The Buckeye Institute filed two sets of public comments—one from Buckeye’s policy experts, the other from Buckeye’s legal experts—outlining the technical and legal reasons the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should rescind its 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding and motor-vehicle greenhouse gas standards, which have driven up the price of cars and trucks for American consumers.

The Buckeye Institute marks Constitution Day with a piece in The Columbus Dispatch, writing, “When Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government the American framers had created, he wryly replied, ‘A republic, if you can keep it.’ This Constitution Day, on the brink of celebrating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it is fitting to wonder whether we have, in fact, kept what the Founders gave us — and how.”

In the Columbus Bar Association’s Lawyers Quarterly magazine, David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute, evaluates the impact of the end of Chevron Deference. “Advocates and adversaries of Loper Bright overstate the likely effect of Chevron’s recent demise. It will not end the administrative state, but it will significantly affect how Congress, federal agencies, and judges fulfill their constitutional obligations.”

The Buckeye Institute issued a statement after the City of Columbus filed its brief in Doe v. Columbus with the Ohio Supreme Court, saying, “In its third attempt at lifting a preliminary injunction prohibiting Columbus from enforcing its unconstitutional gun law, the city is asking the Ohio Supreme Court to allow the city to appeal the preliminary injunction, which, according to Ohio law, is not appealable.” 

In February 2023, The Buckeye Institute sued the City of Columbus, Ohio, to stop its illegal and unconstitutional 30-round magazine ban. In Doe v. Columbus, Buckeye represents six Columbus residents who legally owned, and still own, 30-round magazines until the city banned them. This case is still in its early stages, but Buckeye has already won significant victories defending the Ohio and U.S. constitutions and protecting the rights of gun owners. 

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.”