The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the justices to hear Miller v. McDonald. In 2019, New York state stopped allowing religious exemptions to its state vaccine mandate, something it had allowed for more than 50 years, even for children who attend private Amish schools. “For hundreds of years, the Amish have eschewed modern worldly influences, including modern medicine. It is a core part of their religious beliefs and a right that the U.S. Constitution protects.”

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will hear The Buckeye Institute’s monumental case challenging the federal prohibition on home distilling: U.S. Department of Justice v. McNutt (formerly McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice). The U.S. Supreme Court now has a tremendous opportunity to consider the scope and reach of congressional power to regulate activities under the taxing power and the necessary and proper clause. “The Buckeye Institute is thrilled that the U.S. Supreme Court took the McNutt case and our clients will have their day in court.”

The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the justices to hear Perry v. Marteney. West Virginia removed a student from a virtual public school after her parents declined to vaccinate her because of their religious beliefs, even though the state exempts homeschoolers, learning pods, and microschools from its own vaccine requirements. “This case presents the U.S. Supreme Court with the opportunity to clarify that the state should not be given deferential treatment when it wants to infringe on individual rights.”

The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and 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. “Applying the reasoning of Harlan’s Plessy dissent, the discrimination that Mr. Young experienced is no less odious than ‘separate but equal.’”

The Buckeye Institute filed its brief with the Ohio Supreme Court in Kresevic v. Kimmel, asking the court to accept the case and reverse the lower court rulings, telling the city of Akron that a settlement package Ms. Kresevic received from a former employer does not represent wages and is therefore not subject to the city’s municipal income tax. This case affects the rights of every Ohioan who pays municipal income tax, and if the lower court rulings are allowed to stand, it will allow cities to evade Ohio law.

The Buckeye Institute filed its amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Beckwith v. Frey, a challenge to Maine’s unconstitutional law that imposes a 72-hour waiting period on firearm sales, even when the buyer has already passed a background check. “What is at stake in this case is whether law-abiding citizens—who have already passed a background check—can be denied their constitutionally protected Second Amendment Rights. They cannot.”

The Buckeye Institute filed its amicus brief in Wachter v. James, calling on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to tell New York that its Orwellian “guidance letter” silences speech and violates the First Amendment. “Albany may have dressed up its Orwellian edict as a guidance letter, but its threat to remove school board members from office for expressing opinions different from the government’s—or allowing citizens at public hearings to express contrary opinions—is a clear violation of the First Amendment.” 

The Buckeye Institute filed its response brief in McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice—one of The Buckeye Institute’s two cases challenging the unconstitutional federal prohibition on home distilling—with the U.S. Supreme Court. In its response, The Buckeye Institute urged the Supreme Court to grant review of McNutt and also Ream v. U.S. Department of Treasury. “The importance of the fundamental constitutional questions in these two cases being addressed together can hardly be overstated.”

The Buckeye Institute filed its amicus brief in Hall v. Fleming, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and overturn Locke v. Davey, which wrongly interpreted the U.S. Constitution’s establishment clause and endorsed an unprecedented suspicion of religion in public life. “The Buckeye Institute urges the Supreme Court to take this case and tell Virginia it cannot deny publicly available scholarship funds to college students who major in religious subjects.”

The Buckeye Institute filed its amicus brief in Jouppi v. Alaska, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to tell Alaska that seizing a plane over a six-pack of beer is the embodiment of an excessive fine that the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibits. “For 14 years, the state of Alaska has been trying to seize Mr. Jouppi’s plane over a six-pack of beer. A $95,000 plane, forfeited for a six-pack of Budweiser, exemplifies the type of financial incentives that are corrupting our criminal justice system.”