The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled Tuesday in a 2-1 decision that Ohio can fully enforce a newly enacted law banning foreign nationals from funding statewide voting efforts for now. handed down a judgment.
The short-term ruling came in the form of an injunction, but it follows months of legal wrangling over whether House Bill 1 violates the First Amendment rights of Ohio’s lawful permanent residents. In the most recent case, a federal district court issued such a ruling in September. .
“Concerns about foreign interference in American politics are not new, and Ohio residents and their representatives have a strong interest in regulating such influence. The First Amendment We cannot interfere in their decisions unless requested to do so, and that is not the case here,” wrote Judge Amr Thapar, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, along with Judge David McKeague.
At issue is a law that would add lawful permanent residents, or green card holders, to the Ohio Revised Statute’s definition of aliens and prohibit them from contributing to or opposing candidates or initiatives on Ohio’s ballot. Part of it.
During this summer’s session, lawmakers engaged in a brick battle over whether to include that provision in the larger proposal. Rep. Brian Stewart (R-Asheville) introduced the amendment in the Ohio House of Representatives at the time and said Thursday that the law would likely face litigation regardless of its final form.
“The question was whether including provisions for green card holders would somehow make it easier to strike,” Stewart said in an interview. “And I’m glad we kept our weapons.”
Justice Stephanie Davis, one of President Joe Biden’s appointees, wrote the dissenting opinion.
“But interpreting the law this way allows Ohio to seemingly respect the First Amendment rights of some companies, such as those with foreign influence, but not others, such as “Domestic nonprofit organizations and others in similar positions will not be respected,” Davis wrote.
The case still needs to be litigated in full in circuit court, which will likely reach a similar conclusion, Stewart said. A separate appeal could send the provision to the U.S. Supreme Court, he said.
