Cincinnati v. State, 2024 Ohio 2425

Cincinnati challenged the constitutionality of Ohio's Amended R.C. 9.68, which preempts most local firearms and knives regulations, arguing it impairs the city’s ability to address gun violence.
The state legislature amended R.C. 9.68 in 2018 and 2022, broadening preemption and extending enforcement and remedies against local governments.
The city cited an evidentiary record showing harm from preemption, including limits on local gun safety ordinances and related public safety efforts.
The trial court granted a preliminary injunction against the amendments to R.C. 9.68, but not the original statute.
On appeal, the key questions were both procedural (final appealable order) and substantive (constitutional validity of the amended statute under Home Rule and other grounds).

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Is the preliminary injunction a final appealable order?	Injunction preserves status quo from date the city first challenged amendments; immediate appeal unnecessary.	Immediate appeal is necessary, as injunction alters status quo and impairs state enforcement.	Majority: Yes, immediate appeal allowed (1 judge dissents).
Does amended R.C. 9.68 violate the Home Rule Amendment?	Amendments overreach, fundamentally alter preemption, and improperly tie hands of local government.	Amendments clarify and expand original preemption, but do not change constitutional calculus.	No; precedent upholds similar preemption—amended statute remains a “general law” under Home Rule doctrine.
Free Speech—municipal and official rights	Law violates Cincinnati’s and officials’ right to advocate or legislate on firearms policy.	No such rights for municipalities; statute only precludes official action, not individual speech.	Plaintiff has not shown likelihood of success; law doesn't violate municipal or official free speech.
Separation of Powers	Amended statute usurps judicial role and unduly dictates remedies/penalties.	Statute merely clarifies and extends right of action; legislative authority over remedies is valid.	No violation; amendments valid as legislative clarifications on enforcement and remedies.

City of Cleveland v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 135 (upheld original R.C. 9.68 as a general law displacing local gun ordinances)
City of Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St.3d 149 (established four-part test for what constitutes a "general law" under Home Rule)
Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. City of Clyde, 120 Ohio St.3d 96 (interpreted statewide handgun law as evidence of legislative intent for uniformity)
Mendenhall v. City of Akron, 117 Ohio St.3d 33 (provides three-part Home Rule preemption test)
City of Dayton v. State, 151 Ohio St.3d 168 (applied prongs of "general law" test in traffic camera context)