2021 Ohio 415
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Plaintiffs Southwestern Ohio Basketball, Kingdom Sports Center, and Warren County CVB operate indoor/outdoor youth sports facilities and tournaments and challenged Ohio Department of Health (ODH) authority and the Director's August 1, 2020 Order restricting contact-sport competition.
- The August 1 Order distinguished contact sports (e.g., basketball, soccer, lacrosse) from non-contact sports and imposed additional requirements for contact-sport inter-club competition, including pre-competition PCR testing and repeated testing during multi-day events; spectators were barred for contact-sport inter-club play.
- Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment and a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of criminal penalties for violating the Order as applied to contact-sport competition; the trial court granted the preliminary injunction, finding likely success on equal protection and procedural-due-process claims and that Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm.
- Defendants (ODH Director Himes, former Director Acton, and Warren County Health District) appealed; this Court stayed the injunction pending appeal and accepted appellants’ statement of facts because appellees did not file a brief.
- The appellate court applied rational-basis review to equal-protection claims, deferred to the Director’s public-health determinations based on CDC guidance and expert input, and reversed the trial court, holding Plaintiffs lacked a strong likelihood of success, failed to show irreparable harm, and that an injunction would harm third parties and the public interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection — distinction between contact and non-contact sports | The Order irrationally treats similarly situated sports/participants differently without compelling justification. | The classification is rationally related to the legitimate public-health interest; contact sports pose greater proximity/exertion risks; ODH relied on CDC and experts. | Reversed trial court: classification survives rational-basis review; Deference to ODH; no likely success on equal-protection claim. |
| Procedural due process — lack of pre-/post-deprivation process | The Order and enforcement statutes deprive businesses of property/livelihood without adequate process. | The Order is a generally applicable public-health regulation, not an individualized deprivation requiring extra process. | Reversed: Order is generally applicable; no procedural-due-process violation likely. |
| Irreparable harm required for preliminary injunction | Plaintiffs will suffer unrecoverable business collapse and non-monetary harms (youth harms, lost scholarships). | Lost revenue is monetary and inadequate to show irreparable harm; injunction risks public health and lives. | Reversed: Plaintiffs’ evidence of monetary loss insufficient; no clear, convincing proof of irreparable harm. |
| Balance of harms / public interest / third-party harm | Allowing competition under non-contact protocols would not increase public risk; injunction serves community interests (children, local economy). | Injunction would increase COVID-19 transmission risk, harming spectators, families, healthcare system, and public health. | Reversed: Public interest and third-party safety outweigh Plaintiffs’ business interests; injunction would harm public health. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1905) (states’ police power permits public-health measures in a pandemic)
- South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (U.S. 2020) (courts should defer to public-health officials in dynamic pandemic decisions)
- League of Independent Fitness Facilities & Trainers, Inc. v. Whitmer, 814 Fed. Appx. 125 (6th Cir. 2020) (upholding state COVID restrictions; emphasizing deference)
- In re Rutledge, 956 F.3d 1018 (8th Cir. 2020) (courts should not second-guess state public-health policy choices)
- In re Abbott, 954 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 2020) (similar deference to executive public-health measures)
- Robinson v. Attorney General, 957 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2020) (pandemic does not permit blanket suspension of constitutional protections but courts must defer to public-health judgments)
- Burrows v. Ohio High Sch. Ath. Assn., 891 F.2d 122 (6th Cir. 1989) (applying rational-basis review to sports-related classifications)
- McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1961) (rational-basis deference to legislative classifications)
- Fed. Communications Comm. v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1993) (any reasonably conceivable basis sustains a classification under rational basis)
- Eppley v. Tri-Valley Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 122 Ohio St.3d 56 (Ohio 2009) (rational-basis standards in Ohio law)
- State v. Williams, 126 Ohio St.3d 65 (Ohio 2010) (rational-basis test explained)
- Pickaway Cty. Skilled Gaming, L.L.C. v. Cordray, 127 Ohio St.3d 104 (Ohio 2010) (classification upheld unless wholly arbitrary)
- Cementech, Inc. v. Fairlawn, 109 Ohio St.3d 475 (Ohio 2006) (caution in injunctions that interfere with government operations)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard for injunctive relief)
- Desrosiers v. Governor, 486 Mass. 369 (Mass. 2020) (business burdens alone do not render emergency public-health restrictions arbitrary)
- T. Ryan Legg Irrevocable Trust v. Testa, 149 Ohio St.3d 376 (Ohio 2016) (similarly situated requirement in equal protection analysis)