US Supreme Court declines Ohio AG Yost's request to take up qualified immunity amendment case
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost can't hold up a qualified immunity amendment from clearing its first hurdle toward the statewide ballot, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled when it denied Yost's attempt to block an earlier ruling.
And the attorney who brought the case says it could have sweeping implications for all Ohioans trying to change the state constitution.
The case stems from an effort to put a constitutional amendment on the 2024 ballot to eliminate qualified immunity, allowing citizens to sue police officers and other public employees who violate their constitutional rights.
The first step in a constitutional amendment is submitting 1,000 valid signatures and having the Ohio attorney general determine if the language submitted is "fair and truthful."
But Yost, a Republican, rejected the amendment's language eight times for dubious and picky reasons, said Mark Brown, a Capital University professor who brought the case on behalf of three Ohio voters.
U.S. District Court Judge James Graham agreed, writing that American democracy relies on citizens determining for themselves what is fair and truthful.
"The Attorney General, one might say, has played the role of an antagonistic copyeditor, striking plaintiffs' work on technical grounds," wrote Graham, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
Through a series of appeals that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, Yost sought to block that decision. But on April 22, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Yost's request. Three justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, disagreed and would have reviewed the case.
What happens next? The five-member Ohio Ballot Board must review the proposed constitutional amendment to see if it should be one ballot issue or more than one. Then, proponents will be cleared to collect the 413,487 valid signatures needed to make the ballot.
To complicate things further, the Ohio Ballot Board approved one version of the qualified immunity measure in December − but only after they removed the title and other items Yost disapproved of. The Ohio Supreme Court had stepped in to say Yost couldn't reject a ballot initiative language because of its title alone.
But Brown said the group wants to move forward with its original language and title.
Yost, in a news release, wrote that he would work with Ohio lawmakers to change the ballot initiative summary process to "protect the integrity of Ohio's elections and freedom of speech." He wrote that the federal judge had "held Ohio's nearly century-old ballot initiative process was unconstitutional."
What does this ruling mean for future constitutional amendments? Brown says it's a big deal because future proposed constitutional amendments wouldn't have to pass Yost's muster. "It takes an antagonistic attorney general out of the equation."
Before this lawsuit, Yost could prevent anyone from getting to the ballot, Brown said. "If he says it's not fair and truthful, you're done."
State government reporter Jessie Balmert can be reached at jbalmert@gannett.com or @jbalmert on X.
This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Ohio qualified immunity amendment moves forward
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
GOP lawmakers push bill touting dads for Father's Day — and calling out crisis of 1 and 4 kids growing up without one
Two Republican reps unveiled a resolution in time for Father's Day aimed at drawing attention to the millions of kids growing up without fathers — roughly one in four US children — and underscoring the important roles that dads play in American society. Reps. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) and Burgess Owens (R-Utah) introduced the resolution in the House earlier this month and urged policymakers to back solutions that encourage fatherhood. 'I'm blessed with six children and 17 grandchildren — they are the heartbeat of everything I do,' Owens, 73, explained about the resolution. 'We know that when fathers are engaged, children thrive, succeed in school, stay out of trouble and build brighter futures. 'This Father's Day, I'm proud to reintroduce this resolution to recognize the power and purpose of fatherhood, and to send a clear message: America is stronger when families are strong, fathers are present, and parents are empowered.' The resolution, HR 487, which hasn't received a vote yet, declares that 'fatherhood is essential to the development of all children.' 3 The GOP reps are hoping the House will adopt the resolution that highlights the importance of fatherhood. Getty Images 3 Rep. Burgess Owens has six children and seventeen grandchildren. Getty Images About 18.4 million children — roughly a quarter of American kids — live without any father in the home — including a biological, step or adoptive dad, according to US Census Bureau data. Roughly 80% of single-parent households are run by single moms, one study from 2022 found. 'A father's impact is truly incalculable,' Donalds, who is running for Florida governor, said in a statement. 'It is fundamental for growth and development throughout a child's life. Fathers are providers, protectors, teachers, mentors, role models, and so much more.' 'Too many children across our country have been robbed of this lasting influence and we must do everything we can to end the tragic cycle of fatherlessness in America. I'm proud to partner with Congressman Owens to express the importance of this timeless institution.' The resolution is also being championed by former Minnesota Vikings and University of Minnesota football player Jack Brewer, whose eponymous foundation has worked to combat the fatherhood crisis in the US. Last week, the Jack Brewer Foundation celebrated the grand opening of its National Fatherhood Center in Washington, DC. 'We should be embarrassed as the most fatherless nation in the world and declare war on this crisis in America,' Brewer said. 3 Jack Brewer's eponymous foundation opened its National Fatherhood Center in Washington, D.C. last week. Bloomberg via Getty Images 'Too many vulnerable children and families have been devastated, and we must address all policies that contribute to dismantling homes, ensuring that both a mother and a father are present to support their children.' The resolution also draws attention to the impact of fatherlessness in minority communities and pushes for solutions such as workforce reentry initiatives for incarcerated parents, mentorship programs, and tax incentives for parents. The measure also hails the First Step Act, opportunity zones and historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUS) for helping to address fatherlessness in minority communities. 'Fatherlessness and the lack of important role models in the lives of children today are a root cause of the violence and unrest we are witnessing in our Nation,' the resolution warned.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump's DOJ should stop treating CAIR as a legitimate immigration provider
