Recently, the Sixth Circuit issued its published decision in OPAWL v. Yost, reversing a preliminary injunction and adopting the reasoning of a motions panel staying the injunction. This is an important win for Ohio’s ability to protect the integrity of its elections from foreign influence.
Judge Kethledge’s concurrence is particularly noteworthy. He grounds his analysis in originalism and the First Amendment, emphasizing that the Constitution does not require states to open their political processes to foreign nationals. That reasoning provides a strong and principled framework for similar cases now moving through the courts.
These issues are not confined to Ohio. In Kansans for Constitutional Freedom v. Kobach et al., the District of Kansas denied a motion for preliminary injunction against Kansas’s HB 2106, which bans certain foreign contributions in ballot-initiative campaigns. As a result, HB 2106 went into effect on July 1, 2025 — with First & Fourteenth attorneys prevailing in defending the statute on behalf of Attorney General Kobach alongside the Kansas Attorney General’s Office.
Together, these cases highlight a growing recognition that states can and should safeguard their democratic processes from foreign influence and manipulation.
Read Opinion Here: OPAWL v. Yost Opinion