Press Releases

Flytenow Sues Federal Aviation Administration to Continue "Flight-Sharing" Operations

bwilson — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 20:50:59 +0000

Washington—Today Flytenow Inc., an innovative start-up business that uses the Internet to connect private pilots with passengers wishing to share travel plans and flight expenses, sued the Federal Aviation Administration for shutting the website down.

Flytenow expands on the trend that companies like Uber and Airbnb.com have popularized: allowing consumers to connect directly with private individuals who have goods or services that they need. Flytenow passengers do not pay for tickets or for the pilot’s time, instead, they only share fuel and fee costs with the pilot.

This cost-sharing arrangement with private pilots and passengers has been allowed by the FAA since the 1960s. Pilots previously found people to cost-share with by word of mouth, phone, posting notes on bulletin boards in airports, by email, and various other means. Flytenow simplified the process by allowing pilots to post a planned trip on a website to find people interested in sharing costs. But the FAA determined earlier this year that the process of posting a planned trip on a website constituted advertising and that subjected the private pilots to the same regulations that pilots for a commercial airline like Delta would have to meet, so they forced Flytenow to shut down.

“This is a classic case of government overreaction to new technologies and innovative ideas. Instead of updating regulations to reflect the way Americans communicate today, the FAA is stifling innovation and silencing pilots who want to use the Internet to communicate their travel plans” said Jon Riches, an attorney at the Goldwater Institute. “The FAA has essentially said that sharing flight expenses by posting a flyer on an airport bulletin board is okay, but sharing expenses by posting travel plans on the Internet is not.”

Flytenow attempted to work with the FAA to address the agency’s concerns about advertising. But the FAA couldn’t provide the company any guidance on ways to communicate that did not violate agency rules. When the FAA shut down Flytenow, the agency also said that the pilots were being compensated, even though the FAA itself has expressed said that expense sharing in any other context is not compensation.

The Goldwater Institute is representing Flytenow in its suit against the FAA. The Goldwater Institute is arguing that the FAA’s decision to shut down Flytenow violates the First Amendment and Due Process rights of the company, its owners and members, and that the agency’s rules are unconstitutionally vague because it cannot provide legally-required “fair warning” of what communication activities of private expense-sharing pilots are allowed or not.

The Goldwater Institute wants the FAA to update its regulations to allow private pilots to make cost-sharing arrangements via websites like Flytenow.com and to make allowances for other new innovations that will be developed in the future.

“All we’re asking is for the FAA to bring its regulations in line with the times so that new ideas in the aviation industry can take off,” said Riches.

Barry Goldwater, the Goldwater Institute’s namesake, was a military pilot and aviation enthusiast. Goldwater flew every type of American military aircraft in use during his time as an active pilot. Goldwater was inducted into the National Aviation Hall of Fame in 1982.

The FAA requires private pilots to meet a series of safety standards when transporting passengers. All flight-shares coordinated through Flytenow would be subject to these safety standards.

Flytenow, Inc v. Federal Aviation Administration was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, often considered the nation’s second highest court. A successful outcome in this case could have wide-ranging implications for the broader “sharing economy.”

###

About Flytenow

Flytenow makes private flying accessible by pairing general aviation pilots with individuals who share a common destination. Flytenow makes it easy for pilots to share their costs with passengers coming along for the ride, making it cheaper for both pilots and riders to take to the skies. Learn more about Flytenow: https://flytenow.com.

About The Goldwater Institute

The Goldwater Institute’s mission is to advance freedom and protect the Constitution. We research and develop ideas that help states use their constitutional powers to protect their citizens’ liberties. When governments overstep their constitutional authority, the Goldwater Institute defends citizens in court. Learn more at Goldwaterinstitute.org.

