The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Sanchez v. United States opposing unconstitutional forfeiture laws, which create perverse incentives for law enforcement to seize private property when its owner is not convicted of a crime, or in this case, wasn’t charged, or even suspected of a crime. “The result of forfeiture laws is a system where revenue generation—not crime prevention—is the primary driver of law enforcement decisions.”

The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Gonzales v. Inslee, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the private property rights of landlords. In its brief, Buckeye argues that the right to exclude—to say who can and cannot live on your property—is a fundamental element of property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment and that the state of Washington effectively took private property by telling landlords they could not exclude non-rent paying tenants from their property. 

The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Ashland Global Holdings v. SuperAsh Remainderman, calling on the Ohio Supreme Court to reject the “honest mistake” doctrine in contract law. “The freedom to make and enforce contracts is fundamental to advancing personal and business endeavors, and both the nation’s Founders and those establishing the state of Ohio prohibited the state from interfering with this freedom. Ashland Global had a contractual duty to do their job—its failure does not merit judicial intervention.”

The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Norris v. Stanley, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and correct a misreading of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which lower courts have over-interpreted to allow the government to use its police power to force people to get medical treatments. “The government is not the all-knowing purveyor of truth and should not be given deferential treatment when it wants to infringe on individual rights regarding medical treatments.”

The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in No on E v. Chiu, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and protect America’s “honorable tradition” of anonymous political speech. “From Mrs. Silence Dogood to Publius to Brutus to the Federal Farmer, our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of anonymous political speech. And thank goodness they did.”

The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), calling on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to prohibit the SEC from forcing publicly traded companies to comply with arbitrary racial and gender quotas. In its brief, The Buckeye Institute argues that the SEC mandate that all publicly traded companies must allocate two board seats based on race or gender identity is beyond what Congress authorized.

The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Antonyuk v. James (previously Christian v. Nigrelli) on behalf of Project 21, a national network of black political, civic, and business leaders. In its brief, The Buckeye Institute calls on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and argues that New York’s Conceal Carry Improvement Act violates the constitutional right of the citizens of New York, particularly black New Yorkers, to keep and bear arms.

The Buckeye Institute joined an amicus brief in KC Transport v. Su, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and rein in the “grandiose view” the U.S. Department of Labor and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) have of their own power. “Once again, government officials are abusing their regulatory powers. This time, it is the U.S. Department of Labor.” 

The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Herrera v. Raoul, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and re-affirm its ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen and overturn Illinois’ ban on the sale, purchase, and possession of certain rifles and standard capacity magazines. “In the wake of Bruen, lawmakers, litigants, and judges are debating how the ruling should apply. But as courts consider the cases brought before them, they are still bound by precedent.” 

The Buckeye Institute joined the National Federation of Independent Business on its amicus brief in Metal Conversion Technologies v. U.S. Department of Transportation, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and confirm that government agencies must follow the principle of “equitable tolling,” which is a well-established principle in the country’s courts, except in “administrative law” where the longstanding doctrine is often ignored.