City of Toledo v. Ohio
| Decision Date | 20 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. L–15–1286.,L–15–1286. |
| Citation | 2017 Ohio 215,72 N.E.3d 692 |
| Parties | City of TOLEDO, Appellee v. State of OHIO, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Adam Loukx, Law Director, and Jeffrey B. Charles, Chief of Litigation, for appellee.
Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, Nicole M. Koppitch, Halli Brownfield Watson and Jordan Berman, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellants.
{¶ 1} Appellants, the state of Ohio and Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine (collectively referred to as "the state"), appeal the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas granting appellee's, the city of Toledo, "Motion for Order to Enforce Permanent Injunction." We affirm.
{¶ 2} On December 19, 2014, the General Assembly signed Am.Sub.S.B. No. 342 ("S.B. 342") into law. S.B. 342 regulates the use of traffic law photo-monitoring devices throughout the state. The city, which uses such devices to enforce red light and speeding laws, filed a complaint in the trial court on March 13, 2015, alleging that S.B. 342 was an unconstitutional infringement of its right to self-governance under Article XVIII, Section 3, of the Ohio Constitution (the "home rule provision"). The city requested injunctive relief and a stay of the enforcement of S.B. 342 until such time as the trial court could determine its constitutionality.
{¶ 3} On April 27, 2015, the trial court granted, in part, the city's motion for summary judgment upon a finding that a number of the statutory provisions enacted under S.B. 342 were unconstitutional under the home rule provision. Consequently, the trial court enjoined the enforcement of certain provisions of S.B. 342.1 On May 7, 2015, the state appealed the trial court's decision to this court. We subsequently affirmed the trial court's decision in Toledo v. Ohio, 2016-Ohio-4906, 56 N.E.3d 997.2
{¶ 4} While the state's appeal was pending, the General Assembly passed Am.Sub.H.B. No. 64, the state's biennial budget bill ("H.B. 64"). H.B. 64 includes R.C. 4511.0915(A) –(C), 5747.50(C)(5), and 5747.502 (), which condition a municipality's receipt of certain state funds on compliance with the traffic law photo-monitoring provisions in S.B. 342 that the trial court found to be unconstitutional. Under the budget bill provisions, the city is required to file a report with the Auditor of State indicating whether its program is "fully complying with R.C. Sec. 4511.092 to Sec. 4511.0914." If the city's program is not in compliance, it must inform the auditor of the amount equal to the "civil fines the local authority has billed to drivers." The Ohio Tax Commissioner is then required to reduce payments of local government funds to the city by the amount billed to drivers.
{¶ 5} In response to the General Assembly's passage of H.B. 64, the city, on July 8, 2015, filed a "Motion for Order to Enforce Permanent Injunction," in which it sought to permanently enjoin the enforcement of the budget bill provisions. In its motion, the city argued that the General Assembly's passage of these provisions was in "blatant disregard for the concept of separation of powers" and in retaliation against the city for successfully challenging the constitutionality of S.B. 342. The city went on to assert that the budget bill provisions were unconstitutional insofar as they interfered with the trial court's authority to enforce its own orders by forcing municipalities to comply with statutes the trial court had already found to be unconstitutional.
{¶ 6} Two weeks later, the state filed its memorandum in opposition to the city's motion, in which it argued that the court did not have jurisdiction in this case to strike down the budget bill provisions when the city's initial complaint only challenged the constitutionality of S.B. 342. In other words, the state contended that the city was required to file a new complaint challenging the constitutionality of the budget bill provisions if it wished to have such provisions enjoined by the trial court. Further, the state argued that the budget bill provisions did not violate the trial court's injunction regarding S.B. 342. In that regard, the state asserted that the trial court's finding that S.B. 342 was unconstitutional did not preclude it from "distributing its money in a manner that incentivizes particular conduct on the part of local entities." According to the state, the budget bill provisions do not compel municipalities to comply with S.B. 342. Rather, the state insisted that the provisions "merely establish a reporting system and financial incentives for cities to [comply with S.B. 342] through the manner in which the State distributes its money." The state went on to analogize its act of conditioning local government funds on compliance with S.B. 342 to the common practice of the federal government conditioning a grant of federal funds to the states based upon the states' compliance with federal directives in areas in which the federal government could not directly regulate under the United States Constitution.
