Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
The Buckeye Institute Urges SCOTUS to Protect Constitutional Safeguards for Judicial Impeachment
COLUMBUS, Ohio, April 20 [Category: Think Tank] -- The Buckeye Institute, an independent research and educational institution that says its mission is to advance free-market public policy, posted the following news release:
* * *
The Buckeye Institute Urges SCOTUS to Protect Constitutional Safeguards for Judicial Impeachment
*
Columbus, OH - On Monday, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Newman v. Moore, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing that the Judicial Council and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit exercised a de facto impeachment of Judge
... Show Full Article
COLUMBUS, Ohio, April 20 [Category: Think Tank] -- The Buckeye Institute, an independent research and educational institution that says its mission is to advance free-market public policy, posted the following news release:
* * *
The Buckeye Institute Urges SCOTUS to Protect Constitutional Safeguards for Judicial Impeachment
*
Columbus, OH - On Monday, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Newman v. Moore, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing that the Judicial Council and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit exercised a de facto impeachment of JudgePauline Newman, a removal power that the U.S. Constitution assigns exclusively to Congress.
"This de facto impeachment circumvents the U.S. Constitution's structural safeguards-bicameral action, supermajority agreement in the U.S. Senate, and public, deliberative proceedings," said David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute. "The Federal Circuit's unilateral action evades those safeguards entirely, consolidating investigative, prosecutorial, and adjudicative functions within the judiciary itself."
In its brief, The Buckeye Institute argues that: 1) The Constitution's structural safeguards for impeachment reflect the Framers' judgment that removing a federal judge demands broad political accountability and careful deliberation; 2) The secretive nature of the proceedings to remove Judge Newman violates core constitutional principles of open judicial proceedings; and 3) The Supreme Court's intervention is necessary to preserve judicial independence and constitutional structure.
Tryon continued, "Allowing judges to sideline their colleagues indefinitely without impeachment invites future abuses and erodes the carefully calibrated balance between the branches."
The New Civil Liberties Alliance represents Judge Newman in Newman v. Moore. The Manhattan Institute and the Committee for Justice joined The Buckeye Institute on this amicus brief.
***
Original text here: https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/research/detail/the-buckeye-institute-urges-scotus-to-protect-constitutional-safeguards-for-judicial-impeachment
The Buckeye Institute Urges SCOTUS to Protect Constitutional Safeguards for Judicial Impeachment
COLUMBUS, Ohio, April 20 [Category: Think Tank] -- The Buckeye Institute, an independent research and educational institution that says its mission is to advance free-market public policy, posted the following news release:
* * *
The Buckeye Institute Urges SCOTUS to Protect Constitutional Safeguards for Judicial Impeachment
*
Columbus, OH - On Monday, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Newman v. Moore, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing that the Judicial Council and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit exercised a de facto impeachment of Judge
... Show Full Article
COLUMBUS, Ohio, April 20 [Category: Think Tank] -- The Buckeye Institute, an independent research and educational institution that says its mission is to advance free-market public policy, posted the following news release:
* * *
The Buckeye Institute Urges SCOTUS to Protect Constitutional Safeguards for Judicial Impeachment
*
Columbus, OH - On Monday, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Newman v. Moore, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing that the Judicial Council and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit exercised a de facto impeachment of JudgePauline Newman, a removal power that the U.S. Constitution assigns exclusively to Congress.
"This de facto impeachment circumvents the U.S. Constitution's structural safeguards-bicameral action, supermajority agreement in the U.S. Senate, and public, deliberative proceedings," said David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute. "The Federal Circuit's unilateral action evades those safeguards entirely, consolidating investigative, prosecutorial, and adjudicative functions within the judiciary itself."
In its brief, The Buckeye Institute argues that: 1) The Constitution's structural safeguards for impeachment reflect the Framers' judgment that removing a federal judge demands broad political accountability and careful deliberation; 2) The secretive nature of the proceedings to remove Judge Newman violates core constitutional principles of open judicial proceedings; and 3) The Supreme Court's intervention is necessary to preserve judicial independence and constitutional structure.
Tryon continued, "Allowing judges to sideline their colleagues indefinitely without impeachment invites future abuses and erodes the carefully calibrated balance between the branches."
The New Civil Liberties Alliance represents Judge Newman in Newman v. Moore. The Manhattan Institute and the Committee for Justice joined The Buckeye Institute on this amicus brief.
***
Original text here: https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/research/detail/the-buckeye-institute-urges-scotus-to-protect-constitutional-safeguards-for-judicial-impeachment
How the Administrative State Unconstitutionally Censors its Critics
PHOENIX, Arizona, April 20 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news:
* * *
How the Administrative State Unconstitutionally Censors its Critics
*
The Goldwater Institute filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court today in a case involving the "gag rule" which the Securities and Exchange Commission uses to silence its critics-in violation of constitutional guarantees for free speech. It's one of the most egregiously unconstitutional ways in which the "administrative state"-the massive, unelected bureaucracies that govern so much of American life-manage to prevent
... Show Full Article
PHOENIX, Arizona, April 20 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news:
* * *
How the Administrative State Unconstitutionally Censors its Critics
*
The Goldwater Institute filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court today in a case involving the "gag rule" which the Securities and Exchange Commission uses to silence its critics-in violation of constitutional guarantees for free speech. It's one of the most egregiously unconstitutional ways in which the "administrative state"-the massive, unelected bureaucracies that govern so much of American life-manage to preventthe people from controlling their own government.
The "gag rule" says that if the Commission prosecutes you for what it claims is wrongful conduct in the buying and selling of securities and you want to settle the case instead of going all the way through a trial, you're required to sign away your right to say that you're innocent. Not only are you forever prohibited from saying that you didn't do anything wrong, but the rule prohibits you from saying anything that anyone might even interpret as suggesting that you're innocent.
The rule is non-negotiable; the Commission demands that you take it or leave it. And not only does it last for the rest of your life, but it applies to all of your actions, meaning that not only can you not talk to reporters, but you can't even talk to a member of Congress, or even to the Supreme Court. In fact, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit take great care in their briefs to avoid suggesting that they think they're innocent-because they're not allowed to tell the truth even to the highest court in the land.
Of course, it's entirely unacceptable for the government to prohibit criticism. The whole point of a democracy is that the people should be able to monitor and control what public servants are doing. But the gag rule effectively bars that. Under the rule, you're allowed to praise the Commission, but not criticize it. And even if Congress were to call you to a hearing to testify about your experience with the Commission, you'd either have to say that you were guilty...or decline the invitation.
The administrative state is one of the gravest threats to our constitutional order today. Combining the executive, legislative, and judicial powers in violation of the basic constitutional rule of checks and balances, these unelected agencies control vast areas of American life, with few effective controls by the people. We urge the Court to strike down the "gag rule," and help restore a government of the people by the people.
You can read our brief here.
Timothy Sandefur is the Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute's Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.
***
Original text here: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/how-the-administrative-state-unconstitutionally-censors-its-critics/
CPA Submits Comments to USITC on China's Permanent Normal Trade Relations
WASHINGTON, April 20 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Coalition for a Prosperous America posted the following news release:
* * *
CPA Submits Comments to USITC on China's Permanent Normal Trade Relations
*
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) announced its submission of formal comments to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) in its investigation into the economic impact of revoking China's Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status. The USITC investigation (Inv. No. 332-609) will assess how ending PNTR for China would affect U.S. production, supply chains,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 20 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Coalition for a Prosperous America posted the following news release:
* * *
CPA Submits Comments to USITC on China's Permanent Normal Trade Relations
*
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) announced its submission of formal comments to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) in its investigation into the economic impact of revoking China's Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status. The USITC investigation (Inv. No. 332-609) will assess how ending PNTR for China would affect U.S. production, supply chains,and national security over the coming years.
