Appeals court says Ohio legislative effort to block local tobacco laws unconstitutional
The Tenth District Court of Appeals, which covers Franklin County and hears many state government-related court cases, ruled July 8 that the Ohio General Assembly's attempt to bar Columbus and other cities from enacting their own rules about what types of tobacco products can be sold within their limits violated the Home Rule Amendment of the Ohio Constitution.
Among other things, the Home Rule Amendment gives local governments the autonomy to enact ordinances related to the safety and welfare of their residents, including matters involving local police, sanitary, and other similar regulations, provided they don't contradict state laws.
By 2023, Columbus and other cities had passed ordinances that regulated how flavored tobacco products were sold to snuff out swelling teen use of the products.
The state legislature, in response, added an amendment state's 2023 budget bill to prevent cities from doing so. Gov. Mike DeWine twice vetoed the section, but state lawmakers voted to override the governor, in essence nullifying efforts by the cities.
City Attorney Zach Klein's office filed a lawsuit against the state on behalf of Columbus and multiple other cities and municipalities in Ohio to prevent the law from taking effect.
Klein, DeWine and others had argued for flavored tobacco bans, as well as limits on the sale of e-cigarettes, because of a rise in nicotine use among teenagers that threatened decades-long anti-tobacco efforts. The arguments also said sales of flavored tobacco, like menthol cigarettes, have targeted minorities and low-income people.
Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Mark Serrott sided with the cities, saying the way the Ohio law is written violates the Ohio Constitution's provision that allows municipalities to govern themselves.
The state appealed, and the Tenth District Appeals Court agreed with the cities. In a decision written by Judge David Leland, the appeals court said the state is trying to claim "exclusive power to regulate tobacco," which creates problems beyond where flavored tobacco is sold.
"Cities would lose the power to enforce their tobacco laws, both criminal and civil. They would lose authority to keep city parks free of tobacco," Leland writes. "They could no longer regulate tobacco marketing. Licensing and zoning of convenience stores that sell tobacco products might be invalidated. Cities could do nothing to stem the sale of flavored tobacco products, no matter the addictive or mortal effects of the tobacco industry's targeted advertising to children or other demographic groups."
Mayor Andrew J. Ginther told The Dispatch that he was encouraged by the decision.
'I'm glad the judges support the Ohio Constitution, that clearly states that home rule is a core principle of governing in this state. We have always said that local knows best,' Ginther said. 'The tobacco industry has disproportionately targeted young people, people of color and poor and disadvantaged communities and we feel like this is a smart and appropriate thing to do to protect kids. The governor stands with us on this.'
The state can appeal the Tenth Court of Appeals decision to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Steve Irwin, a spokesperson for Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, said Yost's office is reviewing the decision and will talk about what next steps may be taken.
The district appeals court is comprised of eight judges, three of whom hear cases as a panel and rule at a time. All of those judges are Democrats.
Six of the Ohio Supreme Court's seven justices are Republicans, with Justice Jennifer Brunner being the lone Democrat.
(This story has been updated to include comments from public officials.)
Dispatch reporter Jordan Laird contributed to this story.
Reporter Bethany Bruner can be reached at bbruner@gannett.com or on Bluesky at @bethanybruner.dispatch.com.
