Ohio AG Asks State Supreme Court To Bar Universal Injunction (2024)

The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

About The Volokh Conspiracy

  • Editorial Independence
  • Who we are
  • Books
  • Volokh Daily Email
  • Archives
  • DMCA
  • RSS

Can a state trial court issue an "universal injunction" against all parts of a new law, even though "only two named plaintiffs have alleged narrow harms from only one part of the law."

Josh Blackman |

The Ohio legislature recently enacted, over the Governor's veto, a law concerning transgender minors. The law was challenged in a state trial court. Two named plaintiffs asserted an injury to challenge particular portions of the law. Yet, the judge entered what is in effect a universal injunction. For example, neither of the plaintiffs are student athletes, but the court enjoined provisions of the law concerning athletics.

Today, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, through Solicitor General Elliot Gaiser, filed an emergency motion in the Ohio Supreme Court to confine the trial court's "injunction to the limits of judicial power."

Here is a snippet from the Introduction:

A trial court has gone far beyond its power to enter a so-called "universal injunction" against an entire new law, in all applications, as to all the parts of the law—despite the fact that only two named plaintiffs have alleged narrow harms from only one part of the law. . . . The court could have granted preliminary relief to two plaintiffs who alleged only a potential desire for medication, under the principle that injunctions should be no broader than needed to protect plaintiffs. Instead, despite the lack of any allegation—let alone a showing—of harms from the rest of the law to Plaintiffs or other 2 Ohioans, the court pronounced that none of the law can go into effect—leaving Ohio families open to all the harms that their elected representatives voted to avert.

The motion invokes the U.S. Supreme Court's order in Labrador v. Poe, which I wrote about last week:

Indeed, one week ago, on April 15, the U.S. Supreme Court followed these same principles of equity to stay a federal trial court's preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Idaho analogue to Ohio's law—which prohibits performing gender transition services on minors—except as to the parties before that Court. Labrador v. Poe, 601 U. S. ____, 2024 WL 1625724 (S. Ct. April 15, 2024). Because a Franklin County judge issued an injunction unbounded by the clear limits on its power, the Relators seek an emergency writ to conform the injunction to Ohio law.

Justice Gorsuch's concurrence focused on federal courts issuing universal injunctions against state laws, but the reasoning would apply in a similar fashion to state courts issuing universal injunctions against state laws–at least where state courts follow the same principles of Article III jurisprudence. (My understanding is that Ohio courts track Supreme Court doctrine, but I am not an expert in this area of state law.)

The brief also invokesWhole Woman's Health v. Jackson:

Second, twenty-five years ago, this Court improperly issued a writ that effectively enjoined all the State's common-pleas judges from following a set of tort-reform laws even though no plaintiff could show immediate harm from those laws. State ex rel. Ohio Acad. of Trial Laws. v. Sheward, 86 Ohio St. 3d 451 (1999). That was a mistake. See id. at 516 (Moyer, C.J., dissenting); see also Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. 30, 39 (2021) ("an injunction against a … court or its machinery would be a violation of the whole scheme of our Government") (internal punctuation omitted). But it did have the imprimatur of four Justices. This case is Sheward squared: a single judge has effectively told every other judge in the State that he or she cannot follow the will of the People as expressed through a legislative supermajority.

The basis of the trial court's ruling was the single-subject provision of the Ohio Constitution, which limits how many subject can be addressed in a single bill. (Judge Sutton wrote about this clause in 51 Imperfect Solutions.) The trial court ruled that denying standing "would insulate legislation from single-subject constitutional scrutiny without class certification or unless a coalition of plaintiffs could be assembled to cover the wide variety of subjects massed in a single piece of legislation."

There is a fascinating question about the relationship between the single-subject rule and the writ of erasure fallacy. Can a court actually "erase" a statute that does not conform with certain procedural requirements under state law? Wouldn't the remedy have to be universal in that regard? Imagine if there was no Enrolled Bill Rule, what would a court do? Stated differently, can a court "erase" an entire statute even if only parts of the statute injure a named plaintiff?

I don't know the answer to these questions, but I think they would likely have to be resolved subsequent to any standing inquiry. A bill has a finite number of provisions. It should not be difficult for sophisticated civil rights groups to find a plaintiff to challenge each provision. When courts issue dubious standing rulings, they often assert thatsomeone must have standing, or that class action certification is too complicated. That's the point. It isn't easy to get into federal (and in some cases, state) court.