{¶ 7} In its reply to the state's memorandum, the city dismissed the state's analogy of the present case to cases involving the federal government and the states. The city argued that none of the cases cited by the state in support of the analogy involved Congress requiring the states to comply with a statute that had been declared unconstitutional. Moreover, the city noted the absence of a home rule provision in the United States Constitution.
{¶ 8} Upon consideration of the foregoing arguments, the trial court released its decision on the city's motion on October 8, 2015. In its decision, the trial court found that the state's attempt to withhold funds from the city would constitute contempt of the court's prior permanent injunction insofar as it would force the city to comply with the provisions of S.B. 342 that it had already deemed unconstitutional. This, the court concluded, amounted to "economic dragooning." Thus, the court granted the city's motion, thereby enjoining the state "from taking any action that would result in a reduction of State funding to the City as a result of the City's noncompliance with the unconstitutional statutes." It is from this order that the state timely appealed.
{¶ 9} On appeal, the state assigns the following errors for our review:
{¶ 10} In its first assignment of error, the state argues that the trial court acted without jurisdiction when it issued its post-judgment injunction preventing the enforcement of the budget bill provisions, which were not part of the underlying proceedings challenging the constitutionality of S.B. 342.
{¶ 11} "A question of jurisdiction is reviewed de novo, with no deference given to the trial court." Sullivan v. Sullivan, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L–09–1022, 2010-Ohio-3064, 2010 WL 2638521, ¶ 14, citing Swayne v. Newman, 131 Ohio App.3d 793, 795, 723 N.E.2d 1117 (4th Dist.1998).
When a permanent injunction has been issued by the trial court on the merits of a claim, the court has continuing jurisdiction to enforce the injunction. * * * A permanent injunction may be enforced as an act of the court and disobedience with the order may be punished as contempt. * * * The permanent injunction may be enforced by motion without the necessity of an independent action. (Citations omitted.) Hosta v. Chrysler, 172 Ohio App.3d 654, 2007-Ohio-4205, 876 N.E.2d 998, ¶ 32 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 12} In support of its argument that the city improperly challenged the constitutionality of the budget bill provisions without the filing of a new complaint, the state cites the Supreme Court of Ohio's decision in Cicco v. Stockmaster, 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 728 N.E.2d 1066 (2000). In that case, the court was tasked with interpreting the jurisdictional requirements of R.C. 2721.12, relating to actions seeking declaratory relief. Construing that statute, the court held that "a party who is challenging the constitutionality of a statute must assert the claim in the complaint (or other initial pleading) or an amendment thereto, and must serve the pleading upon the Attorney General in accordance with methods set forth in Civ.R. 4.1 in order to vest a trial court with jurisdiction under R.C. 2721.12." Id. at 97, 728 N.E.2d 1066.
{¶ 13} Responding to the state's argument, the city challenges the state's characterization of the trial court's action, insisting that the trial court merely took appropriate steps to enforce its prior injunction by granting the city's motion. Contrary to the state's position, the city asserts that the trial court did not declare the budget bill provisions unconstitutional, nor did the city seek such relief. Rather, the trial court found that the enforcement of those provisions should be enjoined on the basis that it would violate the court's prior injunction concerning S.B. 342 by forcing municipalities to comply with the statutory provisions therein.
{¶ 14} Having reviewed the trial court's order, we agree with the city...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Toledo v. State
...bill provisions violated its April 27, 2015 order and that action to enforce those provisions constitutes contempt of court." 2017-Ohio-215, 72 N.E.3d 692, ¶ 26. According to the court of appeals, "[t]his act of the General Assembly essentially amounts to an end-run around the trial court's......