Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

Ohio Supreme Court Invalidates Local Fracking Restrictions

By Amy Antoniolli & Daniel J. Deeb on February 23, 2015
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
126810375

On Tuesday, February 17, 2015, a sharply divided Ohio Supreme Court held in a 4-3 decision that Ohio local governments do not have authority to enact certain local zoning ordinances restricting hydraulic fracturing. The Court found that an Ohio statute regulating oil and gas well production operations that gives state government “sole and exclusive authority” to regulate such operations does not allow for a municipality to impose its own permit requirements on oil and gas drilling operations.

The Court found that Ohio’s home rule authority does not allow a municipality to “discriminate against, unfairly impede, or obstruct oil and gas activities and production operations.” Accordingly, the local ordinances at issue were found to conflict with the state regulatory scheme.  Justice Judith L. French authored the Supreme Court’s lead opinion, stating that “[t]his is a classic licensing conflict under our home-rule precedent.”  “We have consistently held that a municipal-licensing ordinance conflicts with a state-licensing scheme if the ‘local ordinance restricts an activity which a state license permits.’”  The opinions further states that the state, not local governments, has the “right to regulate ‘all aspects’ of the location, drilling, and operation of oil and gas wells, including ‘permitting relating to those activities.’” 

“This is a classic licensing conflict under our home-rule precedent.”

Three justices joined in the majority opinion with a fourth voting in support of the majority opinion outcome but with a separate concurring opinion. That concurring opinion indicates that there might be room for local ordinances which ensure neighborhood compatibility, protect property values or accomplish a municipality’s long-range development plan.

The decision includes multiple dissenting opinions.  Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger dissented in an opinion joined by Justices Paul E. Pfeifer and William M. O’Neill, and Justices Pfeifer and O’Neill each wrote additional separate dissenting opinions.  Justice O’Neill’s dissent is particularly pointed: “The Ohio General Assembly has created a zookeeper to feed the elephant in the living room,” and “[w]hat the drilling industry has bought and paid for in campaign contributions they shall receive.”  “The oil and gas industry has gotten its way,” wrote Justice O’Neill, “and local control of drilling-location decisions has been unceremoniously taken away from the citizens of Ohio.”

The Slip Opinion can be found here.  A summary of the ruling can be found here.

Photo of Amy Antoniolli Amy Antoniolli

Amy Antoniolli is an environmental lawyer with broad experience in administrative and enforcement-related issues. She advises clients on compliance with the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA, CERCLA, and the Illinois Environmental Protection Act. She also works on property remediation projects pursued…

Amy Antoniolli is an environmental lawyer with broad experience in administrative and enforcement-related issues. She advises clients on compliance with the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA, CERCLA, and the Illinois Environmental Protection Act. She also works on property remediation projects pursued under state and federal cleanup programs. She advises renewable energy clients as well, reviewing siting and operating requirements for wind and waste to energy facilities.

Read more about Amy AntoniolliEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Daniel J. Deeb Daniel J. Deeb

Dan has been practicing environmental law for more than 20 years. His practice includes all facets of environmental law permitting, compliance and litigation, including federal and state cases involving the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, RCRA, CERCLA, FIFRA, TSCA, brownfields redevelopment, and…

Dan has been practicing environmental law for more than 20 years. His practice includes all facets of environmental law permitting, compliance and litigation, including federal and state cases involving the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, RCRA, CERCLA, FIFRA, TSCA, brownfields redevelopment, and state analogs. Before practicing law, Dan worked as a senior chemist for an environmental consulting firm and clerked for the U.S. EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

Read more about Daniel J. DeebEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Energy and Utilities
  • Blog:
    Product Liability & Mass Torts Blog
  • Organization:
    ArentFox Schiff LLP

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo