# Washington Legal Foundation *Non-profit public-interest law firm, legal think tank and communications company based in Washington, D.C.* Founded in 1977, the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) is a non-profit legal organization with offices at 2007–2009 Massachusetts Avenue NW, on Washington, D.C.'s Embassy Row.[^1] It gives its goal as "to defend and promote the principles of freedom and justice." It advocates pro-business and free-market positions, and its Wikipedia entry describes it as "widely perceived as conservative."[^1] WLF's work covers commercial free speech, corporate criminal liability, environmental regulation, food and drug law, health care and intellectual property.[^1] It works in three ways. As a public-interest law firm, it files original suits and amicus briefs, intervenes in pending cases and petitions agencies for rulings. As a legal think tank, it issues publications in seven formats every two weeks. As a communications organization, it holds conferences and media briefings and runs national educational advertising campaigns.[^1] The Minnesota record connects to WLF through one case. WLF was the named party in *[[Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation]]*, a 1998 decision that a validated Minnesota record document lists as one of two takings cases on [[IOLTA]].[^2] ## Litigation Wikipedia's account was retrieved October 26, 2026. It counts WLF's activity since its 1977 founding as follows: - more than 1,600 court cases litigated; - nearly 900 administrative and regulatory proceedings; - nearly 2,900 legal studies by over 2,500 legal experts; - 138 judicial misconduct investigations initiated; - more than 165 attorney and reform actions and petitions filed.[^1] These counts are stated as of that revision. The cases Wikipedia lists for WLF include: - *Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach*, 495 F.3d 695 (D.C. Cir. 2007). WLF represented terminally ill plaintiffs who sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to obtain drugs not yet approved. The suit did not succeed.[^1] - *Auvil v. CBS "60 Minutes"*, 67 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 1995). The Ninth Circuit upheld the trial court's rejection of a challenge to the evidence behind a *60 Minutes* broadcast. The broadcast alleged that Washington apples carried a carcinogen harmful to children.[^1] - *Goldwater v. Carter*, 617 F.2d 697 (D.C. Cir. 1979). WLF represented several members of Congress. The D.C. Circuit barred President Jimmy Carter from ending the Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan on his own without a majority of both houses of Congress or two-thirds of the Senate. The Supreme Court later overruled that decision.[^1] In *Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation*, 524 U.S. 156 (1998), the Court held that interest on a fund belongs to whoever owns the principal. It found the government's attempt to take that interest unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, applied through the Fourteenth Amendment.[^1] The decision was 5–4.[^2] WLF also brought *Washington Legal Foundation v. Henney*, 202 F.3d 331 (D.C. Cir. 2000), a suit concerning the FDAMA and the FDA's CME Guidance.[^1] ## "In All Fairness" WLF runs a recurring advertisement, *In All Fairness*, in the national edition of *The New York Times*. Each one sets out the organization's position on an issue.[^1] ## Partnerships WLF regularly works with Washington think tanks, including the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation.[^1] ## In the Minnesota record ### What - *The Instrument No One Will Name* (densified, June 18, 2026) is a validated Minnesota record document. It cites *Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation* as holding, 5–4, that IOLTA interest is the client's property.[^2] - The same document pairs *Phillips* with *[[Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington]]*, 538 U.S. 216 (2003). In *Brown*, the Supreme Court upheld IOLTA 5–4 on the ground that just compensation is measured by the owner's loss, which it found to be zero.[^2] - The *Brown* caption names the Legal Foundation of Washington. The record does not establish any WLF role in that case.[^2] ### When - *Phillips* was decided in 1998; *Brown* in 2003.[^2] ## Notes [^1]: Wikipedia contributors, *Washington Legal Foundation* (revision 1354062722, retrieved 2026-10-26) — establishes the organization's description, address, founding year, stated goal, functions, litigation counts, listed cases, the *In All Fairness* advertisement and its partnerships. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Legal_Foundation [^2]: *The Instrument No One Will Name* (densified, 2026-06-18), note [66], validated record document — establishes that *Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation*, 524 U.S. 156 (1998), was decided 5–4 and held IOLTA interest is the client's property, and that *Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington*, 538 U.S. 216 (2003), upheld IOLTA 5–4. No URL for this document is in the allowed list.