ProgressOhio.org, Inc. v. Kasich
953 N.E.2d 329
Ohio2011Background
- Original action filed under Section 3 of 2011 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 1 (H.B. 1).
- Petitioners seek a declaratory judgment that H.B. 1 is unconstitutional and a prohibitory injunction blocking respondents under its provisions.
- Ohio Supreme Court dismisses for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; no claim falls within constitutionally defined original jurisdiction.
- Court holds that neither statute nor rule can expand original jurisdiction beyond that conferred by the Ohio Constitution.
- Section 3 of H.B. 1 attempts to confer exclusive original jurisdiction over constitutionality challenges to this court, which is unconstitutional.
- Section 2011 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 153 does not apply retroactively but provides a remedy in Franklin County for challenges to amended R.C. 187.01 et seq.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has original jurisdiction to review constitutionality of H.B. 1 | Petitioners contend for declaratory relief and injunction under HB1's provisions. | Respondents contend the court lacks original jurisdiction for such relief. | Lack of original jurisdiction; cannot review constitutionality under HB1. |
| Whether HB1 Section 3 improperly expands court's jurisdiction | HB1 §3 seeks exclusive original jurisdiction over constitutional challenges. | Statute cannot enlarge constitutional jurisdiction. | Unconstitutional; legislature cannot expand this court's original jurisdiction. |
| Retroactivity of HB1 §153 and relief framework | Section 153 retroactivity should affect the present action. | §153 does not retroactively resolve this action but provides an alternate remedy. | §153 does not apply retroactively; provides remedy in Franklin County for challenges to amended statutes. |
| Disposition of the action given jurisdictional limits | Court should exercise jurisdiction to resolve constitutionality promptly. | Court cannot decide outside constitutional scope. | Cause dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; motions moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Ministerial Day Care Assn. v. Zelman, 100 Ohio St.3d 347 (2003-Ohio-6447) (no original jurisdiction over declaratory relief)
- State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 80 Ohio St.3d 425 (1997) (no original jurisdiction to grant prohibitory injunctive relief)
- Kent v. Mahaffy, 2 Ohio St. denominated (1853) (original jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by statute)
- Smith v. State, 289 N.C. 303 (1976) (principle that jurisdiction cannot be expanded)
- Scott v. Bank One Trust Co., N.A., 62 Ohio St.3d 39 (1991) (neither statutes nor Civil Rules can expand original jurisdiction)
- Cleveland Mun. Court v. Cleveland City Council, 34 Ohio St.2d 120 (1973) (original jurisdiction cannot be expanded by legislation)
- Classic Pictures, Inc. v. Dept. of Edn., 158 Ohio St. 229 (1952) (statutory conferment of jurisdiction beyond constitution is void)
- State ex rel. Richards v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., 53 Ohio St. 189 (1895) (jurisdiction fixed by constitution; legislative action cannot enlarge)