Later this year, the U.S. Supreme Court will issue rulings in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. U.S. Department of Commerce, which could rein in the power of unelected government officials to make laws well beyond what Congress authorized. In the new issue of the Columbus Bar Association’s Lawyers Quarterly, The Buckeye Institute’s David C. Tryon looks at the end of Chevron deference and what comes next.

The Buckeye Institute reacted to the ruling by Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals in Doe v. Columbus granting Buckeye’s request to dismiss the city of Columbus’ appeal of Judge Gormley’s April 25 ruling, which granted Buckeye’s request for a preliminary injunction. “The Fifth District’s ruling is a victory for The Buckeye Institute and its clients, and all residents of Columbus who want to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.”

The Buckeye Institute filed public comments with the Ohio Supreme Court urging the court to adopt the proposed amendments and admit qualified part-time attorneys—practicing in other jurisdictions—to the Ohio Bar without needless regulatory hardships. “By removing needless regulatory restriction, Ohio would encourage part-time attorneys to move to the Buckeye State, increasing the availability and affordability of legal services to those in need.”

The Buckeye Institute commented on the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of cert in Ohio v. Yellen, which challenged the constitutionality of the Biden Administration’s federal tax mandate included in the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). The mandate prohibits states from directly or indirectly using ARPA funds to offset any reduction in taxes. “Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to hear Ohio v. Yellen, there are other opportunities for the high court to reign in this sweeping usurpation of state policymaking power.”

The Buckeye Institute filed public comments on the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed changes to how the federal government determines the economic and social impacts of proposed federal regulations, which, if adopted, will make it easier to justify economically reckless regulations. “All in all, [the proposed changes] stack[] the deck in the regulator’s favor, making it easier to justify economically reckless regulations that encroach on freedoms enjoyed by American industries and citizenry.” 

In The Columbus Dispatch, The Buckeye Institute urges Columbus to spend its resources educating firearms owners about safe storage and children to avoid guns. “It is tragic when a child dies. It is even more tragic when that death was preventable. But perhaps the worst is when the child dies because of a parent’s negligence. … Columbus does not need additional gun laws to prosecute individuals who recklessly store their firearms around children. Mr. Johnson’s plea agreement and upcoming sentencing are testament to that fact.”
 

The Buckeye Institute commented after Judge David M. Gormley granted Buckeye’s request for a preliminary injunction in Doe v. Columbus, staying the enforcement of Columbus City Ordinance 3176-2022, which—in violation of Ohio law and the U.S. and Ohio constitutions—outlaws certain firearms magazines in the city of Columbus. Judge Gormley also granted Buckeye’s request for its clients to proceed pseudonymously and denied the city of Columbus’s request to dismiss and transfer the case to a different court.

The Buckeye Institute issued a statement after the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Biden v. Nebraska and U.S. Department of Education v. Brown that challenge the Biden Administration’s student loan debt cancellation plan. “As The Buckeye Institute argued in its amicus brief and as several justices seemed to recognize, the Constitutional Appropriations clause would require Congress—not the Department of Education—to authorize this program.”