Ohio workers waiting on long-delayed pandemic unemployment benefits will have to keep waiting
Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Michael Holbrook has decided to delay his order directing the state to chase down unemployment benefits from the COVID-19 pandemic. His decision to stay his ruling allows the state to continue its appeal without having to get the ball rolling on securing the outstanding funding.
According to Ohio workers who brought the lawsuit, there could be as much as $900 million in stranded benefits.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The case centers on a round of supplementary benefits from early in the Biden administration. DeWine, like more than a dozen other Republican governors, turned that funding down arguing it would make people less likely to return to work.
But a state appeals court determined Ohio's unemployment statutes require the governor to secure all 'available advantages' and turning down the extra funding violated that charge. Earlier this month, Holbrook ordered DeWine 'take all action necessary' to secure the outstanding unemployment funds. The governor is appealing that decision.
In his order, Judge Holbrook acknowledged, 'while this court believes that the entry of a partial stay is in the best interest of all the parties, it is compelled to act within the bounds of the law.'
Attorneys for the workers had argued even if the judge agreed to stay parts of his ruling, the state should at least begin contacting federal officials about transferring money.
Ohio workers want court to order Gov. DeWine to protect unused unemployment funds
Holbrook's order cited procedural rules and Ohio Supreme Court precedent that effectively gives the state the benefit of the doubt when it comes to appeals. Under Civil Rule 62, government officials or agencies are entitled to a stay while their appeal plays out — in one case Holbrook referenced, 'as a matter of right.'
DeWine contends the appropriate course of action is to stay Holbrook's order because holding off would maintain the status quo. Attorney General Dave Yost, who represents the governor's office in court, argued court rules and Ohio supreme court precedent require a stay.
'The Supreme Court of Ohio has repeatedly interpreted Rule 62 to grant an automatic stay in favor of a state agency or state official,' Yost argued in court filings. 'And it has held that trial courts who refuse to do so err, regardless of the circumstances.'
Yost added that taking a wait-and-see approach to the appeals process is the best way to avoid confusion. It's been three years, Yost explained, since the program in question was shuttered. If the state follows the lower court judge's ruling immediately, but later wins the appeal of that decision, Ohio 'would need to un-enroll from the program yet again.'
Arguing before Judge Holbrook, Assistant Attorney General Ann Yackshaw argued that program enrollment data is now three years out of date, and that restarting the program will cost money. Although the Department of Labor covered administrative costs when the program initially ran, she argued federal officials have sent mixed signals about whether they will continue to do so.
'Denying the stay here would mean that the private taxpayers will be spending potentially millions of dollars to get the pandemic system back up and running and get it updated,' she said.
If it turns out the federal government refuses to cover costs or the state's appeal eventually succeeds, that money would be wasted.
'Once we go down that path, spend this money, we can't un-ring that bell,' she said.
Former Attorney General Marc Dann is representing the Ohioans who lost out on those supplemental benefits. In his brief opposing the state, Dann argued they're relying on a judicial rule when state and federal law should supersede it.
Federal law prioritizes getting unemployment benefits into the hands of workers who need them, and it requires the state to have coordinating language in its statutes as well. The point being that agencies can claw back funding later, but an unemployed worker needs help covering rent and groceries immediately.
'Thus, while the State can appeal this Court's judgment,' Dann's brief argued, 'it cannot use the appeal as a basis to further delay payment of (unemployment) benefits.'
He pointed to a 1970s case out of California in which the state's benefits agency delayed payment while an employer appealed an applicant's eligibility. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected California law as 'invalid and unenforceable' because it conflicted with the federal statute, Dann said.
Like the state, Dann argued, the point of a stay is to maintain the status quo, but with a new presidential administration in place and a budget process under way, 'the country's fiscal affairs are, to say the least, in flux.' The funding necessary to provide the missing benefits is vulnerable to clawback, and he insisted the best way to maintain their availability is to have them in hand.
