2022 Ohio 829
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Kevin Cronin, a pro se plaintiff with severe aplastic anemia, sued the Ohio Governor and Attorney General seeking to enjoin enforcement of S.B. 22 and requested an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
- S.B. 22, enacted after the Governor’s veto was overridden, limits executive emergency duration and authority, creates legislative oversight and reporting requirements, and restricts some local health-board quarantine powers.
- Cronin alleged S.B. 22 would expose him and the public to health risks by allowing legislative rollback of emergency health orders.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and (6); the trial court granted dismissal for lack of standing under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
- Cronin appealed, arguing the court erred by not addressing the full scope of injury from S.B. 22 and by denying standing, including under public-right and taxpayer-standing doctrines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (injury, causation, redressability) | Cronin: S.B. 22 threatens his health (immune-compromised), exposing him to concrete risk if executive protections are rescinded | Defs: Allegations are speculative and mirror harms shared by the general public; Cronin alleges no concrete injury causally linked to defendants; relief would not redress harm | No standing — plaintiff failed to allege direct/concrete injury, causation, or redressability |
| Public-right and taxpayer standing exceptions | Cronin asserted these exceptions would permit his suit | Defs: Cronin did not plead these at trial and they do not apply to his claims | Waived on appeal; in any event inapplicable — public-right not available (not a mandamus to protect a public right); taxpayer standing not implicated (no challenge to public expenditures) |
| Procedural vehicle for dismissal (12[B][1] v. 12[B][6]) | Cronin challenged dismissal | Defs filed under both but substance addressed 12(B)(6) | Court treated lack of standing as appropriate for 12(B)(6); dismissal reviewed de novo and affirmed |
| Redressability of requested relief (injunction against Governor) | Cronin sought order barring Governor from implementing S.B. 22 | Defs: After veto override, S.B. 22 is law and cannot be enjoined by preventing Governor from executing it | Relief would not redress because the statute was law after override; supports lack of redressability |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Middletown, 975 N.E.2d 977 (Ohio 2012) (sets three-part standing test: injury, causation, redressability)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (articulates the "irreducible constitutional minimum" of standing)
- State ex rel. Walgate v. Kasich, 989 N.E.2d 140 (Ohio 2013) (harm shared with general public does not confer standing)
- ProgressOhio.org, Inc. v. JobsOhio, 13 N.E.3d 1101 (Ohio 2014) (standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite for justiciability)
- State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (Ohio 1999) (defines public-right standing and its narrow mandamus application)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 21 N.E.3d 1040 (Ohio 2014) (distinguishes standing from subject-matter jurisdiction)