Columbus, OH – In the U.S. Supreme Court term that ended on July 1, 2024, The Buckeye Institute’s influence at the court was further cemented with numerous citations in the court’s ruling in Culley v. Marshall. In addition, The Buckeye Institute, the U.S. Constitution, and liberty all scored important victories in seven cases before the high court.

Most notable from this term were the extensive citations of The Buckeye Institute’s amicus brief in Culley v. Marshall. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Justice Sonia Sotomayor both quoted extensively from Buckeye’s brief, proof that the facts and legal arguments Buckeye’s attorneys put forward are influencing the highest court in the land and that The Buckeye Institute’s brief provides a detailed road map on how to fix civil asset forfeiture.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote of the problems with civil asset forfeiture, citing Buckeye:

“Meanwhile, according to some reports, these days ‘up to 80% of civil forfeitures are not accompanied by a criminal conviction.’ Brief for [The] Buckeye Institute as Amicus Curiae 14 (Buckeye Brief).”

Justice Gorsuch further cited Buckeye’s legal arguments when discussing the “booming business” of civil asset forfeiture, writing: 

“Other agencies seem to prioritize seizures they can monetize rather than those they cannot, posing for example as drug dealers rather than buyers so they can seize the buyer’s cash rather than illicit drugs that hold no value for law enforcement. See Buckeye Brief 7–8.”

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote of civil asset forfeiture being used “even when the owner is innocent,” also citing Buckeye:

“In fact, as many as 80% of civil forfeitures are not accompanied by any ultimate criminal conviction. Brief for [The] Buckeye Institute as Amicus Curiae 14.”

In highlighting that civil forfeiture is vulnerable to abuse, Justice Sotomayor further cited Buckeye’s arguments, writing:

“These cash incentives not only encourage counties to create labyrinthine processes for retrieving property in the hopes that innocent owners will abandon attempts at recovery, they also influence which laws police enforce, how they enforce them, and who they enforce them against. See Brief for [The] Buckeye Institute as Amicus Curiae 6–20 (detailing empirical studies on the effect of fiscal incentives in civil forfeiture on law enforcement decisionmaking).”

National Review also noticed the extensive citations to Buckeye’s amicus brief, with Dan McLaughlin writing, “Gorsuch and Sotomayor may be coming from different perspectives on the law, but both cited some of the same sources (such as an amicus brief by the free-market Buckeye Institute) and noted some of the same abuses.”

Furthermore, in seven cases this session, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted arguments The Buckeye Institute put forward in its amicus briefs. 

• In Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the court agreed with Buckeye when it ruled that under the Administrative Procedure Act, the six-year statute of limitations does not start to accrue until an individual or business is injured by the federal regulation in question.
• In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. U.S. Department of Commerce, the court heeded Buckeye’s call and abandoned the Chevron doctrine, calling the doctrine “misguided” and “unworkable.”
• In Garland v. Cargill, the court agreed with Buckeye and ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives exceeded its authority when, with the stroke of a pen, it turned more than 500,000 Americans into criminals.
• In Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, a unanimous court agreed with Buckeye that when the National Labor Relations Board sues a private company, the government should not get special treatment on its request for a preliminary injunction.
• In National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, the court agreed with Buckeye that the state of New York’s actions violated the First Amendment and degraded our free speech protections.
• In Sheetz v. El Dorado County, the court agreed with Buckeye when it ruled that governments cannot use building and other permits to extort money from citizens.

That is a wrap on what was an exciting U.S. Supreme Court term with The Buckeye Institute continuing to make its mark.

# # #