CPA's filing demonstrates how revoking PNTR would materially strengthen the U.S. economy. Using CPA's GTAP-FP model and tariff-line analysis, CPA estimates that ending PNTR would increase U.S. GDP by $274 billion, add 1.2 million jobs, and raise household income by 1.94 percent, or roughly $1,624 per household. CPA's GTAP-FP model shows that when tariffs shift demand from imports to domestic producers, U.S. firms expand production, investment, and hiring, generating broader gains in output, employment, and income.
CPA's submission further finds that PNTR accelerated the offshoring of critical manufacturing, increased dependence on Chinese imports, and deepened U.S. exposure to China's state-directed economic system. Since PNTR was granted in 2000, U.S. imports from China have surged, the bilateral trade deficit has ballooned, and U.S. manufacturing has been hollowed out by deep structural imbalances. Economic research finds that rising Chinese import competition caused 2.0 to 2.4 million net U.S. job losses from 1999 to 2011, while the consumer price benefits were limited, reducing U.S. inflation by only about 0.1 percentage point per year on average from 1996 to 2005.
"PNTR accelerated the erosion of America's industrial base and has left the United States dangerously exposed in critical industries, including pharmaceuticals, energy, metals, and more," said CPA Senior Economist Andrew Rechenberg, author of the submission. "Revoking PNTR for China would move Chinese imports onto an average effective Column 2 tariff rate of 38.9 percent, helping rebalance trade, restore domestic production capacity, and reduce strategic dependence on an increasingly adversarial economic system."
CPA's comments argue that China's economic model-marked by chronic overcapacity, heavy subsidies, industrial targeting, and the fusion of civilian and military production-poses a systemic threat to U.S. economic and national security. The submission warns that continued reliance on Chinese supply chains in advanced and dual-use sectors such as semiconductors, telecommunications equipment, and advanced manufacturing strengthens China's military-industrial base while weakening America's own. Revoking PNTR, paired with strategic tariffs and industrial policy, would help rebuild domestic capacity in sectors essential to both economic resilience and national defense.
CPA's model finds that imports from China would fall by 82 percent, to about $55 billion. That would leave the United States with a $49 billion bilateral trade surplus with China and improve the overall U.S. goods trade balance by $158 billion. CPA further estimates that Column 2 tariff treatment would generate approximately $21.6 billion in annual tariff revenue, though the filing emphasizes that the policy's central benefit is stronger domestic production rather than revenue collection.
"China's state-led system was always designed to dominate global production and absorb critical industries from the United States and its allies," said CPA President Jon Toomey. "If we continue down the current path, we are not just losing factories-we are ceding technological leadership, supply chain security, and ultimately our economic sovereignty."
CPA reiterates its longstanding position that trade policy must serve the interests of American workers, producers, and national security. The organization calls on policymakers to use the USITC investigation as a foundation for decisive action to reduce dependence on China, rebuild U.S. manufacturing, and safeguard critical industries from further erosion.
To read the full submission, click here: 'Effects on the U.S. Economy of Revoking China's Permanent Normal Trade Relations Status; Comments of the Coalition for a Prosperous America (13 April 2026).'
***
Original text here: https://prosperousamerica.org/cpa-submits-comments-to-usitc-on-chinas-permanent-normal-trade-relations/
Buckeye Institute Calls on SCOTUS to End the SEC's "Usurpation of the First Amendment"
COLUMBUS, Ohio, April 20 [Category: Think Tank] -- The Buckeye Institute, an independent research and educational institution that says its mission is to advance free-market public policy, posted the following news release:
* * *
The Buckeye Institute Calls on SCOTUS to End the SEC's "Usurpation of the First Amendment"
*
Columbus, OH - On Monday, The Buckeye Institute filed its second amicus brief in Powell v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This one with the U.S. Supreme Court, calling on the court to hear the case and overturn the SEC's unconstitutional gag rule, which prohibits
... Show Full Article
COLUMBUS, Ohio, April 20 [Category: Think Tank] -- The Buckeye Institute, an independent research and educational institution that says its mission is to advance free-market public policy, posted the following news release:
* * *
The Buckeye Institute Calls on SCOTUS to End the SEC's "Usurpation of the First Amendment"
*
Columbus, OH - On Monday, The Buckeye Institute filed its second amicus brief in Powell v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This one with the U.S. Supreme Court, calling on the court to hear the case and overturn the SEC's unconstitutional gag rule, which prohibitsAmericans who settle cases with the SEC from discussing the case publicly.
