The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (NRSC v. FEC), calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II) and end the government’s harmful and unnecessary limits on free speech. In its brief, The Buckeye Institute argues that coordinated expenditures between political parties and candidates pose no particular threat of corruption, thus, the FEC’s blanket restriction on coordination is an excessive limit on free speech.

The Buckeye Institute joined the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Gilliam v. Gerregano, calling on the court to hear the case to clarify the scope of the “government speech doctrine” and end government censorship of vanity license plates. “This case exemplifies the government speech doctrine’s potential for abuse and overreach and underscores the urgent need for the high court to clarify its scope.”

The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to quash a New Jersey attorney general’s subpoena demanding First Choice Women’s Resource Centers turn over the private and constitutionally protected information of its donors. The Buckeye Institute argues “the issuance of this subpoena—even if it is ultimately quashed—severely chills First Amendment rights because individuals will now fear that their charitable contributions to organizations engaged in controversial issues will be subjected to…possible…retaliation.”

The Buckeye Institute filed its third amicus brief with the Ohio Supreme Court in Bowling v. DeWine, urging the court to hear the case (again) and affirm that Ohio’s Cooperation Statute does not require the governor to accept federal money every time it is offered. “By hearing Bowling v. DeWine again, the Ohio Supreme Court has the opportunity to make clear Ohio’s Cooperation Statute does not require the governor to accept every federal dollar offered.”

The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Diemert v. City of Seattle, urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to look to Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson and his expansive view of the 14th Amendment to end discriminatory workplace equity initiatives, which violate the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. “By recognizing the wisdom in Justice Harlan’s Plessy dissent, this court can move us towards the color-blind Constitution and the America that Harlan envisioned.”

The Buckeye Institute filed its appeal brief in Sheldon v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE) with Ohio’s Seventh District Court of Appeals, calling on the court to reverse the lower court’s dismissal of the case and end the union’s wage theft practices. The Buckeye Institute represents Matthew Sheldon of Carrollton, Ohio, in Sheldon v. OAPSE—one of seven union wage theft cases brought by The Buckeye Institute. Stay up-to-date on Sheldon v. OAPSE at: BuckeyeInstitute.org/SheldonvOAPSE.

The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Thomas v. County of Humboldt, California, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and declare that the right to a civil jury trial—enumerated in the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution—applies to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment’s privileges or immunities clause. “This case presents the court with an opportunity to reinvigorate the privileges or immunities clause and restore it to its respected place in American jurisprudence.”

The Buckeye Institute filed a new lawsuit in another union wage theft case, this time against the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees on behalf of Cindy DuPuis and Tiffany Binder, both of Lucas County. The Buckeye Institute filed DuPuis v. AFSCME in Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. “Ms. DuPuis and Mrs. Binder ended their contracts with AFSCME on the day they quit the union, and under Ohio law, all dues deductions should have ended immediately.” 

Five nationally renowned policy organizations and public interest law firms filed amicus briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit supporting The Buckeye Institute’s case, Ream v. U.S. Department of Treasury, which challenges the federal government’s ban on home distilling. The groups that filed amicus briefs in support of The Buckeye Institute’s case were Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Cato Institute, Center for Individual Rights, Liberty Justice Center, and Southeastern Legal Foundation.

The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Center for Arizona Policy v. Arizona, calling on the Arizona Supreme Court to recognize that Proposition 211—Arizona’s expansive donor disclosure requirement—is not only unconstitutional, but also dangerous. “Four years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down California’s requirement that nonprofit organizations turn over sensitive donor information to the government. Arizona’s law is worse than California’s—and should likewise be struck down.”