92 N.E.3d 397
Oh. Ct. Com. Pl., Franklin Ci...2017Background
- Fifty Ohio municipalities sued challenging portions of Sub. S.B. 331, enacted during the 131st General Assembly lame-duck session, arguing it violated Article II, §15(D) one-subject rule.
- S.B. 331 began as a narrow bill regulating pet-store dog sales (R.C. Ch. 956) but the House added diverse provisions during lame duck: statewide minimum-wage and labor preemption, animal-crime provisions (bestiality, cockfighting), an appropriation for agriculture programs, residency changes for humane society agents, and sweeping micro wireless (small cell) telecommunications rules (amending R.C. Ch. 4939).
- Key telecom provisions limited municipal regulation of micro wireless facilities in public ways, imposed 90-day decision deadlines, prohibited zoning or spacing requirements, and restricted municipalities from conditioning consent or blocking attachments to municipal structures.
- Plaintiffs argued the Act improperly combines unrelated subjects (animals, labor, telecommunications) in violation of the one-subject rule; defendants (State and CTIA) contended the unifying purpose was preventing a patchwork of municipal business regulation and achieving statewide uniformity.
- The parties stipulated there were no material factual disputes; the case presented only questions of Ohio constitutional law. The court found the Act’s breadth violated the one-subject rule and ordered severance of the offending portions, leaving animal‑welfare provisions and certain appropriations intact; prior versions of repealed statutes (e.g., Ch. 4939) were deemed to remain in effect under Sullivan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did S.B. 331 violate Ohio’s one-subject rule (Art. II, §15(D))? | S.B. 331 combines unrelated topics (animal welfare, labor, telecom) with no common purpose; violates one-subject rule. | The Act’s unifying purpose is eliminating a patchwork of municipal regulations and creating uniform statewide business rules. | Court: Violated one-subject rule — topics lack a single unifying subject; Act invalid in relevant parts. |
| If violation found, should offending provisions be severed or the whole Act invalidated? | Plaintiffs sought invalidation of telecommunications and other non‑animal provisions (or severance as appropriate). | Defendants argued preserving telecom provisions as part of the Act’s overall purpose. | Court: Severance appropriate; preserve provisions related to animal protection and appropriations; invalidate/amend others. |
| Effect of invalidity on prior statutes repealed by S.B. 331 (repeal-inoperative doctrine)? | Repeals in S.B. 331 that replaced prior law are invalid absent clear legislative intent; prior statutes should remain. | Defendants implicitly argued new enactments should stand. | Court: Under Sullivan, prior versions of statutes (e.g., Ch. 4939) remain in effect because no clear intent to eliminate them if new law invalid. |
| Did the court need to resolve Home Rule or takings issues to decide the one-subject challenge? | Plaintiffs raised Home Rule/property concerns but urged court to decide one-subject first. | Defendants highlighted other constitutional concerns (Home Rule, takings) to defend telecom provisions. | Court: Avoided ruling on Home Rule/takings by resolving one-subject issue; severance avoids need to reach those issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoover v. Bd. of Franklin Cty. Commrs., 19 Ohio St.3d 1 (1985) (one-subject rule forbids blatant disunity and log-rolling)
- State ex rel. Dix v. Celeste, 11 Ohio St.3d 141 (1984) (one-subject rule disallows unnatural combinations; promotes legislative order)
- State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 86 Ohio St.3d 451 (1999) (invalidated act for containing blatantly unrelated matters; discussed severance)
- State v. Sullivan, 90 Ohio St.3d 502 (2001) (when struck statute replaced prior law, prior statute remains unless clear intent otherwise)
- State ex rel. Ohio Civil Serv. Employees Ass'n v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 315 (2016) (one-subject rule is mandatory but courts should defer to legislative function when rational nexus exists)
- Aalim v. State, 150 Ohio St.3d 463 (2016) (severance of unconstitutional portions preserves valid provisions)
- Cleveland v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 232 (2014) (recognizes value of severing unconstitutional parts to preserve remainder)