This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Ohio court sides with cities in state tobacco law dispute
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
2 days ago
- CNBC
5. Ohio
Governor: Mike DeWine, Republican Population: 11,883,304 GDP growth (Q1 2025): -0.1% Unemployment rate (May 2025): 4.9% Top corporate tax rate: None Top individual income tax rate: 3.5% Gasoline tax: 56.91 cents/gallon Bond rating (Moody's/S&P): Aaa, Stable/AAA, Stable Economic profile sources: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Federation of Tax Administrators, Energy Information Administration (including 18.40 cent/gallon federal tax), Moody's Investor Service, S&P Global Market Intelligence
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Ohio Ballot Board votes to split Ohio Equal Rights Amendment into two
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Petitioners of an Equal Rights Amendment cleared the hurdle to start collecting signatures to be on the November 2026 ballot Wednesday morning, but the clearance came with a catch. 'I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but it does feel political,' Representative Terrence Upchurch (D-Cleveland) said. 'I do believe it's political because I think that, looking at what is being proposed, it's pretty simplistic in nature. I think it is one issue. It's cut and dry.' Each time a person or a group wants to get a proposal constitutional amendment on an Ohio ballot, there are several steps to accomplish. One of them is the certification, by the Ohio Ballot Board, that the proposed amendment is only about one issue. On Wednesday morning, the board voted to split the Ohio Equal Rights Amendment into two. 'It seems apparent to me that it would be good to give [voters] those as two separate amendments,' Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R-Ohio) said. 'Is it conceivable that there are voters out there that would support one part of this but not support the other part of this?' Hot pot restaurant with robert servers closes after 1 year 'If that were the standard, then that would be true of every proposal that goes before Ohio voters,' legal counsel for Ohio Equal Rights Corey Colombo said. 'There would aspects [voters] like and don't like. But that doesn't change the fact that this is all under the same umbrella.' What are the, now, two amendments? The first would remove language from the Ohio Constitution that bans same-sex marriage. That language, though still in the state constitution, is not currently applied thanks to Obergefell v. Hodges, a U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage in 2015. Lis Regula, a leader with Ohio Equal Rights, said with the possibility that the case is reconsidered, Ohioans should act fast. 'Right now [same-sex marriage is] entirely dependent on Obergefell, that decision, if it changes, I think there's going to be a lot of people who are surprised that 'oh crap, Cousin Joe and his husband aren't married anymore, what does this mean,'' he said. 'That is a rude awakening that I don't want to see people have to struggle with.' The amendment would delete existing Ohio Constitution language that bans same sex marriage and replace it with a provision that expressly allows it. If passed, it would read: 'The State of Ohio shall issue marriage licenses to individuals the age of eighteen and above and not nearer of kin than second cousins, and the state and its political subdivisions shall recognize and treat equally all marriages regardless of race, sex, or gender identity. Religious organizations and members of clergy shall have the right to refuse to solemnize a marriage.' The second amendment would add a new part to the Ohio Constitution that prohibits discrimination based on 'race, color, creed or religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression regardless of sex assigned at birth, pregnancy status, genetic information, disease status, age, disability, recovery status, familial status, ancestry, national origin, or military and veteran status.' Backers of the amendment argued that both this provision and the same-sex marriage one fall under the same category. 'In this case, the proposal, the petition, all relates to the single general purpose of equal rights of all Ohioans,' Colombo said. But the problem Republicans took with this portion of the amendment is the portion regarding transgender Ohioans. 'What brought us to this point is seeing the number of already existing laws that infringe on people's rights here in Ohio,' Regula said. Here's a quick look-back: In January 2024, Ohio lawmakers based one bill that both bans gender affirming care for minors and bans transgenders athletes from playing on teams that align with their gender identities. In November 2024, Ohio Lawmakers passed a 'bathroom ban.' It requires both public and private K-12 schools and all Ohio universities to prohibit non-gendered bathrooms and will ban transgender students from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity. If passed, this amendment could call some of those laws, passed by the Republican supermajority at the Ohio Statehouse, into question. 'How is it the same purpose to allow biological men in the same locker room as girls, when they're not consenting, how is that the same general purpose of allowing people of the same sex, consensually, to get married?' Senator Theresa Gavarone (R-Bowling Green) asked. Colombo said, 'There's nothing in the language that specifically discusses bathrooms,' but Gavarone took issue with the word 'accommodations.' To get on the ballot, petitioners need to gather 415,000 valid signatures for each amendment in order to get one or both on the ballot. Their goal is to put the questions in front of voters in November 2026. 'We want to be able to have time to have deep conversations with people and really talk about 'what do equal rights mean to you as an Ohioan, what does it mean to be protected from infringement on your ability to make a living for yourself, provide for your family and develop in an appropriate way,'' Regula said. With the November 2026 goal in mind, Ohio Equal Rights has until July 2026 to meet the signature requirement. On Wednesday morning, Regula said he is not sure if they will take the Ohio Ballot Board's decision to split the amendment up to court. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
What's the effect of governor's line-item vetoes on Ohio public school funding?
