Latest news with #OhioConstitution
Yahoo
30-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Top Ohio court to decide fate of transgender healthcare ban
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — The Ohio Supreme Court is set to decide whether a contested state law banning certain medical treatment for transgender youth is unconstitutional. The high court announced on July 22 that it's reviewing a lawsuit against House Bill 68, the state law prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost asked the justices to consider the case after an appeals court ruled in March that the law is unconstitutional, arguing it 'infringes on parents' fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children.' Yost, a longtime H.B. 68 supporter, vowed to appeal that ruling. In an April statement, the attorney general's office said, 'We look forward to showing once again that the legislature acted properly in enacting this constitutional law, which protects our children from irreversible medical decisions.' Watch a previous NBC4 report on the March decision in the video player above. Now able to endorse political candidates, Ohio churches express interest in staying neutral Ohio's top court, which voted 6-1 along party lines to take up Yost's appeal, said in late April that the state can continue enforcing the law while litigation continues. Boding well for H.B. 68, a Tennessee law that also prohibits trans minors from receiving treatment like puberty blockers and hormone therapy was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in June. Still, the ACLU of Ohio, which filed the lawsuit against H.B. 68 on behalf of two families with trans children, said it remains confident in challenging Ohio's version of the law. 'Make no mistake: the ACLU of Ohio's litigation challenging House Bill 68 will proceed,' said Freda Levenson, ACLU of Ohio chief legal officer, in a statement. 'Unlike [in Tennessee], our case raises separate constitutional claims under the Ohio Constitution. We will continue to do everything in our power to ensure transgender children and their families have the ability to live freely and thrive.' H.B. 68, which also bans trans female athletes' participation in women's sports, faced a contentious road while advancing through Ohio's legislature. The measure was condemned by top Ohio doctors, including Nick Lashutka, president of the Ohio Children's Hospital Association, who argued at the Statehouse in 2023 that 'it is a dangerous precedent for government to dictate when medication is appropriate in pediatrics.' While the Statehouse approved H.B. 68 in December 2023, Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed the legislation the following month. The governor said he made his decision after visiting patients at five children's hospitals, arguing that 'these are gut-wrenching decisions that should be made by parents and should be informed by teams of doctors.' Still, both chambers of the Statehouse moved to override DeWine's veto. As 988 lifeline ends LGBTQ+ service, Ohio group warns of risks for youth The ACLU filed its lawsuit against H.B. 68 later that spring, putting the law temporarily on hold and setting up a five-day Franklin County trial in July 2024. Ultimately, Common Pleas Judge Michael Holbrook ruled that the legislation could go into effect given it didn't violate Ohio's constitution. The ACLU then appealed Holbrook's decision to the appeals court. 'This has been a long hard fight to protect minors in the state of Ohio,' said Rep. Gary Click (R-Vickery), H.B. 68's primary sponsor, in a statement after Holbrook's ruling. 'A strong cross-section of Ohioans… recognize that decisions like these are too consequential to be made for and by minors who are incapable of providing informed consent.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
10-07-2025
- Politics
- 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
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court says Ohio legislative effort to block local tobacco laws unconstitutional
An Ohio appeals court has unanimously decided that efforts by state lawmakers to prevent city governments from regulating tobacco products are 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@ or on Bluesky at @ This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Ohio court sides with cities in state tobacco law dispute
The Independent
25-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Ohio plans swift appeal as court declares private school voucher system unconstitutional
Ohio signaled on Wednesday that it will swiftly appeal a court ruling declaring the state's private school voucher system unconstitutional, a decision celebrated by public school advocates and condemned by a prominent Christian education organization. Republican Attorney General Dave Yost said in a statement that he is confident the state will ultimately win. He assured Ohio families that the judge's order allows the program to remain operational as the lawsuit is argued, "so parents don't have to panic or worry about other options while the court process plays out.' Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Jaiza Page granted summary judgment Tuesday in a 2022 lawsuit joined by hundreds of public school districts, known collectively as Vouchers Hurt Ohio, as well as some parents, students and a fair school funding group. The plaintiffs had argued that Ohio's 28-year-old school voucher plan, known as EdChoice, has over time created an unconstitutional system of separately funded private schools and led to resegregation of some districts because mostly nonminority students take advantage of the program. Page, a Democrat, agreed that the program violates a provision of the Ohio Constitution requiring 'a thorough and efficient system of common schools," but rejected claims that it violated the equal protection clause. She used her 47-page decision to recount Ohio's history of funding schools, noting that evidence presented in the case spanned from before statehood to the 2023 state budget bill that established a universal voucher program providing tuition to nonpublic schools, including religious ones, to any family in the state. Page notably rejected the widely used 'school choice' legal argument, which says that voucher programs involve spending decisions made by individual parents, not by the state. The judge found that argument failed in this case. She said families aren't the EdChoice program's final decision-makers: 'The ultimate decision to accept prospective students, and by doing so receive EdChoice funds, lies with the private school.' The Ohio Christian Education Network, the rapidly expanding education arm of the Center for Christian Virtue, expressed strong disagreement with the ruling. 'This decision is poorly reasoned and ignores mountains of previous school choice jurisprudence at both (the) state and federal levels,' Troy McIntosh, the network's executive director, said in a statement. 'The fact is that this decision is not only an improper legal decision, but it could result in almost 100,000 Ohio students being tossed out of the school they have chosen to attend." The Ohio Education Association, the state's largest teachers union, praised the ruling as a win for the nearly 90% of K-12 students who attend Ohio's public schools. "Although this legal victory is likely the first step in a much longer process through the appeals courts, the ruling Tuesday represents a huge victory for Ohio's public school educators, school communities, and students who have seen critical resources diverted from our public schools for years to fund private school tuition payments for mostly-wealthy families whose children had never attended their local public schools in the first place,' OEA President Scott DiMauro said in a statement.
Associated Press
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Ohio plans swift appeal as court declares private school voucher system unconstitutional
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio signaled on Wednesday that it will swiftly appeal a court ruling declaring the state's private school voucher system unconstitutional, a decision celebrated by public school advocates and condemned by a prominent Christian education organization. Republican Attorney General Dave Yost said in a statement that he is confident the state will ultimately win. He assured Ohio families that the judge's order allows the program to remain operational as the lawsuit is argued, 'so parents don't have to panic or worry about other options while the court process plays out.' Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Jaiza Page granted summary judgment Tuesday in a 2022 lawsuit joined by hundreds of public school districts, known collectively as Vouchers Hurt Ohio, as well as some parents, students and a fair school funding group. The plaintiffs had argued that Ohio's 28-year-old school voucher plan, known as EdChoice, has over time created an unconstitutional system of separately funded private schools and led to resegregation of some districts because mostly nonminority students take advantage of the program. Page, a Democrat, agreed that the program violates a provision of the Ohio Constitution requiring 'a thorough and efficient system of common schools,' but rejected claims that it violated the equal protection clause. She used her 47-page decision to recount Ohio's history of funding schools, noting that evidence presented in the case spanned from before statehood to the 2023 state budget bill that established a universal voucher program providing tuition to nonpublic schools, including religious ones, to any family in the state. Page notably rejected the widely used 'school choice' legal argument, which says that voucher programs involve spending decisions made by individual parents, not by the state. The judge found that argument failed in this case. She said families aren't the EdChoice program's final decision-makers: 'The ultimate decision to accept prospective students, and by doing so receive EdChoice funds, lies with the private school.' The Ohio Christian Education Network, the rapidly expanding education arm of the Center for Christian Virtue, expressed strong disagreement with the ruling. 'This decision is poorly reasoned and ignores mountains of previous school choice jurisprudence at both (the) state and federal levels,' Troy McIntosh, the network's executive director, said in a statement. 'The fact is that this decision is not only an improper legal decision, but it could result in almost 100,000 Ohio students being tossed out of the school they have chosen to attend.' The Ohio Education Association, the state's largest teachers union, praised the ruling as a win for the nearly 90% of K-12 students who attend Ohio's public schools. 'Although this legal victory is likely the first step in a much longer process through the appeals courts, the ruling Tuesday represents a huge victory for Ohio's public school educators, school communities, and students who have seen critical resources diverted from our public schools for years to fund private school tuition payments for mostly-wealthy families whose children had never attended their local public schools in the first place,' OEA President Scott DiMauro said in a statement.
