Most of the Ohio Supreme Court's conservative justices gave a small procedural win to the city of Columbus in a lawsuit over city gun restrictions on Wednesday.
The laws in question, dating back to 2022, limit high capacity gun magazines and require safe gun storage in the city. A Delaware County court put those laws on hold in 2023, but now the state's highest court is allowing the city to appeal the order that did so.
The court didn't rule whether or not the gun laws are constitutional, leaving that decision for lower courts to decide.
In a 5-2 decision, most of the state's Republican justices ruled that municipalities like Columbus can immediately appeal a preliminary injunction halting laws that were passed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals initially denied an appeal on the Delaware County court's preliminary injunction, which the city then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The state's highest court essentially told Columbus it can appeal a preliminary injunction that keeps the city from enforcing the laws. It didn't rule on the merits of the injunction or the gun laws at the core of the lawsuit.
The lawsuit, brought by a group of anonymous residents in Franklin and Delaware counties, still stands in court. The Ohio Supreme Court ordered the appeals court to make a decision on whether the preliminary injunction can stay in place.
Ohio Supreme Court Justice Dan Hawkins authored the majority opinion, saying the injunction is an "intrusion" into the city’s exercise of its constitutionally prescribed police powers and thus should allow an immediate appeal.
Hawkins explicitly chose not to say his thoughts on the merits of the laws themselves or the preliminary injunction.
"In this case, the city enacted ordinances that its elected councilmembers and mayor believe—rightly or wrongly—will address gun violence in their city. A single trial-court judge— rightly or wrongly—found these ordinances facially unconstitutional and—with the stroke of a pen—enjoined the city from enforcing them," Hawkins wrote.
Ohio Supreme Court Justice Jennifer Brunner dissented, writing in her opinion that this decision creates new public policy, which she says the judicial branch has no power to do.
"Because the majority has no basis in law for its holding, be it constitutional or statutory, this court lacks the authority to permit a municipality to immediately appeal an order granting a preliminary injunction that stays the enforcement of a municipal ordinance," Brunner wrote.
Ohio Supreme Court Justice Pat Fischer, a Republican, also dissented, but didn't write an opinion explaining his stance.
Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein framed the decision as a win in a statement, saying it allows the city to make its case for the gun restrictions.
“Right now, there are gaps in the law that are failing our kids and preventing irresponsible gun owners from being held accountable when a child is injured or killed by an unsecured firearm. Most Ohioans want to see that changed,” Klein said. “Today’s Supreme Court decision is an important win for the City to continue making our case to argue for that change—and our safe storage ordinance that will save lives and hold irresponsible gun owners accountable.”
The Buckeye Institute — a conservative think tank supporting anonymous plaintiffs challenging the gun laws — also framed it as a win in an email because the injunction wasn't struck down.
“The city of Columbus has delayed a final decision in this case for more than two years. The Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling today on a procedural question keeps the preliminary injunction won by The Buckeye Institute in place, barring Columbus from enforcing its unconstitutional gun law. This injunction continues to protect the rights of The Buckeye Institute’s clients and residents of Columbus," the Buckeye Institute's Director of Litigation David C. Tryon said in a statement.
However, the merits of the injunction was not the issue the justices were considering. The decision on that now heads back to the court of appeals to actually decide on the merits of the injunction.
Tryon said the Buckeye Institute looks forward to hearings that will decide the merits of the injunction.