FAA uses regulations for commercial airlines to shut down private pilot websiteTuesday, January 6, 2015 - 13:48Business & Job Creation Workplace Freedom Press ReleaseYesBy Topicsfalse

Arizona Supreme Court Allows Challenge to Medicaid Expansion to Move Forward

bwilson — Wed, 31 Dec 2014 17:11:14 +0000

Phoenix—Today the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that state lawmakers have legal standing to challenge the hospital provider tax that is being used to fund a Medicaid eligibility expansion. The Court’s decision does not mean the hospital tax is legal or illegal; the decision simply allows the case to move forward and be heard on the merits.

“After a year and a half of stalling tactics by the Brewer Administration, state lawmakers will finally have their day in court to challenge this illegal tax,” said Christina Sandefur, a senior attorney at the Goldwater Institute.

At stake in this lawsuit is a critical voter-enacted state constitutional protection that requires two-thirds of the legislature to approve tax or fee increases. Arizona’s Medicaid expansion was funded by a new provider tax on hospitals, and it was not approved by the required super-majority of the legislature.

The Brewer Administration is arguing the assessment is not subject to the super-majority requirement because it is an “administrative fee” that will be set by the director of Arizona’s Health Care Cost Containment System, not lawmakers per se. Three-dozen lawmakers, represented by the Goldwater Institute, argue that the super-majority voting requirement should, in fact, apply because the legislature must authorize all new taxes or fees before they can be adjusted by an agency administrator.

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge decided state lawmakers didn’t have standing to sue over the expansion, but the Court of Appeals disagreed and reinstated the case. Today’s Supreme Court’s decision that lawmakers do have standing to sue allows the case to move forward. The case will now go back to Maricopa County Superior Court where a judge will decide if the tax itself is legal.

“Regardless of how the case ultimately comes out, today’s decision means that lawmakers can’t vote to ignore the Constitution,” said Sandefur. “More than 20 years ago, Arizona voters enacted Prop 108 to curb taxes and government growth. Thanks to today’s decision, the dozens of lawmakers who voted against dramatically transforming Arizona’s Medicaid program, putting the state on the hook for billions of dollars, and ceding the legislature’s taxing power to an unaccountable administrator will get to defend this important legacy.”

Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act; and 22 states have decided not to make the expansion. Originally, the federal health care legislation required all states to expand Medicaid or lose all federal funding. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down that piece of the federal law as unconstitutional, saying states cannot be forced to accept new rules to keep funding that was given to them under previous rules.

If the Goldwater Institute is ultimately successful in court, Arizona will be the first state in the country to have its expansion struck down by a legal challenge.

###

Goldwater Institute case challenging funding for expansion will finally be heardWednesday, December 31, 2014 - 10:09Healthcare Freedom Tax Reform Constitutional Rights Government Accountability Press ReleaseYesBy Topicsfalse

Florida Judge Dismisses Attack on New Program for Special Needs Students

bwilson — Tue, 30 Dec 2014 20:17:51 +0000

Tallahassee, Fla.—Today Leon County Judge Charles A. Francis dismissed for a second time a lawsuit challenging an array of education reforms, including Personal Learning Scholarship Accounts and an expansion to Florida’s scholarship tax credit program.

Personal Learning Scholarship Accounts allow special needs students to use a portion of their state education funding on a variety of educational programs and services, including tutoring, distance learning, private school tuition, and educational therapies. This is the first school year the program has been in place, and more than 1,200 special needs students are using the program now.

The Florida Education Association filed the lawsuit, claiming the law creating the accounts violates Florida’s “single-subject rule” because it included several education reforms in a single legislative bill. Judge Francis ruled that the plaintiffs had not suffered an injury and therefore could not bring a lawsuit against the program.

The Goldwater Institute joined the State in defending the program, representing families who are using Personal Learning Scholarship Accounts.

"The scholarship accounts allow families to customize education for their children's unique needs," said Clint Bolick, vice president of litigation at the Goldwater Institute. "We hope this special-interest group will give these kids a break and stop trying to take opportunities away from them."

