American Center for Law and Justice

Legal name: American Center for Law and Justice Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541586817
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Virginia Beach, VA, USA
Phone
7578029160
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Civil Liberties

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$32,419,217
Expenses
$31,238,377
Assets
$5,817,387
Liabilities
$945,845

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR JAY SEKULOW ESQ (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MATTHEW CLARK ESQ (SENIOR COUNSEL FOR DIGITAL): $529,314 total reported compensation
  • THOMAS P MONAGHAN ESQ (SECRETARY/TREASURER): $513,733 total reported compensation
  • BEN SISNEY ESQ (SENIOR COUNSEL FOR LITIGA): $484,838 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) engages in legal advocacy, education, and litigation, focusing on religious liberty, free speech, pro-life issues, and constitutional law, including representing clients before the U.S. Supreme Court and international tribunals.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization has participated in numerous supreme court, circuit court, court of appeals and state superior and supreme court cases regarding freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and other us constitutional issues. Research staff at the center provides up to date information regarding various cases related to the protection of religious and human rights. A complete list of cases is available upon request.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 89%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $33.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.3%; rating input score 99; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.6%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.9%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 85.8% of revenue deployed · 89% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $27.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $529K · 16 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $11.2M reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.