The Buckeye Institute Argues Ohio Preemption Power Does Not Violate Home Rule
Mar 03, 2026Columbus, OH – On Tuesday, The Buckeye Institute filed its amicus brief in Columbus v. Ohio, calling on the Ohio Supreme Court to uphold Ohio’s broad preemption power, arguing that the state is supreme in matters of general concern and, as a result, state laws preempting local regulations do not violate Ohio’s Home Rule Amendment.
“Before Ohio adopted its 1912 Constitution, the meaning of the phrase ‘general laws’ was well-understood as meaning a law of statewide effect,” said David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute. “And policy arguments about the pros and cons of municipal home rule do not change that understanding or the meaning of the Ohio Constitution.”
In its brief, The Buckeye Institute argues that 1) the text and history of the Ohio Home Rule Amendment, and the structure of the Ohio Constitution, limit the police powers of Ohio’s municipalities, and that a plain reading of the phrase “general law” means a law that operates equally and uniformly across the state. 2) The evolution of the Home Rule Amendment’s text throughout Ohio’s 1912 Constitutional Convention indicates that the amendment was intended to grant municipalities general police powers, subject to the General Assembly’s override. 3) Just as the court ruled in Billings v. Cleveland, “the authority of the state is supreme over the municipality and its citizens as to every matter and every relationship not embraced within the field of local self-government.”
The Buckeye Institute urged the Ohio Supreme Court to return to the original meaning of the Home Rule Amendment and determine that the term “general laws” has the same meaning as the term had at the time the Ohio Constitution was ratified in 1912.
In a forthcoming policy brief—Striking a Balance: Local Governance, Individual Rights & Economic Growth—The Buckeye Institute will lay out the case for state preemption laws as “a necessary tool to protect fundamental rights, promote economic opportunity, and ensure regulatory clarity.”
Nathaniel M. Fouch, assistant professor of law at Capital University Law School, joined The Buckeye Institute in filing the brief with the Ohio Supreme Court.
# # #