Many of the students using the program have severe special needs, including Brandon Berman. Brandon has autism and suffers from congenital muscular dystrophy and spastic paraplegia. Because of these physical challenges, Brandon is unable to attend school. Even so, by law the public school system is required to provide Brandon with an appropriate education. But his local school district is only able to offer four hours of instruction a week through homebound services.

“Four hours a week of school won’t prepare any child for success,” said Bolick. “Personal Learning Scholarship Accounts give parents with severely challenged children the chance to ensure they are prepared for life.”

To read more about this lawsuit, Fassee v. Scott, click here.

###

Program gives special needs students more options in schooling to meet their unique needsTuesday, December 30, 2014 - 13:16Education Reform Press ReleaseYesBy Topicsfalse

25 Members of Congress File Brief in Support of Challenge to Independent Payment Advisory Board

bwilson — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 20:14:42 +0000

Washington—Today 25 members of Congress filed a “friend of the court” brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a legal challenge to the Independent Payment Advisory Board created by the Affordable Care Act. The members of Congress are supporting a legal challenge filed by the Goldwater Institute.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board is an appointed 15-member board created to set reimbursement rates for Medicare and to determine which procedures, treatments and drugs will and will not be covered by the government program that pays for the medical treatment of more than 48 million Americans. Independent Payment Advisory Board decisions cannot be challenged in court and the law attempts to limit the repeal of the Board itself to a short window in 2017. Never in American history has another board been created with such broad authority to impact government rulemaking that cannot be challenged in court or repealed.

Representative Phil Roe, M.D., (R-TN) has been leading the effort to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board with bipartisan legislation. His bills have passed the House, but have not been considered in the Senate. If a bill repealing the Board passed the Senate next year, it’s likely President Obama would veto it.

“That’s why it’s so important that the Supreme Court take this case now,” said Darcy Olsen, president of the Goldwater Institute. “We don’t have time to wait for another president to be elected. If the Independent Payment Advisory Board isn’t stopped before it has a chance to put recommendations in place, it will be too late.”

“As a physician with more than 30 years of experience, I find the ability of this Board to intervene in the relationship doctors have with their patients alarming,” said Dr. Roe. “I have serious concerns that this unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy could have a devastating impact on seniors’ access to care, and I hope the Court will hear this case.”

Twenty-five members of Congress signed onto the brief to support the Goldwater Institute’s case: Rep. Phil Roe, M.D. (R-TN), Sen. Tob Coburn, M.D. (R-OK), Rep. Dan Benishek (R-MI), Rep. Diane Black (R-TN), Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO), Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), Rep. Paul Gosar, D.D.S. (R-AZ), Rep. H. Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R- MS), Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX), Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN), Rep, Matt Salmon (R-AZ), Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ), Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE), Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA), and Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL).

Click here to read the Members’ brief filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation.

The Supreme Court will decide to hear the case by June 30, 2015.

###

To schedule an interview with Christina Sandefur, please contact Starlee Coleman at the Goldwater Institute at scoleman@goldwaterinstitute.org . If you are affiliated with a national network, the Goldwater Institute has an in-house VideoLink studio for rapid cable hook-up at no cost, and can make Institute spokespeople available for live in-person interviews upon request.

Members urge U.S. Supreme Court to hear Goldwater Institute caseThursday, December 4, 2014 - 13:01Constitutional Rights Press ReleaseYesBy TopicsStarlee Rhoadesfalse

Ariz. Department of Education Retaliates Against Tucson Teacher Opposed to Common Core

bwilson — Tue, 02 Dec 2014 16:53:53 +0000

Goldwater Institute files suit to protect teachers’ rights to speak out against state policies

Phoenix—Today the Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit on behalf of Tucson, Ariz. teacher Brad McQueen, who was retaliated against by employees of the Arizona Department of Education for speaking out against the Common Core State Standards.

