US: Ohio Appeals Court Backs Local Tobacco Control: Strikes Down State Law Limiting City Regulations

Key Points:

·The Ohio Court of Appeals in the United States has ruled that cities have the right to autonomously regulate tobacco, overturning related state laws. 

·Previously, the state legislature twice overturned the governor's veto on bills prohibiting local regulation of tobacco. 

·The ruling supports cities to establish tobacco regulations based on their autonomy, such as banning flavored tobacco. 

【2Firsts News Flash】According to a report by 10Wbns on July 9th, the Ohio Court of Appeals in the United States made a ruling supporting local cities to develop tobacco regulations according to their own needs, and overturned a state law that should have prevented local governments from establishing local tobacco regulations. This ruling is a significant response to the dispute over jurisdiction in public health.

This ruling was made by the Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals, with the case initially being handled by the Franklin County Common Pleas Court. It is worth noting that the law at the center of the dispute - Revised Code 9.681 - has been vetoed twice by Governor Mike DeWine. This law grants the state government comprehensive regulatory authority over tobacco and alternative nicotine products, aimed at prohibiting local governments from creating independent rules.

Governor Devan emphasized that the ban on flavored tobacco and nicotine alternative products by local governments is a key tool in combating addiction issues - although he prefers a statewide comprehensive ban, covering all flavored tobacco products, including mint.

What does this ruling mean?

If Article 9.681 of the Revised Code is ultimately passed, it will immediately repeal all local tobacco regulations. For example, in Columbus, the legislation would revoke:

·Ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products; 

·Authority to issue and manage business licenses for tobacco retailers; 

·Compliance checks conducted by the Columbus Public Health Department (to prevent sales to individuals under 21 years of age).

However, the court ultimately ruled in support of the decision of the Franklin County Court, believing that the ordinance passed by the city of Columbus falls under the city's "police power" and is a reasonable action for the purpose of public safety. At the same time, the court found that Section 9.681 of the Revised Code did not constitute a substantive tobacco regulation ordinance, therefore it was not sufficient to supplant the legislative authority of local governments.

This means that multiple cities will be able to continue enforcing their own flavored tobacco bans in response to local public health issues.

A Protracted Political and Legal Battle

The origins of this controversy can be traced back to December 2022. At that time, the Columbus City Council passed an ordinance authorizing the city's public health department to enforce the city's tobacco laws and health code. The ordinance established a comprehensive system of penalties for violations, including fines, license revocation, and explicitly prohibited the sale of flavored tobacco products.

It is worth noting that the regulation clearly states that flavored tobacco products poses disproportionately higher health risks for certain groups, such as African American smokers.

Columbus' actions triggered a chain reaction, with multiple cities subsequently passing similar regulations. Cities participating in the joint lawsuit include Columbus, Athens, Barberton, Bexley, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dublin, Gahanna, Grandview Heights, Heath, Hilliard, Kent, North Ridgeville, Oberlin, Oxford, Reynoldsburg, Springfield, Toledo, Upper Arlington, Whitehall, and Worthington.

However, just two days after the City of Columbus passed a tobacco ordinance, the Ohio Senate Finance Committee quickly amended House Bill 513, adding provisions to prohibit all local tobacco regulation ordinances under Revised Code 9.681. The amendment was passed by the legislature on the same day.

Despite Governor Devan exercising his veto power again in January 2023, citing concerns that increased tobacco use would lead to higher medical expenses for taxpayers, by the end of the year, the state legislature had twice overridden Devan's veto and passed Amendment 9.681.

Constitutional Basis of Local Autonomy

The core of this legal battle is a dispute over the interpretation of Article 18, Section 3 of the Ohio State Constitution. This provision clearly grants cities wide-ranging local autonomy, particularly in the ability to establish and enforce local rules on issues such as public safety and health, as long as they do not conflict with state law.

In terms of cities, it has been pointed out that the state law prohibiting local regulation of tobacco has violated local autonomy and goes against the spirit of the constitution.

Columbus City Prosecutor Zach Klein stated in a declaration, "This ruling is a significant victory, reaffirming a fundamental principle in our state constitution - cities have the right to determine what policies best serve the health and safety interests of local residents.