State ex rel. Walgate v. Kasich, 2017 Ohio 5528

This case concerns a constitutional challenge to Ohio Const. Art. XV, § 6(C) and related statutes/regulations that authorize four casino facilities statewide and impose strict licensing, fee, investment, and ownership limitations.
Plaintiff-appellant Frederick C. Kinsey sued claiming the amendment and implementing laws grant a monopoly to the approved gaming operators and violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
The trial court initially dismissed for lack of standing; the Ohio Supreme Court found Kinsey had standing to pursue only an equal-protection claim and remanded for further proceedings on that claim.
On remand, defendants (Governor, state agencies, and casino operators) moved for judgment on the pleadings; the trial court granted the motions, dismissing Kinsey’s equal protection claim and sua sponte dismissing a privileges-and-immunities claim.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding the casino restrictions survive rational-basis review as rationally related to legitimate state interests (regulation of gambling and economic development), and that the remand limited proceedings to the equal-protection claim, not a privileges-and-immunities claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Art. XV, § 6(C) and related laws violate the Equal Protection Clause by effectively restricting casino operation to interests controlled by two companies	Kinsey: limiting casinos to four sites and the current operators is not rationally related to legitimate state interests and functions as impermissible economic protectionism	State: the classification is a permissible exercise of police power to regulate gambling and promote economic development; rational-basis review applies and any conceivable rational basis suffices	Court: Affirmed dismissal — restriction is rationally related to legitimate interests (regulation of vice and economic development); Kinsey failed to negate every conceivable rational basis
Whether Kinsey sufficiently pleaded a Privileges and Immunities Clause claim under the Fourteenth Amendment	Kinsey: incorporating the Fourteenth Amendment into the complaint preserves a privileges-and-immunities claim	State: the Supreme Court remand limited the case to the equal-protection claim; moreover, Slaughter-House precedent forecloses using the Privileges or Immunities Clause to protect the right to engage in a trade	Court: Affirmed dismissal — remand limited proceedings to equal protection; Privileges-and-Immunities claim not properly before court (and would fail under existing precedent)

Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (establishes rational-basis review for social/economic legislation)
FCC v. Beach Communications, 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (rational-basis test: any conceivable rational basis will sustain the classification)
Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico, 478 U.S. 328 (1986) (states may regulate allowable vice activities and take incremental regulatory steps)
Pacific States Box & Basket Co. v. White, 296 U.S. 176 (1935) (grant of monopoly can be a valid exercise of state police power)
Artichoke Joe’s California Grand Casino v. Norton, 353 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding preference for tribes as rationally related to legitimate state interests)
Northville Downs v. Granholm, 622 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2010) (state limitation of casino locations sustained against equal-protection challenge as tied to economic development/regulation)
Craigmiles v. Giles, 312 F.3d 220 (6th Cir. 2002) (economic protectionism disfavors discrete interest groups and can fail rational-basis review)
Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873) (narrow construction of the Privileges or Immunities Clause)
Hope for Families & Community Serv. v. Warren, 721 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (M.D. Ala. 2010) (upholding limited gaming licenses as rationally related to legitimate state interests)