City of Cleveland v. State
128 Ohio St. 3d 135
| Ohio | 2010Background
- R.C. 9.68, enacted in 2006 as part of Sub.H.B. No. 347, aims to provide uniform statewide regulation of firearms ownership and possession.
- Before enactment, Cleveland adopted multiple firearm ordinances addressing possession by minors, weapons on private property, public-place restrictions, access by children, handgun registration, and related topics.
- In March 2007 Cleveland sued the State, alleging R.C. 9.68 violates home rule, exceeds legislative power, and fails the one-subject rule.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the State, holding R.C. 9.68 constitutional and a general law within a comprehensive statewide enactment.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, finding R.C. 9.68 not a general law and infringing home-rule powers, prompting this decision.
- The Supreme Court held that R.C. 9.68 is a general law that displaces municipal ordinances and that its fee-shifting provision does not violate separation-of-powers; the case is remanded for addressing the one-subject issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 9.68 is a general law under the Home Rule framework | Cleveland argues 9.68 is not a general law | Clyde argues 9.68 is part of a statewide comprehensive enactment | Yes, 9.68 is a general law |
| Whether R.C. 9.68 is part of a statewide, comprehensive enactment | 9.68 fails the Canton first prong as not comprehensive | 9.68 is part of a broad, uniform statewide framework | Yes, it is part of a statewide comprehensive enactment |
| Whether R.C. 9.68 establishes police regulations rather than merely limiting municipal power | 9.68 does not create police regulations but restricts home-rule power | 9.68 establishes statewide police regulations for firearms | Yes, it establishes police regulations applicable statewide |
| Whether R.C. 9.68 prescribes a general rule of conduct for citizens | 9.68 restricts local lawmaking and lacks general applicability | When viewed in the context of the entire firearms scheme, it applies generally | Yes, it applies to all citizens under a comprehensive scheme |
Key Cases Cited
- Clyde v. Clyde, 120 Ohio St.3d 96 (2008-Ohio-4605) (recognizes R.C. 9.68 as part of statewide comprehensive enactment)
- Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St.3d 149 (2002-Ohio-2005) (test for general-law status: statewide, uniform, police-related, general conduct)
- Am. Fin. Servs. Assn. v. Cleveland, 112 Ohio St.3d 170 (2006-Ohio-6043) (reaffirms evaluating statutes in pari material context within comprehensive scheme)
- Mendenhall v. Akron, 117 Ohio St.3d 33 (2008-Ohio-270) (three-prong Canton framework remains applicable; uniform statewide regulation required)