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — After months of discourse about public school funding and property tax relief, the state has settled on its funding plan. Public school funding in Ohio has been a major talking point this budget cycle, but the state has finally determined how districts will be funded over the next two years. Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed some of the more controversial changes to public school funding, but some public school advocates still say the budget will underfund districts. See previous coverage of the budget in the video player above. 'In signing this budget, I line-item vetoed several provisions related to property taxes. I felt that these ideas were thoughtful, but I was also concerned that imposing them now, all of them at once on our local schools, would create a huge, huge problem,' DeWine said. What the state's new flat income tax will mean for Ohioans 'Regardless of these vetoes, Governor DeWine failed, through multiple steps in this process, to propose and fight for full and fair funding for Ohio's schools,' Melissa Cropper, Ohio Federation of Teachers president, said. Ohio schools are funded through state, local and minimal federal sources, with state funding allocated in the budget and local funding typically coming from property tax levies. State shares for public schools are determined through the Fair School Funding formula, a bipartisan plan introduced in 2022. The formula calculates state funding based on each district's circumstances to try to more equitably fund public schools. Under this formula, a district with more demonstrated financial need should get more state funding. For example, Columbus City Schools, the state's largest district, received $350.1 million in its last state formula payment where the much smaller Bexley City Schools, which benefits from substantial property tax support, received just $20.5 million. In the final budget, the Fair School Funding formula is mostly implemented. Public school advocates said this is a big improvement from the House version of the budget, which scrapped the plan entirely, but it still falls short of the formula's promise to public school districts. Advocates say the plan underfunds districts because the formula inputs will be out of sync. Under the budget, school districts will update the formula using 2025 financial data, but the state will estimate costs using 2022 pricing. By only adjusting school districts' inputs, the formula will calculate schools as demonstrating less financial need, resulting in less state money. Ohio Education Association President Scott DiMauro called the final version a 'knockoff version of the Fair School Funding Plan.' DeWine said it was the largest investment into public schools in the state's history. DeWine signs bill banning police ticketing quotas The final draft allocated $8.15 billion in Fiscal Year 2026 and $8.26 billion in FY 2027 to traditional school funding, making DeWine's claim accurate, although advocates say it lacks key context. The Ohio Education Association, which represents nearly 120,000 Ohio educators, said the bill still underfunds public schools by $2 billion. Although advocates are still concerned about public school funding, DeWine's vetoes eliminated provisions that troubled many districts, including property tax relief proposals. DeWine said property tax relief is a major concern, but the budget items did not guarantee long-term tax relief and would have created significant barriers for districts. 'We must address these legitimate concerns that Ohio voters are talking to us about,' DeWine said. 'Accordingly, I will be convening a working group, to be formalized and announced in the coming weeks, which will make recommendations to the General Assembly and to me about how we can provide meaningful property tax relief to Ohioans and still fund our schools.' DeWine vetoed a limit on how much money school districts could carry over from school year to school year, easing the fears of many districts that rely on long-term financial planning. The budget would have stopped districts from carrying over more than 40% of their general fund expenses, returning the remaining funds to residents as property tax relief. 'I think the short answer here is that while the legislature tried to spin the property tax changes as 'tax relief;' in reality, they (particularly the 40% cash balance cap) would have been extremely destabilizing for schools and very confusing for taxpayers,' Howard Fleeter, a well-established research consultant with the Ohio Education Policy Institute, said in an email. DeWine also removed a 20-mill floor calculation provision, which affects how much property tax revenue schools can collect as home prices rise. Without the veto, State Rep. Allison Russo (D-Upper Arlington) said the 20-mill floor change would have cost districts millions of dollars. DeWine also removed restrictions the budget would have placed on school property tax levies. Before the veto, districts would no longer have the authority to enact several emergency and fixed-sum levies. DeWine said these levies allow for important funding for districts, hence the veto. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
