Supreme Impact: How an Ohio think tank is shaping the U.S. Supreme Court's agenda

Buckeye Institute, an Ohio conservative think tank, has quietly become one of the most prominent players shaping the U.S. Supreme Court's agenda.

For its new term that started Oct. 2, Buckeye Institute came in second for the number of cases accepted by organizations that filed amicus briefs, according to an analysis by Empirical SCOTUS.

The American Civil Liberties Union was number one, but Buckeye beat the U.S Chamber of Commerce and the CATO Institute, a national conservative think tank.

"We are having a tremendous impact," President Robert Alt said. "That The Buckeye Institute has surpassed so many larger and better-established organizations in Supreme Court amicus practice is a real testament to Buckeye's strategic approach and the skill of our attorneys."

It's also a sign of where the conservative-leaning Supreme Court is headed.

Since the confirmations of former President Donald Trump's three justices, the court's conservative majority has expanded gun rights, preserved school choice, upheld Ohio's purge of its voter rolls, and blocked a Biden Administration rule requiring COVID-19 vaccines or testing for 80 million workers.

Buckeye had a hand in all those cases.

Why are amicus briefs important?

The U.S. Supreme Court receives petitions for more than 7,000 cases each term, but it only accepts somewhere between 60 to 80. That's a lower acceptance rate than Harvard, Yale or Stanford University.

It's incredibly hard to get your case in front of the nation's highest court, Ohio State University law professor Amy Wildermuth said. And she would know. Wildermuth clerked for former Justice John Paul Stevens when the court was hearing about 150 cases per term.

"I've been following the court for a long time, and one thing we can say is that amicus briefs have been on the uptick," Wildermuth said. "It used to be that you wouldn’t see very many amicus briefs at (the petition) stage, but now it’s almost as if you can't get your brief certified without them."

Amicus briefs, which is Latin for friend of the court, are legal documents filed by people or organizations that are in the lawsuit. And they can be divided into two categories.

One kind says the organization or individual supports one party in the case. These are "us too" briefs and Wildermuth said they're not really effective. The other brief provides additional information. This could be arguments not made by the side you support, data or surveys that show real-world impacts of a decision, or another way/case the justices could reach your desired decision.

"A lot of times our perspective is very much an Ohio perspective," Alt said. "This is the impact it will have on real America, and we think that’s a vital piece of information for the court."

What kinds of cases does Buckeye choose?

Buckeye litigates on a wide range of constitutional amendments and powers, but the cases have a consistent theme.

"Buckeye litigates to prevent governments from abusing power and infringing on individual rights," Alt said. "We also do an awful lot on the administrative state. This is an area that most people think is arcane, but it really goes to making sure there are adequate checks on decision makers."

Take for example a case that will be heard this term about whether courts or federal agencies should interpret the meaning of ambiguous laws. For decades, courts have differed to agencies, saying they have the technical expertise to decide how laws should be implemented.

But that precedent could be overturned in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.

"This is a question of who gets to decide what a law means, should it be the agency or the courts, and we take the position that it should be the courts," Alt said.

How these cases impact Ohio

Ohio helping to shape the Supreme Court's agenda is an interesting fact, former Senate President Larry Obhof said. But the reason people should care is these decisions change the way we live our lives.

Obhof works with the Buckeye Institute on its Supreme Court briefs, and he helped write amicus briefs for a case about school choice in Maine and the right to publicly carry a firearm for self-defense in New York.

The firearm case was the court's first significant decision on gun rights in more than a decade. In a 6-3 decision, the justices ruled it was unconstitutional for New York to require gun owners to show a special need to defend themselves if they wanted to carry a handgun in public.

"That’s going to impact not just state legislatures but other policymakers at the local level," Obhof said.

And in the Maine case where the court struck down the state's ban on giving vouchers to students attending religious private schools, Obhof said that impacts "what 50 state legislatures will do the next time they look at school choice."

"We've been on the successful side in a number of cases that I have worked on with them," Obhof said. "We've had a lot of success in helping shape the court's agenda."

Anna Staver is a reporter for the USA TODAY Network Ohio Bureau, which serves the Columbus Dispatch, Cincinnati Enquirer, Akron Beacon Journal and 18 other affiliated news organizations across Ohio.

Get more political analysis by listening to the Ohio Politics Explained podcast

This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Ohio based Buckeye Institute becomes key player at U.S. Supreme Court