For years, Mr. McQueen was paid to serve on several committees of teachers who advised the state department of education on issues related to standardized testing. When he spoke out against the Common Core and its accompanying standardized test earlier this year in a newspaper article, he was removed from the committees (even those that had nothing to do with the Common Core), notes were made in his file at the department that could impact future employment opportunities, and he was disparaged in official department emails.

“The First Amendment guarantees that all Americans have the right to speak out on important issues of the day without fear of being persecuted,” said Kurt Altman, a senior attorney at the Goldwater Institute. “When you exercise your rights and find your livelihood and reputation are threatened, especially by the government, that sends a message to everyone around you to keep their mouths shut.”

The Goldwater Institute lawsuit claims that Mr. McQueen’s First Amendment rights have been violated and seeks to have him reinstated to the committees unrelated to the Common Core and to have his record cleared of information about his opposition to the Common Core.

“Teachers are on the front lines implementing the school policies adopted by the government. It is critical that their ability to speak out publicly about those policies is protected,” said Altman. “No teacher should have to worry about losing his job or being forced out of other professional roles because he disagrees with a policy. We should be doing the opposite; we should encourage teachers to tell us what is and is not working in the classroom as policies are being developed and implemented.”

“The more I learned about the Common Core, the more concerned I became,” said Brad McQueen. “But I had no idea that voicing my opinion on my own time and as a private citizen would cause me to be targeted by the Department. I was shocked.” Mr. McQueen has been a teacher for 11 years and currently teaches fifth grade in Tucson, Arizona.

The lawsuit, McQueen v. Huppenthal, was filed in Maricopa County Superior Court.

###

Tuesday, December 2, 2014 - 09:53Free Speech Press ReleaseYesBy Topicsfalse

Judge Strikes Down City of Tucson’s Local Business Bid Preference Ordinance

bwilson — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:41:26 +0000

Judge sides with Goldwater Institute, saying special preference for local companies in city contracting violated state and federal constitutions

Phoenix—Today Pima County Superior Court Judge Gus Aragon struck down a City of Tucson ordinance giving local businesses special privileges in city contracting.

“This is a victory for all businesses and for all Tucson taxpayers. Everyone should be on a level playing field when trying to do business with City Hall,” said Jon Riches, an attorney at the Goldwater Institute.

Tucson adopted a city ordinance in 2012 that gives businesses based in Tucson a significant financial advantage when bidding to do business with the City. Businesses that are headquartered in Tucson are able to bid up to 5 percent more on city contracts and still win. This not only disadvantages other small businesses in Tucson who do not qualify for the preference, or that may be headquartered in another part of the state, but it also means Tucson taxpayers will pay more for city services than they need to.

The Goldwater Institute challenged this city ordinance on several grounds, particularly that this ordinance is a violation of the “equal protection” clauses in the U.S. and Arizona constitutions. Equal protection clauses are meant to keep the government from singling out certain citizens for special advantages or disadvantages. The Arizona Supreme Court struck down a similar state bid preference law more than 20 years ago.

Judge Aragon ruled in the Goldwater Institute’s favor on every issue raised, finding that the bid preference ordinance “violates the Arizona Constitution and the United States Constitution.” In his ruling, Judge Aragon wrote Tucson’s bid preference ordinance “discriminates among bidders for government work/services and it violates the [Arizona Constitution’s] Gift Clause by granting a direct taxpayer subsidy to certain preferred bidders, and the City receives no direct consideration in return.”

The Goldwater Institute has filed several successful legal challenges to various laws that offered special preferences to some businesses but not others. This lawsuit could have an impact on local business bid preference laws across the country.

“All businesses should be treated the same. Just like big-box stores shouldn’t get special tax breaks that mom-and-pops can’t get, mom-and-pops shouldn’t get special deals to charge taxpayers more for services,” said Riches. “This lawsuit is about protecting taxpayers and leveling the playing field for all businesses and keeping the public procurement process a politics-free zone.”

Click here for more information about this case, Hirshman v. Rothschild.

