State ex rel. Ohio Stands Up!, Inc. v. DeWine (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 4382

Relator Ohio Stands Up!, Inc. challenged Ohio’s “Vax-a-Million” lottery (more than $5 million) and other COVID-19 responses, alleging unlawful public spending without legislative appropriation, discriminatory eligibility based on vaccination status, and unlawful/ harmful vaccination of children.
Relator sought writs of prohibition and mandamus to (a) stop the lottery expenditure, (b) prevent vaccination of children and related COVID-19 measures (masks, shutdowns), and (c) compel the governor to obtain General Assembly approval for expenditures and comply with federal disability laws.
Respondents (Gov. DeWine and the OBM director) moved to dismiss, arguing lack of standing, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for the relief sought, and that the complaint failed to state proper claims for prohibition or mandamus.
The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, concluding relator failed to show injury fairly traceable to respondents or any special/taxpayer/associational standing, and that the public-right doctrine did not apply.
Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment but emphasized the court also lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the true relief sought was declaratory and prohibitory injunctive relief—remedies available in common pleas courts under the Declaratory Judgment and injunction statutes, not by this court in an original mandamus/prohibition action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to bring original action	Ohio Stands Up! asserted injury from illegal spending and public-right standing; asserted taxpayer/organizational interests	Respondents: no concrete injury, no special taxpayer interest, no associational members alleging injury; public-right exception not satisfied	No standing; complaint dismissed
Subject-matter jurisdiction for declaratory/injunctive relief	Claims framed as prohibition/mandamus but effectively seek declaratory judgment and prohibitory injunction	Respondents: this court lacks power to grant declaratory/prohibitory injunctions in original action; those remedies belong in common pleas	Court (Kennedy J.): lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to grant the true relief sought; common pleas appropriate forum
Appropriateness of prohibition	Relator: respondents exercised quasi-judicial/administrative power warranting prohibition	Respondents: no allegation of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings or adjudicative process	Prohibition not available—no judicial/quasi-judicial action alleged
Appropriateness of mandamus	Relator: seeks order compelling governor to obtain legislative approval and comply with law	Respondents: mandamus compels affirmative official action; relator seeks to forbid future misconduct and obtain general compliance	Mandamus inappropriate for compelling general future observance of law; claim fails

Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 115 Ohio St.3d 375, 875 N.E.2d 550 (discussing standing requirement to sue)
State ex rel. Food & Water Watch; Freshwater Accountability Project v. State, 153 Ohio St.3d 1, 100 N.E.3d 391 (restating traditional-standing elements)
Moore v. Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55, 975 N.E.2d 977 (standing test quotation)
ProgressOhio.org, Inc. v. JobsOhio, 139 Ohio St.3d 520, 13 N.E.3d 1101 (public-right doctrine requires "rare and extraordinary" public-interest issue)
State ex rel. Matasy v. Morley, 25 Ohio St.3d 22, 494 N.E.2d 1146 (standing requirement for prohibition actions)
State ex rel. Sinay v. Sodders, 80 Ohio St.3d 224, 685 N.E.2d 754 (relator must be beneficially interested for mandamus)
State ex rel. Obojski v. Perciak, 113 Ohio St.3d 486, 866 N.E.2d 1070 (if complaint seeks declaratory judgment and prohibitory injunction, it does not state a mandamus cause of action)
State ex rel. Grendell v. Davidson, 86 Ohio St.3d 629, 716 N.E.2d 704 (same principle regarding true nature of relief and mandamus jurisdiction)