Phillips v. DeWine, 92 F. Supp. 3d 702

Death-sentenced inmates challenge Ohio HB 663 confidentiality scheme affecting lethal-injection information, including amendments to ORC 149.43 and new ORC 2949.221 and 2949.222.
HB 663 classifies certain information as confidential, privilege, and not subject to disclosure; disclosure is limited and may be used only for ethics purposes or private hearings.
Plaintiffs name four officials in official capacities: DeWine, Kasich, Mohr, and Morgan; they move for injunctive relief and expedited discovery which were addressed with motions to dismiss.
Court considers whether the statute’s restraints on information disclosure and discovery violate federal constitutional rights (First, Fifth, Fourteenth) and Ohio Constitution provisions; procedural posture involves Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) challenges.
Court grants both motions to dismiss; proceedings terminated and case dismissed with judgment for defendants.
Court’s ruling focuses on lack of standing, Eleventh Amendment considerations, and absence of private rights-creating basis under federal and state constitutions.
Note: Discussion references prior restraint and access to information, but court ultimately declines to recognize a constitutionally protected right to government-held execution information in this context.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge 2949.221(E)/(F)	Phillips-like plaintiffs have injury-in-fact from secrecy	No concrete injury; no redressable harm	Dismissed for lack of standing
Eleventh Amendment and Ex parte Young	Kasich/DeWine connected to enforcement via appointive power	Assumed connection; own jurisdictional challenge	Assumed for argument; issues dispose on other grounds; dismissal upheld
Free speech and prior restraint	HB 663 unlawfully restricts access to information and suppresses speech	Statute is permissible limitation on access; no constitutional right to such disclosure	Dismissed; First/Fourteenth claims not plausibly pleaded
Equal Protection, Due Process, Right to Petition, Right of Access	HB 663 violates due process and equal protection and impairs access to courts	Statute does not deprive meaningful access or create protected rights	Dismissed; no recognized constitutional right applied in context
Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 11 self-execution	State constitution provides independent remedy	Not self-executing; no private action	Dismissed; declaratory judgment not warranted

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, and redressability)
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must show plausible claims, not mere conclusions)
Wellons v. Commissioner, Georgia Dept. of Corrections, 754 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2014) (no constitutional right to government-held execution information; secrecy upheld)
Capital Cities Media, Inc. v. Chester, 797 F.2d 1164 (3d Cir. 1986) (First Amendment access not mandated when government decides information disclosure)
Campbell v. Livingston, 567 F. App’x 287 (5th Cir. 2014) (Fifth Circuit rejection of due process claim based on secrecy of execution protocol information)
Sells v. Livingston, 750 F.3d 478 (5th Cir. 2014) (no liberty interest in broad disclosure of execution protocol details)
Provens v. Stark County Bd. of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 64 Ohio St.3d 252 (1992) (Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 11 not self-executing for private action)