Attorney General Dave Yost has informed the Ohio Supreme Court that he supports the City of Columbus's right to appeal a preliminary injunction that blocks the enforcement of its firearm regulations. In his amicus brief, Yost emphasizes that while the State of Ohio opposes Columbus on the merits of additional firearms regulations, it strongly defends the city's right to appeal the preliminary injunction.
“Preliminary injunctions must be appealable to ensure justice,” Yost stated. “This brief underscores that both the State and cities need the right to an immediate appeal when their laws are enjoined.”
The case centers on whether such preliminary injunctions, which prevent a law’s enforcement, should be appealable regardless of the underlying legal dispute. The City of Columbus seeks to enforce its own firearms regulations, which conflict with state law. The preliminary injunction currently prevents these local laws from being enforced. Despite differing views on gun regulation—wherein the State argues that Columbus infringes on citizens' rights—the State and city agree on allowing immediate appeals for such injunctions.
“The rule of law means the same rules for everybody,” Yost said. “It doesn’t matter state or city, Democrats or Republicans – the same rules should apply to all.”
Yost urges the court to permit immediate appeals for preliminary injunctions to ensure swift justice and fair administration. This case is seen as pivotal in protecting procedural rights in legal disputes over law enforcement by ensuring:
- Preliminary injunctions blocking law enforcement should be immediately appealable to provide effective remedies and prevent prolonged legal battles.
- Cities should have equal rights as states in appealing preliminary injunctions to safeguard their ability to enforce local ordinances.
- Denying immediate appeals creates inconsistencies within the legal system since private parties often have this right in other contexts like trade secrets and attorney-client privilege cases.
Yost warns that without immediate appeal options, plaintiffs might prolong litigation indefinitely, creating a one-sided legal system favoring those alleging constitutional violations while denying states and municipalities an equal chance at appealing.