Because this issue will be resolved entirely on the basis of state law, an appeal to the United States Supreme Court will not be possible. The state court will have the final say here.

Ohio AG Asks State Supreme Court To Bar Universal Injunction (2024)


What is Section 2323.52 of the Ohio Revised Code? ›

Section 2323.52 of the Ohio Revised Code establishes a procedure for having common pleas courts declare certain persons to be vexatious litigators. The statute requires the clerk of court that enters a vexatious litigator order to send a copy of the order to the Supreme Court for publication.

What is universal injunction? ›

In United States law, a nationwide injunction (also called a universal injunction or national injunction) is injunctive relief in which a court binds the federal government even in its relations with nonparties.

What is Section 1 of Article 4 of the Ohio Constitution? ›

Article IV, Section 1 | Judicial power vested in court

The judicial power of the state is vested in a supreme court, courts of appeals, courts of common pleas and divisions thereof, and such other courts inferior to the Supreme Court as may from time to time be established by law.

What is Section 2133.211 of the Ohio Revised Code? ›

A person who holds a certificate of authority to practice as a certified nurse practitioner or clinical nurse specialist issued under section 4723.42 of the Revised Code may take any action that may be taken by an attending physician under sections 2133.21 to 2133.26 of the Revised Code and has the immunity provided by ...

What is Section 2323.13 of the Ohio Revised Code? ›

The confession shall operate as a release of errors. Section 2323.13 | Warrant of attorney to confess. (A) An attorney who confesses judgment in a case, at the time of making such confession, must produce the warrant of attorney for making it to the court before which he makes the confession.

What are the three types of injunctions? ›

An injunction is a court order requiring a person to do or cease doing a specific action. There are three types of injunctions: Permanent injunctions, Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.

What are the four factors for injunction? ›

It is well established that, to determine whether an injunction is “just and proper,” courts apply the “familiar set of four equitable factors: the movant's likelihood of success on the merits; the possibility of irreparable injury to the moving party; the extent to which the balance of hardships favors each party; and ...

How powerful is an injunction? ›

An injunction is so powerful because it can be immediately enforced when there is a violation of the injunction. There is no need for time-consuming notices, board meetings, or other procedural mechanisms.

Does the Ohio Constitution supersede state law? ›

All laws enacted by the legislative branch must comply with the Constitution's provisions; those that do not are unenforceable. Ohio's first constitution was approved by Congress in 1802 as a first step to Ohio's admission to the Union as a state.

What are the five rights protected in Ohio's constitution? ›

All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety. All political power is inherent in the people.

What is Article 3 of the Ohio Constitution? ›

The Governor shall have power, after conviction, to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, for all crimes and offenses, except treason and cases of impeachment, upon such conditions as the Governor may think proper; subject, however, to such regulations, as to the manner of applying for commutations and pardons, ...

How to stop a vexatious litigant? ›

How does the family court stop the vexatious litigant from filing more frivolous requests? The family court can order the vexatious litigant to: Only after getting permission (called seeking "leave") from the presiding judge to file the request; Only after posting a bond can the vexatious litigant file the request.

What constitutes a vexatious litigant? ›

(b) "Vexatious litigant" means a person who does any of the following: (1) In the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i) finally determined adversely to the person or (ii) ...

Is eavesdropping illegal in Ohio? ›

Ohio's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. Ohio law makes it a crime to intercept or record any "wire, oral, or electronic communication" unless one party to the conversation consents. Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52.

What is Section 3123.72 of the Ohio Revised Code? ›

Section 3123.72 | Notice requesting county recorder discharge lien. A child support enforcement agency shall file a notice requesting that the county recorder discharge the lien if one of the following applies: (A) The lien is satisfied through an action pursuant to section 3123.74 of the Revised Code.

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Duncan Muller

Last Updated:

Views: 5842

Rating: 4.9 / 5 (59 voted)

Reviews: 90% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Duncan Muller

Birthday: 1997-01-13

Address: Apt. 505 914 Phillip Crossroad, O'Konborough, NV 62411

Phone: +8555305800947

Job: Construction Agent

Hobby: Shopping, Table tennis, Snowboarding, Rafting, Motor sports, Homebrewing, Taxidermy

Introduction: My name is Duncan Muller, I am a enchanting, good, gentle, modern, tasty, nice, elegant person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.