Following two recent terrorist attacks on American soil — one killing a young couple outside the Jewish Museum in D.C., and another firebombing elderly Jews in Colorado — several high-profile politicians have called for the Council on American Islamic Relations to be designated as a terrorist organization. Why is this? CAIR presents itself as a civil rights organization, but it has a longstanding association with Hamas, for which 'ample evidence' was cited in a court ruling unsealed in 2010. CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, the largest foreign terror financing case in U.S. history. This may not be enough on its own for the terrorism designation that those politicians called for, but it is enough that the government should not be conferring special privileges, influence and legitimacy upon CAIR's most powerful state affiliate, CAIR-California. Since 2015, CAIR-California has enjoyed a special designation that allows non-lawyers on CAIR's staff to represent clients in immigration proceedings. This accreditation also qualifies CAIR-California to receive certain government funding. This status is a privilege, not a right. According to federal regulations, Executive Office of Immigration Review accreditation is reserved for organizations that are acting in the public interest and maintain ethical and financial accountability. CAIR-California has failed to meet these standards. The Department of Justice should use its lawful authority to revoke CAIR-California's accreditation with the Executive Office of Immigration Review. CAIR leaders' open support for terrorist violence — which caused the Biden White House to shun the group after the Oct. 7, 2023 terror attacks against Israeli civilians — is clearly not in the public interest. In the time since, its extremist rhetoric has been adopted by swaths of activists across America. CAIR's publications and manuals mimic the incendiary language of its leaders. National Executive Director Nihad Awad expressed happiness after the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks. CAIR-California CEO Hussam Ayloush stated that 'Israel should be attacked' and that 'Israel has no right to defend itself.' CAIR-California board officer Zahra Billoo praised Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh as a 'martyr' and described Oct. 7 as 'decolonization.' Immigration law requires providers to assess terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility. Applicants for asylum, legal permanent residency, and many other forms of immigration relief must attest to their rejection of terrorism and their intent not to further it in the United States. How can CAIR-California be trusted to assess the national security risks of clients when it is promoting the very ideology it is tasked with weeding out? The federal government is effectively letting the fox guard the henhouse. Aside from these disturbing statements of support for terrorism, CAIR-California's handling of government money should disqualify it from Department of Justice recognition, at least until all funds are publicly accounted for. A recent investigation by the Intelligent Advocacy Network showed that CAIR-California was entrusted with more than $5 million in federal funds intended to be distributed through sub-grants. Public records offer no public accounting for how that money was spent. In one glaring example, CAIR appears to have sub-granted at least $3.6 million of that $5 million to itself. California's government transparency site, Open Fiscal, shows that CAIR-California has received more than $10 million in public funding, including $7 million routed from the federal Office of Refugee and Resettlement for immigration assistance and $2.7 million to 'fight hate.' CAIR-California's IRS Form 990 filings fail to disclose these government grants, an apparent violation of tax reporting rules. CAIR-California also entered into that $7 million public contract with the California Department of Social Services under the name 'CAIR of Greater Los Angeles,' which somehow operates under CAIR-California's tax identification number but does not appear to be a separate legal nonprofit. This is not a partisan issue. CAIR-California's refusal to open up its financial books and its support for extremism undermine the very immigrant communities the group claims to serve. Public funds should not be used to enrich a single organization or promote violent ideologies. Department of Justice recognition is meant to ensure that immigration providers deliver competent, ethical legal services and serve as responsible stewards of public funding. CAIR-California has failed to meet these baseline requirements. The continued flow of federal, state, and city funding to CAIR-California hinges on its accreditation from the Executive Office of Immigration Review. Thus, revocation of that accreditation is not merely symbolic. The Department of Justice should act to uphold the integrity of its own programs by immediately withdrawing CAIR-California's accreditation. The federal government, California, and the City and County of Los Angeles must end this partnership and work to restore public trust. Julie Marzouk is the Founder and Principal of Evolve Advocacy Consulting.
Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
Rand Paul says he'd be willing to negotiate on megabill support
One of the Senate GOP's biggest critics of President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' won't rule out coming around on the sweeping domestic policy package. But Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told NBC's Kristen Welker on Sunday that he would need the White House to make major modifications to the bill's planned $5 trillion debt ceiling hike to garner his support. 'Congress is awful with money, and so you should give them a more restricted credit line, not an expansive one,' he said on 'Meet the Press.' 'Yes, the debt ceiling has to go up, but what I've said is it ought to go up three months at a time and then we should have a renewed debate about the debt. We shouldn't put it up $5 trillion and wait two years, go through another election cycle and be almost toward the end of the Trump administration and say, 'Oh, whoops, we've added a bunch of debt.'' Trump's megabill passed the House by just a single vote in May, landing in a Senate Republican caucus with competing priorities and a tricky political landscape. But three of the Senate GOP's most skeptical deficit hawks — Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, Utah Sen. Mike Lee and Florida Sen. Rick Scott — have signaled they could eventually lend their support to the bill. Gaining Paul's approval could prove far more costly for appropriators. 'Separate out the debt ceiling and have a separate vote on it,' Paul told Welker. 'And I won't be the deciding vote on this. This is what I tell my supporters. If I am the deciding vote, they'll negotiate. If I'm not, they won't. So far they've been sending their attack dogs after me, and that's not a great persuasion technique.'