'A stay should only be for the purpose of maintaining the status quo while the appeal proceeds,' he insisted. 'The only way to safely maintain the status quo would be to order the governor to ask for the money.'
Dann argued that even if Holbrook agreed that a stay was warranted for other parts of his order, like disbursing the lost unemployment funds, he should maintain the portion directing the state to start the process. But even if Holbrook nodded to the wisdom of a partial stay, he declined to take that step, and instead put his order on hold for the time being.
In an emailed statement, Dann wrote 'we are of course going to appeal this decision.'
He went on to note that they are separately trying to get the appeals court to force the governor's hand, and officially request the money from the U.S. Department of Labor.
'Why the governor continues to refuse to ask for and at least hold on to the $900 million in benefits to 330,000 Ohioans is still a mystery,' he said adding, 'we hope the governor will reconsider his decision and ask for the money so that its not reappropriated and lost forever, forcing us to perhaps have to sue the state for the money.'
Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or on Bluesky.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

41 minutes ago
Texas AG claimed three homes as primary residence. Democrats are being probed for similar issue
WASHINGTON -- Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and his wife, Angela, are longtime owners of a $1.5 million house in a gated community outside Dallas. In 2015, they snapped up a second home in Austin. Then another. The problem: Mortgages signed by the Paxtons contained inaccurate statements declaring that each of those three houses was their primary residence, enabling the now-estranged couple to improperly lock in low interest rates, according to an Associated Press review of public records. The lower rates will save the Paxtons tens of thousands of dollars in payments over the life of the loan, legal experts say. The records also revealed that the Paxtons collected an impermissible homestead tax break on two of those homes, and they have routinely flouted lending agreements on some of their other properties. It is a federal and state crime to knowingly make false statements on mortgage documents. It's also against the law in Texas to collect a homestead tax break on two separate properties. Violating the terms of a mortgage could allow lenders recourse to seek full payment of a loan, according to legal experts. The mortgage revelations are likely to become fodder in the Republican primary for a U.S. Senate seat in which Paxton is seeking to topple the incumbent, John Cornyn. The situation is further complicated by the Trump administration's criminal pursuit of Democrats over similar issues. President Donald Trump has accused two of his political foes — Sen. Adam Schiff of California and New York Attorney General Letitia James — of committing mortgage fraud, though legal experts say the circumstances are less serious. The Democrats have long been objects of Trump's ire for having led various investigations into his conduct as president and as a business executive. Paxton, himself, has weighed in on the investigation of James, saying he hoped authorities would look into her conduct. 'I hope that if she's done something wrong, I hope that she's actually held accountable,' he told supporters last month. The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation of James, FBI director Kash Patel told Fox News in May. The department received a criminal referral for Schiff last week from the Federal Housing Finance Agency, its director William Pulte confirmed in a social media post. Neither the Justice Department nor the FHFA responded to an inquiry about whether they may investigate Paxton, too. James' attorney, Abbe Lowell, urged the Trump administration to investigate Paxton instead. 'If this administration was genuinely interested in rooting out fraud, it appears they should stop wasting their time on the baseless and discredited allegations against the New York Attorney General James and turn their attention to Texas,' said Lowell, a prominent Washington attorney whose past clients include Hunter Biden, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. In a statement, Marisol Samayoa, a Schiff spokeswoman, blasted the criminal referral as 'a transparent attempt' by Trump 'to punish a perceived political foe who is committed to holding him to account.' She added that Schiff disclosed to his lenders that he owned another home that was a principal residence and sought guidance from an attorney. It is unlikely that Paxton, a staunch Trump ally, will face the same federal scrutiny as James and Schiff. It's equally doubtful that Paxton will face much legal trouble in Texas: His office is one of the primary agencies tasked with investigating allegations of mortgage fraud. Ken Paxton and his spokesman did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Angela Paxton, who is a state senator in Texas, did not respond to requests made through her office. Documents reviewed by the AP show the Paxtons hold mortgages on three homes — one in suburban Dallas, two in Austin — that are each listed as their primary residence. The designation comes with a considerable financial upside. Interest rates on primary homes are significantly lower than those for mortgages on secondary homes or investment properties, saving buyers tens of thousands of dollars — if not more — over the life of a loan. Making a case against Paxton would require "establishing both that Paxton was aware of the contents of the mortgage document, and also that he was actively aware at the time that he signed it that this was not going to be a primary residence,' said Jennifer E. Laurin, a professor at the University of Texas Law School in Austin. Legal experts say it is possible that the Paxtons' lenders prepared the documents and that the couple did not carefully review them before signing. Even if that were the case, some legal experts say that Paxton, as an attorney and Texas' top law enforcement officer, ought to have known better. 