"The SEC's gag rule guarantees that Lady Justice is not only blind, but that she is also deaf," said David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute. "By accepting this case, the U.S. Supreme Court can tell the SEC that it cannot use an unconstitutional gag rule to silence an untold number of Americans from discussing their cases publicly."
In its brief, The Buckeye Institute argues that the SEC gag rule-adopted in 1972 in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act-suppresses free speech rights, exceeds the SEC's regulatory authority, distorts the fairness of enforcement proceedings, and effectively evades judicial review. In urging the court to hear the case, The Buckeye Institute points out that the SEC gag rule only applies to defendants, not to the SEC itself, and conceals information that might undermine or raise questions about the SEC's own actions.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance, which brought Powell v. SEC, proposes a revision to the SEC's regulation that would end the SEC's regulatory overreach and violation of the First Amendment. The Buckeye Institute called on the court to grant this petition and end the SEC's "usurpation of the First Amendment."
***
Original text here: https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/research/detail/the-buckeye-institute-calls-on-scotus-to-end-the-secs-usurpation-of-the-first-amendment
AFPI Celebrates Supreme Court Victory Affecting American Energy Producers & National Security
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on April 17, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Celebrates Supreme Court Victory Affecting American Energy Producers & National Security
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) applauds the Supreme Court's decision today in Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish, a case that addresses whether state and local governments can weaponize lawsuits against private companies to hold them liable for past activities which were indispensable to the execution of federal contracts.
"This is a clear and decisive win for American energy producers
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on April 17, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Celebrates Supreme Court Victory Affecting American Energy Producers & National Security
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) applauds the Supreme Court's decision today in Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish, a case that addresses whether state and local governments can weaponize lawsuits against private companies to hold them liable for past activities which were indispensable to the execution of federal contracts.
"This is a clear and decisive win for American energy producersand national security," said Nick Wanic at AFPI. "We applaud the Supreme Court for its refusal to strip vital protections from conduct that was both lawful at the time and crucial to American's efforts to save the world from tyranny. Whenever the federal government calls upon private industry to contribute to the defense of our Nation, it is essential those called upon are ready, willing, and able to answer the call."
The case arose from claims brought in state court by Louisiana parishes against private government contractors, alleging environmental damage related to oil production activities. However, the oil production in question, pursuant to a contract with the Department of War, was undertaken to produce aviation fuel during World War II. Because private companies were performing an invaluable service to the nation during a time of war they ought to be entitled to a federal venue for claims concerning conduct closely related to the performance of these invaluable services and materials.
AFPI filed an amicus brief raising concerns that refusing this protection would chill the vital cooperation between private industry and the federal government during times of national crisis, endangering national security and limiting our military's effectiveness. The Court's unanimous decision echoes this same concern: that restricting removal would expose federal contractors to state-court litigation that could interfere with federal war efforts and dampen participation by private companies supporting the military. By reaffirming a broad removal standard, the Court preserved the federal forum for disputes implicating federally directed activities, consistent with our argument that such protection is necessary to ensure the effective execution of national defense operations.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-celebrates-supreme-court-victory-affecting-american-energy-producers-national-security
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Applauds New Mexico Supreme Court Decision Upholding Otero County Agreement
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on April 17, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Applauds New Mexico Supreme Court Decision Upholding Otero County Agreement
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI)'s Executive Director of New Mexico, Vince Torres, released the following statement regarding the New Mexico Supreme Court's unanimous decision to uphold Otero County's agreement with federal immigration authorities to operate an Immigrant and Customs Enforcement detention facility.
