Columbus can appeal a trial court’s 2023 order temporarily blocking two gun-related local laws from taking effect, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today, finding the city had a right to seek immediate enforcement of its newly enacted laws.

In a 5-2 opinion, the Supreme Court found that a trial court’s preliminary injunction preventing a municipality from enforcing a new ordinance qualifies as a “final order,” which can be appealed. The decision reversed a Fifth District Court of Appeals decision that found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the city’s appeal until the trial court completed the case.

Five citizens anonymously challenged the constitutionality of two city ordinances passed by Columbus City Council in December 2022. One ordinance outlawed “large capacity magazines” that could hold more than 30 rounds of ammunition, and another prohibited the “negligent storage of a firearm.” A Delaware County Common Pleas Court judge blocked the ordinances from taking effect until further proceedings were conducted.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Daniel R. Hawkins explained that the state and municipalities have a “sovereign interest” in passing and enforcing their laws. He stated that “a court’s order enjoining the operation of such laws causes irreparable injury to that sovereign interest,” which allows the court’s injunction to be immediately appealed.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, and Megan E. Shanahan joined Justice Hawkins’ opinion. Justice Patrick F. Fischer dissented without a written opinion.

Justice Jennifer Brunner wrote in a dissenting opinion that state law does not grant local governments blanket authority to immediately appeal a judge’s order temporarily blocking a law while the case is pending. She noted the General Assembly , in reaction to trial court judges blocking state laws, adopted an amendment in 2024 specifically giving the state the right to appeal preliminary injunctions. However, the amendment did not extend that right to municipalities.

“In total, the majority points to no specific harm actually suffered by the city in requiring it to wait until after the case is fully litigated to institute an appeal,” Justice Brunner wrote. “But more importantly, the majority’s rationale ignores the harm suffered by plaintiffs in cases like this if an unconstitutional law is imposed on them.”

City Seeks to Challenge Court Order
Columbus City Council passed the ordinances in December 2022. In February 2023, the council amended the restriction on magazine capacity, providing limited immunity from prosecution for those who had acquired larger magazines prior to the law taking effect. A month later, four Franklin County residents and one Delaware County resident filed a lawsuit in Delaware County claiming the two laws violate state law, R.C. 9.68, and Article I, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution. A portion of the city of Columbus extends into Delaware County.

The anonymous plaintiffs, listed as “the Does,” requested a preliminary injunction, arguing that enforcement of the city laws violated their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. After a hearing, the trial court granted the injunction in April 2023, preventing the city from enforcing the ordinances.

The city appealed to the Fifth District. The Does asked the appeals court to dismiss the case. They argued the city did not meet the conditions of R.C. 2505.02(B)(4), which can transform a trial court's preliminary ruling into a final order that can be appealed. The Fifth District agreed and dismissed the case. The city appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Analyzed Requirements for City to Appeal
Justice Hawkins explained that, typically, appeals courts can review only appeals from final judgments of trial courts. R.C. 2502.02 provides limited circumstances in which preliminary orders can be appealed while a case is still pending in trial court.

R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) provides an opportunity for immediate appeal under certain conditions, including whether the party seeking the appeal had no further opportunity to petition the court for the remedy being sought, which in the city’s case was the right to enforce its laws, the opinion explained.

The Court found that, while Columbus could have theoretically asked the trial court to revisit the issuance of the preliminary injunction, the practical effect was that the order prevented the city from enforcing its laws until the trial court fully decided the case.

The second condition, the opinion stated, is whether the city could obtain a “meaningful or effective remedy” if it were unable to ask the appeals court to allow the laws to take effect while the trial court considered the challenge. The Court ruled the city is harmed when a court wrongly prevents “a municipality from enforcing its duly enacted laws.”

The Court explained that the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives the states broad authority to enact legislation for the public good, often called “police power.” The Home Rule Amendment to the Ohio Constitution grants municipalities police power, allowing local governments to enact regulations that do not conflict with state or federal law, the opinion noted.

“Otherwise stated, the Home Rule Amendment confers on municipalities a sovereign interest in exercising police powers to enact legislation for the public good,” the opinion stated.

Ohio courts are tasked with interpreting state statutes or local ordinances and can only block those that are unconstitutional, the Court stated. Courts must presume laws enacted by elected officials are constitutional, the opinion noted.

“In this case, the city enacted ordinances that its elected councilmembers and mayor believe – rightly or wrongly – will address gun violence in their city. A single trial judge – rightly or wrongly – found these ordinances facially unconstitutional and – with the stroke of a pen – enjoined the city from enforcing them,” the opinion stated.

The intrusion into the city’s right to enforce its laws allows for the injunction to be immediately appealed, the Court concluded.

The Court remanded the case to the Fifth District to consider the merits of the city’s appeal.

City Must Wait to Enforce Law, Dissent Maintained
In her dissent, Justice Brunner disagreed with the majority’s finding that Columbus was denied a “meaningful or effective remedy,” and failed to prove it met the requirements under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) to appeal. She wrote that the right to an immediate appeal of an injunction needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis, with clear evidence presented by the city showing how it would be denied an effective and meaningful remedy if it must wait to appeal until after the trial is completed and a final judgment issued. The test of whether an immediate appeal can be had is not one of harms, she wrote, but rather one of remedies.

Under today’s ruling, Justice Brunner explained, any time a court temporarily blocks a municipal law, the local government can without further explanation immediately appeal and bypass the legal requirements of R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) about when an order is final or can be reviewed. She wrote that the majority opinion failed to explain how Columbus was being denied an effective or meaningful remedy by waiting for the lower court to finally decide whether the law is constitutional before its appeal could be heard. The most effective and meaningful remedy, in Justice Brunner’s view, would be for the city to appeal following full presentation of the evidence and arguments developed during a trial, not before the final question is determined.

While some may raise concerns about the stroke of a single judge’s pen preventing a law from taking effect, Justice Brunner wrote, Ohio’s judicial branch is “empowered and required to rein in laws that go too far.”

2024-0056. Doe v. Columbus, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-1095.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.