###

Tuesday, November 25, 2014 - 11:40Government Spending Business & Job Creation Press ReleaseYesBy Topicsfalse

City of Tucson’s Local Business Bid Preference Ordinance Headed to Court

bwilson — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:45:08 +0000

City of Tucson’s Local Business Bid Preference Ordinance Headed to Court

Judge to hear arguments in Goldwater Institute lawsuit

Contact: Starlee Coleman

scoleman@goldwaterinstitute.org

Phoenix—Should locally-owned businesses get a special preference when doing business with City Hall? That’s the question at issue in a lawsuit challenging the City of Tucson’s local business contracting preference. Next Monday, lawyers for the City and the Goldwater Institute will face off before Pima County Superior Court Judge Gus Aragon.

“We can all agree that supporting locally-owned businesses so they can grow and thrive is important for the economy. After all, you never know what home-grown small business will be the next Cold Stone Creamery. But giving special advantages to some businesses and not others isn’t the way to do that,” said Jon Riches, an attorney at the Goldwater Institute.

The Goldwater Institute is challenging this city ordinance on several grounds, particularly that this ordinance is a violation of the “equal protection” clauses in the U.S. and Arizona constitutions. Equal protection clauses are meant to keep the government from singling out certain citizens for special advantages or disadvantages. The Arizona Supreme Court struck down a similar state bid preference law more than 20 years ago.

“All businesses should be treated the same. Just like big-box stores shouldn’t get special tax breaks that mom-and-pops can’t get, mom-and-pops shouldn’t get special deals to charge taxpayers more for services,” said Riches. “This lawsuit is about leveling the playing field for all businesses and keeping the public procurement process a politics-free zone.”

Judge Aragon will hear arguments in this case, Hirshman v. Rothschild, on Monday, November 17, 2014 at 3:30 p.m. Click here for more information about Hirshman v. Rothschild.

###

Thursday, November 13, 2014 - 09:44Government Accountability Press ReleaseYesBy Topicsfalse

Will U.S. Supreme Court Hear Challenge to Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board?

bwilson — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 20:50:26 +0000

Will U.S. Supreme Court Hear Challenge to Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board?

Goldwater Institute asks court to hear challenge to price-setting board

Phoenix—Today the Goldwater Institute filed a legal petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its challenge to the Independent Payment Advisory Board created by the Affordable Care Act.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board is a 15-member board created to set reimbursement rates for Medicare and to determine which procedures, treatments and drugs will and will not be covered by the government programs that pay for the medical treatment of more than 48 million Americans. Independent Payment Advisory Board decisions cannot be challenged in court and the Board itself cannot be repealed except for during a short window in 2017.

These features are unique to the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Never in American history has another board been created with such broad authority to impact government rulemaking that cannot be challenged in court or repealed.

“Our government is designed to check and balance itself—if one branch overreaches, another branch is there to correct it. Ultimately, we want the Court to strike down IPAB,” said Darcy Olsen, president and CEO of the Goldwater Institute, the only organization in the country that has filed a legal challenge against the Board.

Congressman Phil Roe (R-TN) has introduced legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board. His bill has received dozens of co-sponsors, including several Democrats. Congressman Barney Frank (D-NY) has been a vocal critic of the Independent Payment Advisory Board and has also called for its repeal.

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether or not to take the case, Coons v. Lew, by June 30, 2015.

Read the Goldwater Institute’s petition here.

