The Buckeye Institute filed its fifth amicus brief in Texas Top Cop Shop v. Blanche, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review and combine this case with National Small Business United v. Bessent, and overturn the Corporate Transparency Act—an Orwellian federal surveillance program of small businesses. “The Corporate Transparency Act is a sweeping, ill-advised, and misleadingly-named law that gives the federal government power to collect private information on small business owners.”

The Buckeye Institute filed its merit brief in Sheldon v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE), calling on the Ohio Supreme Court to open Ohio’s courthouse doors to Ohioans fighting to end union wage theft. The Buckeye Institute was supported in its case by several nationally recognized public policy and legal groups that filed briefs in favor of Buckeye’s client, Matthew Sheldon.

The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Khatibi v. Lawson, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to tell California that medical professionals do not relinquish their First Amendment rights when the state licenses them. “The state of California has a right to ensure doctors and other medical professionals are qualified to do their jobs. It does not have the right to force these professionals to parrot the government’s position on controversial topics.”

The Buckeye Institute filed its amicus brief in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to stop climate activists from using the courts to dictate America’s energy policy and impose a de facto nationwide carbon tax. “Failing to achieve a carbon tax through the normal legislative process, this case represents the latest effort of climate activists to implement their preferred policy—net-zero carbon emissions—through litigation rather than legislation.”

The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and tell Tri County Area Schools that their students’ political speech—even when it is expressed on a Let’s Go Brandon shirt—is protected by the First Amendment. “The petitioners’ choice of attire, fashionable or not, clearly conveyed a political message without using profanity and is therefore protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”

The Buckeye Institute filed its brief asking the Ohio Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction in Vanderveer v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE) and either hold it pending the court’s decision in Sheldon v. OAPSE or consolidate it with Sheldon—one of The Buckeye Institute’s other cases seeking to end union wage theft practices that is pending Ohio Supreme Court review.

The Buckeye Institute filed its second amicus brief in Powell v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This one with the U.S. Supreme Court, calling on the court to hear the case and overturn the SEC’s unconstitutional gag rule, which prohibits Americans who settle cases with the SEC from discussing the case publicly. “The SEC’s gag rule guarantees that Lady Justice is not only blind, but that she is also deaf.”

The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Newman v. Moore, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing that the Judicial Council and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit exercised a de facto impeachment of Judge Pauline Newman, a removal power that the U.S. Constitution assigns exclusively to Congress. “This de facto impeachment circumvents the U.S. Constitution’s structural safeguards—bicameral action, supermajority agreement in the U.S. Senate, and public, deliberative proceedings.”

In another filing with the State Employment Relations Board (SERB)—the second in a week—The Buckeye Institute charged the Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE) with an unfair labor practice for refusing to stop its illegal union wage theft from The Buckeye Institute’s client, Anthony Groves, even though Mr. Groves resigned from the union during his opt-out window.
 

The Buckeye Institute prevailed in its efforts to overturn the federal government’s unconstitutional ban on home distilling. Friday’s blockbuster decision in McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the federal home-distilling ban is unconstitutional and exceeds Congress’s authority under both the taxing power and the Necessary and Proper Clause. “This decision is an important victory for individual liberty and the principle that the federal government is one of limited powers.”