'If he filled out lender documents knowing that they were false, then that is a false statement to obtain a mortgage on favorable terms. That would be actionable,' said Arif Lawji, a veteran Texas real estate attorney. 'He's the chief enforcement officer. You have to be accountable for stuff you do that's wrong.' Low interest rates are not the only perk the Paxtons secured, records show. In 2018, they simultaneously collected homestead property tax breaks on their family's home in suburban Dallas, as well as on a $1.1 million home in Austin, property records and tax statements show. A homestead tax break is a property tax reduction that a homeowner is only eligible to collect on one property that is also their primary home. The suburban Dallas home is where the Paxtons' family has long resided. It's where Ken and Angela Paxton are registered to vote. It is located in the state Senate district that Angela Paxton represents in the Legislature, which Ken Paxton held before his election in 2014 to be attorney general. It's also where Ken Paxton's Senate campaign website until recently said he lived. Lawji said the Paxtons' simultaneous collection of two homestead tax breaks appears to be a more clearcut violation. That is because one must obtain a form and submit it to taxing authorities to receive such a tax break, making it an 'intentional act,' he said. The tax break was worth several thousand dollars, a fact that confounded real estate lawyers. 'Why would you try to do all of this,' Lawji said, 'when you are the attorney general? That's a bigger question to me than the money, when you are AG and have to enforce this law.' Separately, land records indicate the Paxtons may have violated the terms of at least two mortgages on other houses they own. The mortgage on a home in College Station, Texas, says the property is for the Paxtons' exclusive use and cannot be rented out. Doing so would be grounds for terminating the mortgage, the document states. The home has been listed for rent on real estate websites on-and-off since at least 2022. Ken Paxton also holds a $1.2 million mortgage on a '5 bedroom luxury cabin' in Broken Bow, Oklahoma, that is for rent on Airbnb and other short-term rental sites, records show. The property's mortgage stipulates that it cannot be rented out. Representatives for Stifel Bank, Cornerstone Home Lending and Benchmark Mortgage, which issued the mortgages in question, did not respond to requests for comment. Paxton's real estate dealings are in many ways distinct from those of James and Schiff, the Democrats targeted by the Trump administration. The investigation of James centers on forms she signed in 2023 while helping a niece buy a home in Virginia. One form stated that James intended to occupy the home as her 'principal residence.' But in other documents, the New York attorney general made clear she had no intention of living there. An email to the mortgage loan broker two weeks before she signed the documents stated the property 'WILL NOT be my primary residence.' 'As I've said from the beginning, if prosecutors want to know that truth about Attorney General James' mortgage applications, we are ready and waiting with the facts,' said Lowell, James' attorney. For over a decade, Schiff owned homes in Maryland and California, the state he represents, that were both designated as his primary residence. In 2020, then a congressman, Schiff designated his Maryland property as a second home — a step Paxton has not taken. Paxton's real estate dealings are not the first time he has drawn scrutiny for his conduct while in office. Before his election as attorney general, Paxton, then a state senator, admitted in 2014 to violating Texas securities law and paid a fine. He spent roughly 10 years under state indictment on securities charges while serving as attorney general. The charges were eventually dropped in 2024. Other alleged misdeeds in office led to his impeachment by Texas' GOP-controlled House in 2023. He was acquitted in a trial by the Senate. Angela Paxton did not cast a vote in his impeachment trial and recently filed for divorce, citing Ken Paxton's infidelity and other 'recent discoveries.' She did not elaborate. What ultimately unleashed the impeachment push was Paxton's relationship with Austin real estate developer Nate Paul, who pleaded guilty this year to one count of making a false statement to a financial institution. In 2020, eight top aides in Paxton's office told the FBI they were concerned the state's top law enforcement official was misusing his office to help Paul over the developer's unproven claims about an elaborate conspiracy to steal $200 million of his properties. The House impeachment managers accused Paxton of attempting to interfere in foreclosure lawsuits and issuing legal opinions to benefit Paul. They also alleged that Paul employed a woman with whom Paxton had an affair in exchange for legal help and that the developer paid for expensive renovations to the attorney general's home in Austin. That would be the same house that he declared in mortgage documents was his third primary residence.


