Synopsis

Columbus and thirteen other Ohio cities challenged a state law that sought to preempt all current and future local regulations of tobacco products.

Why It Matters for Public Health

Local control is integral to effective commercial tobacco control across the country. This is why the tobacco industry and its allies have long used preemption as a tool for thwarting a range of tobacco control policies, from licensing restrictions to smoke-free laws. In this case, the state preemption law would have invalidated Columbus’s ordinance banning the sale of flavored tobacco products as well as an array of commercial tobacco control measures in other cities.

Background

The Ohio legislature twice sought to pass a state preemption law, and both times it was vetoed by the governor. On January 24, 2024, however, the legislature overrode the veto, and the law was to take effect on April 23. Columbus sued to obtain an injunction to prevent the law from going into effect, joined by the cities of Athens, Barberton, Bexley, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dublin, Gahanna, Grandview Heights, Heath, Hillard, Kent, North Ridgeville, Oberlin, Oxford, Reynoldsburg, Springfield, Toledo, Upper Arlington, Whitehall, and Worthington.

Proceedings

The plaintiffs filed their complaint on April 9, 2024, in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, challenging the constitutionality of the state law and seeking a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, permanent injunctive relief, and a declaratory judgment. On April 12, the Public Health Law Center joined several other public health organizations in filing an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. On April 19, the trial court judge granted the plaintiffs’ request, blocking the state from enforcing its law.

The court later ruled on the merits in May of 2024, finding that the state preemption law was unconstitutional and granting a permanent injunction. The court found that the law violated the Home Rule Amendment in Article XVIII, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution, which states that “municipalities shall have authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws.” The court determined that the state preemption law was not general law and that it therefore unconstitutionally infringed on the home rule powers of the plaintiff cities.

The state appealed the decision to the Tenth District Court of Appeals. On October 7, the Public Health Law Center joined other public health organizations in filing a second amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs on appeal. On July 8, 2025, the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court found that the preemption law was unconstitutional because of its “blatant disregard” of the Home Rule Amendment, and it held that the trial court had not erred in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction.

Litigation Status (OPEN)

The state may appeal the decision of the Tenth District Court of Appeals to the Ohio Supreme Court.