logo
#

Latest news with #SupremeCourtofOhio

Court rules Ohio's ban on gender-affirming care can be enforced amid suits
Court rules Ohio's ban on gender-affirming care can be enforced amid suits

Yahoo

time30-04-2025

  • Health
  • Yahoo

Court rules Ohio's ban on gender-affirming care can be enforced amid suits

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a state law prohibiting minors from receiving gender-affirming care can be enforced as court battles proceed over the law's constitutionality. The state's high court granted a request from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) to stay an appellate court ruling from March that blocked the state from enforcing the law, pending full review. The two-sentence Tuesday order was issued by the Republican chief justice, Sharon Kennedy. Republican Justice Pat Fischer and Democratic Justice Jennifer Brunner dissented. 'This cause is pending before the court as a jurisdictional appeal. Upon consideration of appellants' emergency motion for stay pending appeal, it is ordered by the court that the motion is granted,' the order read. The Ohio General Assembly, in 2023, passed House Bill 68, banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors. The bill was vetoed by the state's Republican governor, but both legislative chambers voted to overturn his veto. The ACLU of Ohio brought a lawsuit on behalf of two transgender minors challenging the legality of the statute. The law has been caught up in the courts for months. 'It is a terrible shame that the Supreme Court of Ohio is permitting the state to evade compliance with the Ohio Constitution. Our clients have suffered tangible and irreparable harm during the eight months that HB 68 has been in place, including being denied essential health care in their home state,' the ACLU of Ohio's legal director, Freda Levenson, said in a Tuesday statement responding to the court order. 'The Court of Appeals was correct that HB 68 violates at least two separate provisions of the Ohio Constitution. We will continue to fight this extreme ban as the case goes ahead before the Supreme Court of Ohio,' Levenson continued. Yost, who is running for Ohio governor, posted on X announcing the court's ruling. In a statement to a Cleveland news outlet, his spokesperson, Bethany McCorkle, said the attorney general's office is pleased that the law 'protecting children from drug-induced gender transitions remains in effect as the case moves forward.' '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,' McCorkle continued in the statement. The Hill has reached out to the attorney general's office for comment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Court rules Ohio's ban on gender-affirming care can be enforced amid suits
Court rules Ohio's ban on gender-affirming care can be enforced amid suits

The Hill

time29-04-2025

  • Health
  • The Hill

Court rules Ohio's ban on gender-affirming care can be enforced amid suits

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a state law prohibiting minors from receiving gender-affirming care can be enforced as court battles proceed over the law's constitutionality. The state's high court granted a request from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) to stay an appellate court ruling from March that blocked the state from enforcing the law, pending full review. The two-sentence Tuesday order was issued by the Republican chief justice, Sharon Kennedy. Republican Justice Pat Fischer and Democratic Justice Jennifer Brunner dissented. 'This cause is pending before the court as a jurisdictional appeal. Upon consideration of appellants' emergency motion for stay pending appeal, it is ordered by the court that the motion is granted,' the order read. The Ohio General Assembly, in 2023, passed House Bill 68, banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors. The bill was vetoed by the state's Republican governor, but both legislative chambers voted to overturn his veto. The ACLU of Ohio brought a lawsuit on behalf of two transgender minors challenging the legality of the statute. The law has been caught up in the courts for months. 'It is a terrible shame that the Supreme Court of Ohio is permitting the state to evade compliance with the Ohio Constitution. Our clients have suffered tangible and irreparable harm during the eight months that HB 68 has been in place, including being denied essential health care in their home state,' the ACLU of Ohio's legal director, Freda Levenson, said in a Tuesday statement responding to the court order. 'The Court of Appeals was correct that HB 68 violates at least two separate provisions of the Ohio Constitution. We will continue to fight this extreme ban as the case goes ahead before the Supreme Court of Ohio,' Levenson continued. Yost, who is running for Ohio governor, posted on X announcing the court's ruling. In a statement to a Cleveland news outlet, his spokesperson, Bethany McCorkle, said the attorney general's office is pleased that the law 'protecting children from drug-induced gender transitions remains in effect as the case moves forward.' '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,' McCorkle continued in the statement.

Ohio Supreme Court keeps ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth while case continues
Ohio Supreme Court keeps ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth while case continues

Yahoo

time29-04-2025

  • Health
  • Yahoo

Ohio Supreme Court keeps ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth while case continues

'Gavel,' a sculpture by Andrew F. Scott, outside the Supreme Court of Ohio. Credit: Sam Howzit / Creative Commons. The Ohio Supreme Court is keeping the ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth as the case goes through litigation. In March, the 10th District Court of Appeals partially blocked the state from enforcing House Bill 68, a ban on gender-affirming care for LGBTQ+ youth, allowing doctors to continue prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapy. Attorney General Dave Yost filed a motion with the high court to stay the law, or pause changes, until a full review by the justices. This was granted Tuesday. H.B. 68 went into effect in 2024. The controversial legislation prevented LGBTQ+ minors from accessing care such as hormone blockers, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and some mental health services. 'There is no way I'll stop fighting to protect these unprotected children,' Yost said, in part, in a statement from the March ruling. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The law has been in court for months now, with the ACLU of Ohio arguing that it is unconstitutional and goes against parental rights and the right to bodily autonomy. 'It is a terrible shame that the Supreme Court of Ohio is permitting the state to evade compliance with the Ohio Constitution. Our clients have suffered tangible and irreparable harm during the eight months that H.B. 68 has been in place, including being denied essential health care in their home state,' Freda Levenson, ACLU legal director, said. 'The Court of Appeals was correct that H.B. 68 violates at least two separate provisions of the Ohio Constitution. We will continue to fight this extreme ban as the case goes ahead before the Supreme Court of Ohio.' The law also prohibits trans athletes from participating in middle, high school or college athletics on teams that align with their identity. In July 2024, parents and doctors testified to prevent the state from enforcing the ban, citing that the ban would 'deny basic human rights.' Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Ohio Bar Exam passage rate shows a tough test
Ohio Bar Exam passage rate shows a tough test

Yahoo

time28-04-2025

  • Yahoo

Ohio Bar Exam passage rate shows a tough test

(WKBN) — Aspiring attorneys have a final hurdle after they devote years of their life to studying law — the Bar Exam. The Supreme Court of Ohio announces results from the exam, the latest was given in February when 345 people sat for the test. Of those tested, 147 passed or 43%. There were 122 first-time examinees, with 65% of those passing. The successful examinees were from 35 of Ohio's counties and 10 states. The bar exam is administered twice a year by the Court, which regulates the practice of law in Ohio, including the admission of new attorneys, the biennial registration of current attorneys, attorney discipline in cases of misconduct, and the administration of continuing legal education. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Ohio workers waiting on long-delayed pandemic unemployment benefits will have to keep waiting
Ohio workers waiting on long-delayed pandemic unemployment benefits will have to keep waiting

Yahoo

time25-02-2025

  • Business
  • Yahoo

Ohio workers waiting on long-delayed pandemic unemployment benefits will have to keep waiting

Stock photo from Getty Images. 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

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store