Ohio is currently in the midst of a bitter state-versus-city battle over firearm regulations. The state passed a no-preemption law that it claims eliminates cities from virtually any role in firearms regulation. Ohio cities continue to pass gun laws to protect the health, safety and welfare of their communities, arguing that they are filling gaps in state law and not violating it. These conflicts resulted in numerous lawsuits and legal reforms.
However, despite this opposition and sometimes outright hostility, the state stepped in to help. procedural Local Government Rights in Recent Gun Control Cases Doe vs. Columbus.
in doethe Ohio Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a municipality has the right to immediately appeal a preliminary injunction blocking a formally enacted ordinance. In a 5-2 decision reaffirming the autonomy of Ohio cities, the court held that they have the right to self-government.
The underlying case arose from a challenge to two Columbus city ordinances passed in 2022 and 2023 regulating firearm storage and magazine sizes for minors. Six anonymous plaintiffs (a thorny legal issue in itself) challenged the ordinance, arguing that the city law violates both the legal prohibition on cities regulating firearms and Article 1, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. The trial court sided with the anonymous plaintiffs and issued a preliminary injunction ordering the ordinance and preventing the city from enforcing it.
The Ohio Court of Appeals dismissed the city’s subsequent appeal, holding that the order was not final and therefore not subject to immediate appeal by the city.
The city then appealed the procedural issues to the state Supreme Court. The key issue was whether the procedural law governing the finality of judicial orders gives the city an immediate right to appeal the trial court’s injunction. Although many states have statutes that allow parties to appeal a preliminary injunction as a matter of course, Ohio’s default rules allow the order to be reviewed only after a final judgment has been entered. However, the relevant statute provides that an “order granting or denying ‘interim relief'” constitutes a final order. teeth It is subject to immediate appeal as long as two conditions are met. First, there is no other opportunity for the aggrieved party to obtain the relief he seeks, and there is nothing else for the trial judge to decide regarding the order. Second, a post-final judgment appeal would not provide meaningful or effective relief to barred parties.
Applying this test, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that cities have the right to appeal preliminary injunctions against firearm restrictions. The majority and one dissenting justice agreed that the first condition was met because, as a practical matter, the trial court had conclusively ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutional. Regarding the second condition, the majority emphasized that a court’s unreasonable suspension of a city ordinance would necessarily cause irreparable harm. The journey to this conclusion began with a reiteration of Ohio’s municipal autonomy. “The Home Rule Amendment to the Ohio Constitution provides municipalities with the broadest possible autonomy in all matters that are strictly local and do not affect the character or interests of the state as a whole.” This “full and complete political power in all matters of local government,” the court held, “gives local governments a sovereign interest in exercising police powers to enact laws in the public interest.”
This power imbues city ordinances with the same kind of democratic legitimacy that state laws enjoy. “Just as the Legislature passes laws that reflect the will of the people of Ohio, so too does the Columbus City Council pass ordinances that reflect the will of the people of Columbus.” Citing two U.S. Supreme Court cases, the majority stressed that the state suffers irreparable harm whenever “a court orders the enactment of a law enacted by the people’s representatives,” and that “only an interlocutory appeal can protect the state from that harm.” “Thus, an order ostensibly enforcing a duly enacted city ordinance would irreparably harm the city’s sovereign interests,” the court concluded, adding that “an immediate appeal is necessary to provide the city with ‘meaningful or effective relief.'”
The government also supported this view at press conferences and oral arguments. Pursuant to an Ohio law that allows the attorney general to appear before the state Supreme Court when the state has a “direct or indirect interest” in a civil or criminal case, the state acknowledged in its opening brief that the state and city disagreed in the strongest possible terms on the underlying merits of the case, and that the state affirmed the trial court’s decision under the ordinance. Nevertheless, when it came to the specific procedural question before the court, namely whether the municipality had the right to immediately appeal a preliminary injunction that it believed was erroneous, the state unequivocally declared that it fully agreed with the city regarding the municipality’s right to appeal.
But despite this interesting moment of unity between Ohio and its local governments on the procedural point of urban entitlement, bitter firearms preemption disputes between Ohio states and cities will undoubtedly continue apace. The high court granted the city’s appeal, and the merits of the preliminary injunction will now be heard by the appellate court.
And another live pre-emption case continues in Ohio over whether cities can regulate e-cigarettes, with oral arguments scheduled for next week in the Ohio Supreme Court. In that case, the state is arguing for a significant change to the preemption doctrine and encouraging courts to throw it out. canton This test was used by the Court of Appeals to declare state preemption laws unconstitutional in: In Ohio, local governments have autonomous police powers to regulate health, welfare, and safety; however, if local ordinances passed pursuant to this police power conflict with general state law, state law supersedes local law. 4 parts canton The test determines whether a state statute is a general law for this purpose, essentially requiring states to adopt “broad and uniform rules” if they wish to preempt local laws. of canton “Meaningful local government protections” are being put to the test, and local leaders fear that if this nearly 25-year precedent breaks down, “the real impact of local government autonomy will disappear.” In this regard, the court’s confirmation that Ohio municipalities have a sovereign interest in the exercise of their police powers may come back to play in future preemption arguments.
Sarah L. Swan is a professor of law and dean of civil governance scholars at Rutgers Law School.
Recommended quote: Sarah Swan Ohio local governments gain expanded procedural rights in firearms casesSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (June 5, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/ohio-municipalities-win-expanded-procedural-rights-firearms-case
