Ohio Supreme Court decision: Columbus can appeal trial court’s preliminary injunction of gun laws

Columbus can appeal a trial court’s 2023 order temporarily blocking two gun-related local laws from taking effect, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today, finding the city had a right to seek immediate enforcement of its newly enacted laws.

In a 5-2 opinion, the Supreme Court found that a trial court’s preliminary injunction preventing a municipality from enforcing a new ordinance qualifies as a “final order,” which can be appealed. The decision reversed a Fifth District Court of Appeals decision that found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the city’s appeal until the trial court completed the case.

Five citizens anonymously challenged the constitutionality of two city ordinances passed by Columbus City Council in December 2022. One ordinance outlawed “large capacity magazines” that could hold more than 30 rounds of ammunition, and another prohibited the “negligent storage of a firearm.” A Delaware County Common Pleas Court judge blocked the ordinances from taking effect until further proceedings were conducted.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Daniel R. Hawkins explained that the state and municipalities have a “sovereign interest” in passing and enforcing their laws. He stated that “a court’s order enjoining the operation of such laws causes irreparable injury to that sovereign interest,” which allows the court’s injunction to be immediately appealed.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, and Megan E. Shanahan joined Justice Hawkins’ opinion. Justice Patrick F. Fischer dissented without a written opinion.

Justice Jennifer Brunner wrote in a dissenting opinion that state law does not grant local governments blanket authority to immediately appeal a judge’s order temporarily blocking a law while the case is pending. She noted the General Assembly , in reaction to trial court judges blocking state laws, adopted an amendment in 2024 specifically giving the state the right to appeal preliminary injunctions. However, the amendment did not extend that right to municipalities.

“In total, the majority points to no specific harm actually suffered by the city in requiring it to wait until after the case is fully litigated to institute an appeal,” Justice Brunner wrote. “But more importantly, the majority’s rationale ignores the harm suffered by plaintiffs in cases like this if an unconstitutional law is imposed on them.”