CNBC
2 hours ago
- CNBC
European stocks set to open higher on optimism that U.S.-EU trade deal is imminent
The Millennium Bridge in London, on July 4, 2025. Jonathan Brady - Pa Images | Pa Images | Getty Images Good morning from London, and welcome to CNBC's live blog covering all the action and business news in European financial markets on Thursday. Futures data from IG suggest a positive open for European indexes as hopes of a U.S.-EU trade deal rise, with London's FTSE 100 seen opening 0.4% higher, France's CAC 40 up 1.3%, Germany's DAX up 1.1%, and Italy's FTSE MIB 1.24% higher. European markets rose Wednesday amid hopes that the U.S. and European Union could be closing in on a trade deal. Regional stocks jumped yesterday after the Financial Times reported that the two large trading partners were closing in on a 15% tariff deal. Optimism that a deal was close rose after President Donald Trump announced that he had completed a "massive Deal" with Japan, and hinted that Europe could be next. "We have Europe coming in tomorrow, and the next day, we have some other ones coming in," Trump said late on Tuesday, without specifying details. — Holly Ellyatt Flags for the European Union members stand during a ceremony to lay a cornerstone for the new European Central Bank (ECB) headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany. Hannelore Foerster | Bloomberg | Getty Images It's a busy day for central banks and corporates on Thursday. The European Central Bank is widely expected to keep interest rates unchanged as it gauges the trade tariff landscape. On the earnings front, reports are set to come from BNP , Roche, Nokia, Nestle, Lloyds Banking Group, BT Group, Reckitt Benckiser Group, ITV, Wizz Air , TotalEnergies , Vodafone , Centrica, Michelin, Dassault Systemes , ST Micro, Carrefour , Deutsche Bank , Deutsche Boerse , LVMH and more. On the data front, flash European purchasing managers' index data and Germany's GfK consumer confidence figures are due. — Holly Ellyatt


Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Gabbard's claims of an anti-Trump conspiracy are not supported by declassified documents
WASHINGTON (AP) — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard this month declassified material that she claimed proved a 'treasonous conspiracy' by the Obama administration in 2016 to politicize U.S. intelligence in service of casting doubt on the legitimacy of Donald Trump's election victory. As evidence, Gabbard cited newly declassified emails from Obama officials and a five-year-old classified House report in hopes of undermining the intelligence community's conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to boost Trump and denigrate his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Russia's activities during the 2016 election remain some of the most examined events in recent history. The Kremlin's campaign and the subsequent U.S. government response were the subject of at least five major investigations by the Republican-led House and Senate intelligence committee ; two Justice Department special counsels; and the department's inspector general . Those investigations either concluded — or accepted the conclusion — that Russia embarked on a campaign to interfere in the election through the use of social media and hacked material. The House-led probe, conducted by Trump allies, also concurred that Russia ran an election interference campaign but said the purpose was to sow chaos in the U.S. rather than boost Trump. Several of the reports criticize the actions of Obama administration officials, particularly at the FBI, but do not dispute the fundamental findings that Moscow sought to interfere in the election. The Associated Press has reviewed those reports to evaluate how Gabbard's claims stack up: Russian election interference CLAIM: 'The intelligence community had one assessment: that Russia did not have the intent and capability to try to impact the outcome of the U.S. election leading up to Election Day. The same assessment was made after the election.