School Rule of Law Clinic Partner — Partner organization supporting Free + Fair’s litigation efforts.
- Georgetown Law Center on Privacy and Technology Partner — Partner organization whose 2024 report "Raiding the Genome" informed Free + Fair's litigation strategy.
- Governors Action Alliance Partner — Collaborates with Free + Fair Litigation Group on a pro bono basis to represent bipartisan former governors in election-related litigation.
- Kelner & Kelner Partner — Co-counsel in the Mulé v. Nassau County case, providing joint legal representation pro bono.
- Kurt G. Kastorf Partner — Co-counsel providing pro bono legal representation alongside Free + Fair in the Pitts v. United States case.
- Latonia Haney Keith Partner — Co-counsel representing plaintiffs _pro bono_ in the NWAIS v. Labrador case.
- McKay Cunningham Partner — Co-counsel representing plaintiffs _pro bono_ in the NWAIS v. Labrador case.
- NWAIS Partner — Represented Idaho private schools, libraries, students, and parents in challenging the state's extreme book ban.
- New York lawmakers Partner — Co-litigants in litigation to dissolve Nassau County Executive's armed civilian militia.
- Saul Ewing LLP Partner — Co-counsel representing plaintiffs pro bono in Briggs v. Mullin
- Saul Ewing LLP Partner — Legal partner providing pro bono representation in the Briggs v. Mullin lawsuit.
- Sher Tremonte LLP Partner — Co-counsel representing plaintiffs pro bono in Briggs v. Mullin
- Sher Tremonte LLP Partner — Legal partner providing pro bono representation in the Briggs v. Mullin lawsuit.
- Stoel Rives Partner — Co-counsel representing plaintiffs _pro bono_ in the NWAIS v. Labrador case.
- Tennessee Education Association Partner — Represented the state's largest teacher organization in challenging an unconstitutional ban on 'Prohibited Concepts' in public schools.
- other non-profit organizations Partner — Partners with nonprofit organizations to litigate high-stakes constitutional cases.
- private law firms Partner — Collaborates with pro bono legal teams from private law firms on constitutional litigation cases.
strategies · 4
How they approach the work
Named approaches extracted from this org’s sources. Where others share an approach, follow it to see the full set of orgs running it.
- Bipartisan Legal Credibility Strategymethodology: bipartisan-legal-challengeBy leveraging bipartisan legal expertise and amicus support from credible former officials, we strengthen constitutional arguments because such cross-ideological validation enhances judicial receptivity and reinforces the nonpartisan defense of democratic norms.
- National Network Litigation Modelmethodology: national network litigation modelBy activating a national network of skilled litigators and providing sustained senior legal leadership, we increase the effectiveness and scalability of constitutional challenges because coordinated expertise across jurisdictions strengthens case development and appellate outcomes.
- Strategic Litigation for Precedentmethodology: strategic litigation for precedentBy selecting high-impact constitutional cases across all 50 states, we produce nationally significant legal precedents because such rulings establish binding interpretations of the law that deter future authoritarian threats and protect democratic principles.
- Targeted Constitutional Challenge Modelmethodology: litigation-against-overbroad-censorshipBy focusing litigation on overbroad or unconstitutional government practices—such as censorship or executive overreach—we achieve structural legal change because narrowly tailored challenges to specific violations create clear, enforceable boundaries for state power.