|
SCOTUS Decision Quotes The Buckeye Institute
Liberty, U.S. Constitution, Buckeye Score Huge Wins
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.
# # #
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment