In Buckeye Institute v. IRS, et al. (S.D. Ohio No. 2:22-CV-04297 Dkt. 60 Opinion and Order 11/9/23), here, the court denied the parties' motions for summary judgment. (The CL docket entries in the case are here.) In the case, Buckey sought (Prayer for Relief in Amended Complaint p. 12, here).
- A declaration that compelling disclosure of contributor names and addresses pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6033(b) violates the First Amendment, both on its face and as applied to Buckeye”; and
- “preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring Defendants from compelling Buckeye to disclose contributor names and addresses pursuant to Section 6033(b)”.
Accordingly, with the denials of the motions for summary judgment, the case will proceed to trial.
The factual basis for Buckeye’s complaint is that the IRS may not keep the information about contributors secret. In support of its factual (or projected factual) basis for the claim, Buckeye claims that, in some instances, such information has escaped the walls of the IRS. I have no way of predicting the court’s resolution of the claim based upon such isolated disclosure instances. .
I thought, however, that there must be an agenda in pursuing this issue. In its Amended Complaint (par. 8, p. 3, bold-face supplied), Buckeye alleged that “Buckeye is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, tax-exempt organization.” My limited observation of Buckeye’s activities is principally through Supreme Court amicus briefs filed). My sense is that Buckeye usually aligns itself with partisan positions, principally Republican positions, but in any event partisan positions (in the broader sense of the term).
The Government responded to Buckeye’s claim (Answer to Amended Complaint, here, par. 8, p. 4):
Response: Admits that Buckeye holds itself out as a “nonpartisan, nonprofit, tax-exempt organization, organized under Ohio law” and has a headquarters in Columbus, Ohio. Lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remainder of the allegations.
