The Buckeye Institute filed its amicus brief in Viramontes v. Cook Co. and Grant v. Higgins, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to tell Cook County and other jurisdictions that arbitrary firearm bans violate the U.S. Constitution. “Contrary to popular belief, detachable magazines are nothing new. The public’s visceral reaction against them does not give Cook County, or other jurisdictions, a license to violate the constitutional rights of Americans.”

The Buckeye Institute filed its third amicus brief in the National Prescription Opiate multidistrict litigation case (In re OptumRx) before Judge Dan Polster in the U.S. Court for the Northern District of Ohio. In its brief, Buckeye calls on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the district court  to strictly adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that govern all civil court cases. 

The Buckeye Institute filed its reply brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, responding to the federal government’s filing in Ream v. U.S. Department of the Treasury—one of The Buckeye Institute’s cases challenging the federal prohibition on home distilling. In its brief, The Buckeye Institute urged the court to resolve all of the relevant constitutional claims involved. “Ream squarely presents the full range of constitutional justifications the government has argued at every stage of the case in defense of the federal ban on home distilling.” 

Sixty-one nationally renowned organizations, public interest law firms, states, and individuals from across the country filed amicus briefs supporting The Buckeye Institute’s client John Ream in his David v. Goliath challenge to the federal government’s unconstitutional 158-year-old prohibition on home distilling. “The Buckeye Institute is honored, humbled, and grateful to have so many extraordinary amici supporting John Ream and Buckeye’s case to overturn the un-American federal ban on home distilling.”

The Buckeye Institute, joined by Mountain States Legal Foundation, filed an amicus brief in Association for Education Fairness v. Montgomery County Board of Education, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and tell Montgomery County Public Schools that discriminating against a group of students based on race to increase diversity is still discrimination and violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Pacific Legal Foundation represents the Association for Education Fairness.
 

The Buckeye Institute filed its second amicus brief in Craig v. Cromes, calling on the Ohio Supreme Court to foreclose Cuyahoga County’s home equity theft scheme. “When Moses Cleaveland laid out the plat map more than 200 years ago for the property where the plaintiffs in this case would live, he would have understood that the government cannot pocket the profits from the sale of property seized to settle a tax debt.” 

The Buckeye Institute joined New Civil Liberties Alliance and Americans for Prosperity Foundation in filing an amicus brief in U.S. Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to protect Americans from unconstitutional in-house government agency tribunals. “These in-house agency tribunals are a unique threat to civil liberties, acting as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury. Unsurprisingly, winning every time. This case offers the U.S. Supreme Court the opportunity to end the use of agency tribunals...” 

The Buckeye Institute filed its amicus brief in Clemente Properties, Inc. v. Pierluisi-Urrutia, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and tell Puerto Rico it cannot profit off the likeness of baseball hall of famer Roberto Clemente without the permission of his family, and that intellectual property—trademarks specifically—are protected as property under the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause.

The Buckeye Institute filed its petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in Ream v. U.S. Department of Treasury—one of Buckeye’s cases challenging the federal ban on home distilling. Buckeye argues that two federal courts—the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Ream and the Fifth Circuit in Buckeye’s other home distilling case—McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice—considered the exact same provisions and issued opposite opinions, setting up a compelling circuit split that only the U.S. Supreme Court can resolve.

The Buckeye Institute filed its amicus brief in Hershey v. Bossier City, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and tell government officials they cannot hide behind qualified immunity to protect them from the consequences of violating the First Amendment. “Government officials who threaten a man for peacefully distributing literature on a public sidewalk should not receive the same qualified-immunity protection as a police officer’s split-second, life-or-death decisions.”