"We applaud the New Mexico Supreme Court for recognizing the constitutional
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on April 17, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Applauds New Mexico Supreme Court Decision Upholding Otero County Agreement
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI)'s Executive Director of New Mexico, Vince Torres, released the following statement regarding the New Mexico Supreme Court's unanimous decision to uphold Otero County's agreement with federal immigration authorities to operate an Immigrant and Customs Enforcement detention facility.
"We applaud the New Mexico Supreme Court for recognizing the constitutionalboundaries at play and affirming Otero County's authority to work with federal partners to enforce immigration law. This decision not only protects hundreds of local jobs and preserves critical revenue for the county but also reinforces New Mexico's vital role in supporting our nation's border security efforts.
At a time when states and localities face increasing pressure to disengage from federal enforcement, this ruling provides much-needed clarity and affirms that cooperation is both lawful and essential to maintain public safety and the rule of law."
AFPI will continue to support policies that strengthen coordination between federal and local authorities and uphold the integrity of our immigration system.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-applauds-new-mexico-supreme-court-decision-upholding-otero-county-agreement
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary to Arizona Capitol Times: Arizona's Working Families Saving Under New Tax Act
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on April 17, 2026, by Kimmie Dillon, chair of the Arizona state chapter, to Arizona Capitol Times:
* * *
Arizona's Working Families Saving Under New Tax Act
More people are working, earning and contributing in Arizona.
In the Phoenix metro area, employment continues growing, with jobs up roughly 2% to 3% over the past year -- outpacing national growth -- across sectors like health care, construction and services. The region's labor force has expanded by more than 10% since 2020, far exceeding
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on April 17, 2026, by Kimmie Dillon, chair of the Arizona state chapter, to Arizona Capitol Times:
* * *
Arizona's Working Families Saving Under New Tax Act
More people are working, earning and contributing in Arizona.
In the Phoenix metro area, employment continues growing, with jobs up roughly 2% to 3% over the past year -- outpacing national growth -- across sectors like health care, construction and services. The region's labor force has expanded by more than 10% since 2020, far exceedingnational trends.
The region is also among the fastest-growing in the country, adding roughly 80,000 to 90,000 residents in a single year, further expanding its workforce and economic base.
To keep reading, click here (https://www.yourvalley.net/stories/arizonans-are-saving-thanks-to-working-families-tax-cuts-act,683059).
* * *
Kimmie Dillon, Chair, AFPI-Arizona
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/arizonas-working-families-saving-under-new-tax-act
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI-GA Calls for the Return of Education Authority to the States
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on April 17, 2026:
* * *
AFPI-GA Calls for the Return of Education Authority to the States
Atlanta, GA--The America First Policy Institute's Georgia Chapter (AFPI-GA) issued the following statement as the House Rules Committee blocked House Resolution 1789 from moving forward, which would support the dissolution of the U.S. Department of Education and the return of education authority to the states:
"As promised, President Trump and Secretary McMahon are returning power over education to the states, putting
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on April 17, 2026:
* * *
AFPI-GA Calls for the Return of Education Authority to the States
Atlanta, GA--The America First Policy Institute's Georgia Chapter (AFPI-GA) issued the following statement as the House Rules Committee blocked House Resolution 1789 from moving forward, which would support the dissolution of the U.S. Department of Education and the return of education authority to the states:
"As promised, President Trump and Secretary McMahon are returning power over education to the states, puttingdecisions and accountability for results closer to students, teachers, and families," said Erika Donalds, chair of Education Opportunity at AFPI. "One committee's denial of this reality will only delay the state from taking proactive measures to take charge of education again."
"Since its creation in 1980, the Department of Education has not improved student outcomes, and its expanding federal regulations have hindered states' ability to effectively educate their students," said Rebecca Yardley, Executive Director of AFPI-GA. "HR1789 should have been moved to the floor for the full consideration of the House of Representatives, not held up by a single committee that fails to realize Georgia should be in charge of education not the federal government, whether by ignorance or deliberate inaction. The Georgia General Assembly should find every way to assume devolved educational authority in the state to better serve parents and students."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-ga-calls-for-the-return-of-education-authority-to-the-states
[Category: ThinkTank]