###

Phoenix—Today the Goldwater Institute filed a legal petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its challenge to the Independent Payment Advisory Board created by the Affordable Care Act. The Independent Payment Advisory Board is a 15-member board created to set reimbursement rates for Medicare and to determine which procedures, treatments and drugs will and will not be covered by the government programs that pay for the medical treatment of more than 48 million Americans. Independent Payment Advisory Board decisions cannot be challenged in court and the Board itself cannot be repealed except for during a short window in 2017.Wednesday, November 5, 2014 - 13:49Healthcare Freedom Press ReleaseYesBy Topicstrue

Arizona Voters Pass “Right To Try” For Terminally Ill Patients

bwilson — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 19:12:14 +0000

Arizona Voters Pass “Right To Try” For Terminally Ill Patients

Ariz. Becomes fifth state this year to expand access to medicines for dying Americans

Contact: Starlee Coleman

scoleman@goldwaterinstitute.org

(602) 758-9162

Phoenix—Tonight Arizona voters passed Proposition 303, a state ballot measure giving terminally ill patients the right to try investigational medicines that have passed the first phase of FDA approval but still may be years away from reaching pharmacy shelves.

“Terminally ill people don’t have time to wait for new drugs to make their way through the decade-long approval process. Prop 303 lets patients work directly with their doctors to access promising investigational medicines now,” said Darcy Olsen, president of the Goldwater Institute.

Right to Try is already law in Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan and Missouri, where it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in all four states. Arizona is the first state to pass the law by voter initiative. The Goldwater Institute drafted Prop 303 and is leading the nationwide effort.

The FDA has a process that allows people to seek permission to access investigational medicines. This “Compassionate Use” process takes hundreds of hours of paperwork and time to navigate. While many people ultimately receive FDA permission, there are dozens of documented cases of people dying while waiting on their approval.

“Americans shouldn’t have to ask the government for permission to try to save their own lives,” said Olsen. “They should be able to work with their doctors directly to decide what potential treatments they are willing to try.”

Right To Try has been featured on CNN, Fox News, Good Morning America, NPR’s Diane Rehm show, and endorsed by several newspapers around the country, including the USA Today.

Wednesday, November 5, 2014 - 12:11Healthcare Freedom Press ReleaseYesBy Topicsfalse

Challenge to Arizona Medicaid Expansion in Front of Arizona Supreme Court

bwilson — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:18:49 +0000

Goldwater Institute case challenging funding for expansion will be heard November 6

Contact: Starlee Coleman

(602) 758-9162

Phoenix—This week the Arizona Supreme Court will determine whether or not state legislators can challenge Arizona’s Medicaid expansion tax under Obamacare. The Supreme Court will hear the arguments in Tucson at the University of Arizona law school this Thursday, November 6, under a program that brings live legal proceedings to Arizona high schools and universities.

At stake is a critical voter-enacted state constitutional protection that requires two-thirds of the legislature to approve tax or fee increases. Arizona’s Medicaid expansion was funded by a new “provider tax” on hospitals, and it was not approved by the required super-majority of the legislature.

“Legislators cannot make an end run around the Constitution by ceding their powers to an unelected director,” said Christina Sandefur, a senior attorney at the Goldwater Institute.

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge decided state lawmakers didn’t have standing to sue over the expansion, but the Court of Appeals disagreed and reinstated the case. The Supreme Court will make the final decision on whether or not the case can proceed. If the Court rules in the Institute’s favor, the case will go back to Superior Court and the legal issues in the case will be decided.

Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act. Indiana and Utah are still debating expansion; and 21 states have decided not to make the expansion. Originally, the federal health care legislation required all states to expand Medicaid or lose all federal funding. The U.S. Supreme Court struck that piece of the federal law down as unconstitutional, saying states cannot be forced to accept new rules to keep funding that was given to them under previous rules.

If the Goldwater Institute is ultimately successful in court, Arizona will be the first state in the country to have its expansion struck down by a legal challenge.

Media must register with the court to attend the hearing. To pre-register, click here.

The hearing will also be broadcast live via web here.

Hearing Details

November 6, 2014 at 2:00 pm

University of Arizona James E. Rogers School of Law

1201 E. Speedway

Room 164 (Ares Auditorium)

Tucson, AZ 85721

###

Monday, November 3, 2014 - 10:17Healthcare Freedom Government Spending Press ReleaseYesBy Topicsfalse