The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled Tuesday in a 2-1 decision that Ohio can for now enforce in full its newly enacted law banning foreign nationals from giving money to statewide ballot efforts.
The short-term ruling came in the form of a stay, the latest in months of legal back-and-forth over whether House Bill 1 violates the First Amendment rights of Ohio’s lawful permanent residents, something a federal district court ruled in September it did.
“Concerns about foreign interference in American politics aren’t new. And Ohioans and their representatives have a compelling interest in regulating such influence. We can’t interfere with their judgment unless the First Amendment demands it. And here, it doesn’t,” wrote Judge Amul Thapar, an appointee of former President Donald Trump's, with Judge David McKeague.
At issue is the part of the law that adds lawful permanent residents—or green card holders—to the definition of foreign nationals in the Ohio Revised Code, banning them from contributing to and against candidates and initiatives on the ballot in Ohio.
During session this summer, lawmakers brickbatted over whether to include that provision in the larger proposal. Rep. Brian Stewart (R-Ashville) brought the amendment forward on the Ohio House floor then and said Thursday the law was likely to face a lawsuit no matter its final form.
“The question was whether including the green card holder provision would somehow make it easier to strike down,” Stewart said in an interview. “And I'm glad we stuck to our guns.”
Judge Stephanie Davis, one of President Joe Biden's appointees, authored the dissent.
“Parsing the law this way, however, permits Ohio to seemingly honor the First Amendment rights of some—e.g. corporations with some foreign influence—but not others—e.g. domestic nonprofit organizations—even when they are similarly situated,” Davis wrote.
Although it still needs to be litigated in full in front of the circuit court, Stewart said the circuit court's likely to come to the same conclusion. Another appeal could put the provision in the U.S. Supreme Court’s hands, he said.