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday . The documents Gabbard released do not support her claim. She cites a handful of emails from 2016 in which officials conclude that Russia had no intention of manipulating the U.S. vote count through cyberattacks on voting systems. President Barack Obama's administration never alleged that voting infrastructure was tampered with. Rather, the administration said Russia ran a covert influence campaign using hacked and stolen material from prominent Democrats. Russian operatives then used that information as part of state-funded media and social media operations to inflame U.S. public opinion. More than two dozen Russians were indicted in 2018 in connection with those efforts. Republican-led investigations in Congress have affirmed that conclusion, and the emails that Gabbard released do not contradict that finding. Shift in assessment? CLAIM: 'There was a shift, a 180-degree shift, from the intelligence community's assessment leading up to the election to the one that President Obama directed be produced after Donald Trump won the election that completely contradicted those assessments that had come previously.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday. There was no shift. The emails Gabbard released show that a Department of Homeland Security official in August 2016 told then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper there was 'no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count.' The public assessment the Obama administration made public in January 2017 reached the same conclusion: 'DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.' Putin's intent CLAIM: The Obama administration 'manufactured the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that they knew was false promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election.' — Gabbard on Truth Social Wednesday. The material declassified this week reveals some dissent within the intelligence community about whether Putin wanted to help Trump or simply inflame the U.S. public. That same question led to a partisan divide on the House Intelligence panel when it examined the matter several years later. Gabbard's memo released last week cites a 'whistleblower' who she says served in the intelligence community at the time and who is quoted as saying that he could not 'concur in good conscience' with the intelligence community's judgment that Russia had a 'decisive preference' for Trump. Such dissent and debate are not unusual in the drafting of intelligence reports. The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee examined whether there was any political interference in the Obama administration's conclusions and reported that 'all analysts expressed that they were free to debate, object to content, and assess confidence levels, as is normal and proper.' In 2018, Putin directly addressed the question of whether he preferred Trump at a press conference in Helsinki even as he sidestepped a question about whether he directed any of his subordinates to help Trump. 'Yes, I did,' Putin said. 'Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.' Steele dossier CLAIM: 'They used already discredited information like the Steele dossier — they knew it was discredited at the time.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday. The dossier refers to a collection of opposition research files compiled by a former British spy, Christopher Steele, whose work was funded by Democrats during the 2016 election. Those files included uncorroborated tips and salacious gossip about Trump's ties to Russia, but the importance to the Russia investigation has sometimes been overstated. It was not the basis for the FBI's decision to open an investigation in July 2016 into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, the Justice Department's inspector general found. Some of the records released by Gabbard this week also reveal that it was a Central Intelligence Agency human source close to the Kremlin that the agency primarily relied on for its conclusion that Putin wanted to help Trump and hurt Clinton, not the Steele dossier. FBI agents on the case didn't even come to possess the dossier until weeks into their inquiry. Even so, Trump supporters have seized on the unverified innuendo in the document to undercut the broader Russia investigation. Many of Steele's claims have since been discredited or denied. It is true, however, that the FBI and Justice Department relied in part on the Steele dossier to obtain surveillance warrants to eavesdrop on the communications of a former Trump campaign adviser, the inspector general found. FBI agents continued to pursue those warrants even after questions arose about the credibility of Steele's reporting. The dossier was also summarized — over the objections of then-CIA Director John Brennan, he has said — in a two-page annex to the classified version of the intelligence community assessment. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .