Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that the General Assembly-district plan adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission on May 5, 2022 was invalid in its entirety and ordered the commission to draft and adopt an entirely new General Assembly-district plan that meets the requirements of the Ohio Constitution, including Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B).On May 5, the Commission readopted the plan at issue, purportedly only for use in the 2022 election. The Supreme Court had earlier held the plan to be unconstitutional. Petitioners filed objections to the adoption of the plan. The Supreme Court sustained the objections, holding that the plan at issue was invalid in its entirety. View "League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a reallocation of local-government funds regarding fines collected from the use of traffic cameras during the preceding fiscal year, called the "spending setoff," and the "deposit requirement" that municipalities file a civil action to enforce citations issued using traffic cameras to pay an advance deposit in the court are not unconstitutional.Appellees, municipalities that both operated programs to enforce their traffic laws with cameras, brought this action for a declaratory judgment and for injunction relief asserting that the "spending setoff" and the "deposit requirement" infringed on its municipal home rule powers, in violation of Ohio Const. art. XVIII, 3. Appellees requested a preliminary injunction, which the trial court denied. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that the spending setoff and deposit requirement unconstitutionally penalize municipalities for exercising their home-rule authority to enforce their traffic laws with cameras. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that neither the spending setoff nor the deposit requirement are unconstitutional. View "Village of Newburgh Heights v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for, among other crimes, two counts of aggravated murder with four death-penalty specifications attached to each count and Defendant's sentence of death, holding that there was no reversible error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's argument that the Ohio Constitution limits the right to self-representation was not well taken; (2) Defendant failed to show plain error as to his argument that his standby counsel interfered with his trial preparation and strategy; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (4) there was no abuse of discretion in jury selection; (5) the court did not admit inadmissible victim-impact testimony from witnesses during the trial phase or commit other reversible evidentiary error; (6) there was no prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel; and (7) Defendant's remaining assignments of error were unavailing. View "State v. McAlpin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus, holding that Appellant did not show that the parole-revocation proceedings violated his constitutional right to due process.Appellant was convicted of aggravated murder and aggravated robbery and was later released on parole. Appellant was subsequently charged with violating the terms of his parole. After a revocation hearing, the parole board approved the hearing officer's recommendation that Appellant be ordered to serve an additional thirty-six months in prison before again becoming eligible for parole. The parole board approved the recommendation. Appellant filed an action for a writ of mandamus alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that reversible error occurred during the revocation hearing. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to show that the parole revocation proceedings violated his constitutional right to due process. View "State ex rel. Mango v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction" on Justia Law

For the fourth time this issue was before the Supreme Court, the Court held that the third-revised General Assembly-district plan adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission violates the standards of Ohio Const. art. XI, 6(A) and 6(B) and that a new plan must be adopted in conformity with the Ohio Constitution.Between September 2021 and February 2022 the Commission adopted three General Assembly-district plans, each of which the Supreme Court invalidated because they did not comply with Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B). The Commission subsequently adopted its fourth plan - the third-revised plan. The Supreme Court ordered the Commission to be reconstituted and to adopt a new plan in conformity with the Ohio Constitution, holding that the third-revised plan violates Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B). View "League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Committee" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the second revised General Assembly-district plan adopted by respondent Ohio Redistricting Commission violates Ohio Const. art. XI, sections 6(A) and 6(B) and ordered the Commission to be reconstituted.In the first time this issue was before the Supreme Court, the Court held that the Commission's original plan was invalid because the Commission had not attempted to meet the standards set forth in Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B). The Commission subsequently adopted a revised plan, but the Supreme Court invalidated that plan because the Commission again had not satisfied sections 6(A) and 6(B). At issue now before the Supreme Court was the Commission's second revised plan. The Commission invalidated the plan in its entirety, holding that the second revised plan violates sections 6(A) and 6(B) and the a newly reconstituted Commission must adopt a new plan in conformity with the Ohio Constitution. View "League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court denying Petitioner's request for injunctive and declaratory relief claiming that the application of Ohio Rev. Code 2969.271 to his conduct violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, holding that the lower courts erred.Section 2969.271 allows the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation (DRC) and Correction to administratively extend an incarcerated defendant's prison term beyond his minimum prison term or presumptive earned early-release date but not beyond his maximum prison term. Petitioner entered Alford pleas to attempted burglary and other offenses. The trial court imposed a sentence under the "Reagan Tokes Law." On appeal, Petitioner argued that the sections of the statute allowing DRC to extend his prison term beyond the presumptive minimum term was unconstitutional. The court of appeals concluded that Petitioner's constitutional challenge was not ripe for review. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a criminal defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of section 2969.271 is ripe for review on the defendant's direct appeal of his conviction and prison sentence. View "State v. Maddox" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant's application to reopen his appeal, holding that Appellant's application showed that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was deprived of the effective assistance of appellate counsel.Appellant pleaded guilty to several sex-related offenses. On appeal, the court of appeals reasoned that, due to an incomplete record, it was compelled to presume regularity in the lower-court proceedings and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Represented by new appellate counsel, Appellant timely filed an application to reopen his direct appeal, asserting that his original appellate counsel's performance was deficient. The court of appeals denied the application. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellant's application to reopen his appeal showed a genuine issue of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel warranting a reopening of the appeal. View "State v. Leyh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Petitioners showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the General Assembly-district plan adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission on January 22, 2022 violated Ohio Const. Art. XI, 6(A) and (B) and ordered the Commission to adopt a new plan.On January 12, 2022, the Supreme Court held that the General Assembly-district plan adopted by the Commission in September 2021 was invalid and that the Commission had not drawn a district plan that met neither of the standards set forth in sections 6(A) and 6(B) and ordered the Commission to adopt a new plan. On January 22, the Commission adopted a new plan. The Supreme Court again ordered the Commission to be reconstituted and to adopt yet a newer plan, holding that the new plan violated sections 6(A) and 6(B). View "League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court declared the congressional-district plan passed by the General Assembly invalid, holding that the General Assembly did not comply with Ohio Const. art. XIX, 1(C)(3)(a) and (b) in passing the plan and that a new congressional-district plan must be passed the complies in full with Article XIX and is not dictated by partisan considerations.At issue was 2021 Sub.S.B. No. 258, which was passed by a simple majority and signed into law by Governor Mike DeWine on November 20, 2021. The bill resulted in districts in which undue political bias was at least, if not more, likely to favor Republican candidates than the 2011 reapportionment that impelled Ohio's constitutional reforms. Petitioners argued that the congressional-district plan violated Article XIX, Section 1(C)(3)(a). The Supreme Court held that the congressional-district plan was invalid in its entirety because it unduly favored the Republican Party and disfavored the Democratic Party and because it unduly split three counties, in violation of Article XIX, Section 1(C)(3)(b). View "Adams v. DeWine" on Justia Law