Doe v. Columbus, 2026-Ohio-1095

Columbus enacted two firearms ordinances in December 2022 and February 2023 restricting magazine capacity and firearm storage. 1
The Does sued, alleging the ordinances violated Ohio’s firearm preemption statute and state constitutional right to bear arms. 2
After a hearing, the trial court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of several ordinance provisions. 3
The Fifth District dismissed the city’s appeal, holding the injunction order was not a final, immediately appealable order. 4
The Ohio Supreme Court accepted review to decide whether municipalities may immediately appeal preliminary injunctions against their laws. 5
The court reversed and remanded for consideration of the merits of the city’s appeal. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is a preliminary injunction against a municipal ordinance immediately appealable? 7	Does said no; the order was not final under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4).	City said enjoining its ordinances causes irreparable harm and is immediately appealable.	Yes; the injunction is a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4). 8
Does the injunction satisfy R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)(a)? 9	Does argued the trial court could revisit the injunction, so no final determination occurred.	City said the injunction definitively ended the provisional-remedy dispute.	Yes; the order determined the remedy and left nothing further to decide. 10
Does the injunction satisfy R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)(b)? 11	Does argued the city had an adequate remedy after final judgment.	City said delayed appeal cannot undo the sovereign injury from being barred from enforcing laws.	Yes; immediate appeal is needed because later review is not meaningful or effective. 12

State v. Glenn, 2021-Ohio-3369 (Ohio 2021) (final judgments are ordinarily required before appeal 13)
State v. Muncie, 2001-Ohio-93 (Ohio 2001) (an order meets R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)(a) when nothing further remains on the provisional remedy 14)
In re Special Docket No. 73958, 2007-Ohio-5268 (Ohio 2007) (defines when a provisional-remedy order is effectively final 15)
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1991) (describes dual sovereignty between states and the federal government 16)
Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (U.S. 2014) (states retain broad police-power authority for the public good 17)
Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301 (U.S. 2012) (recognizes irreparable injury when a state is enjoined from enforcing statutes 18)
Abbott v. Perez, 585 U.S. 579 (U.S. 2018) (injunctions against statutes can seriously and irreparably harm the state 19)
New Motor Vehicle Bd. of California v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345 (U.S. 1977) (one-justice stay opinion cited for irreparable injury from injunctions 20)
Thompson v. DeWine, 976 F.3d 610 (6th Cir. 2020) (federal court found irreparable harm when Ohio ballot laws were enjoined 21)
State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 86 Ohio St.3d 451 (Ohio 1999) (judicial branch has authority to rein in unconstitutional laws 22)