In Dean v. Yost, (OH Com. Pl., Sept. 22, 2026), two members of the Ohio state legislature and a city council member sued contending that the Reproductive Rights Amendment to the Ohio Constitution adopted by voters in 2023 is invalid because it amounts to a “revision” of the state constitution, not a mere “amendment” of it. In the case, an Ohio trial court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring it. Plaintiffs had contended that the amendment deprived them as legislators of legislative authority to enact laws barring late-term abortions from being performed near churches or schools, and of authority to protect informed consent. The court said in part:
Defendant points out that Plaintiffs” complaint makes it clear that they are suing in their personal capacity. Legislatures may not claim rights tied only to their official capacities when they are suing in their private capacity. Additionally, even if suing in their capacity as Legislatures they do not have standing since this is not a mandamus action and they have not identified any votes they cast for laws that are allegedly not being enforced.
The court also rejected claims by one of the plaintiffs that she has standing as a parent under parental consent laws. The court said: “any contention that Section 22 invalidates or limits Ohio’s parental-consent law is incorrect and speculative….”
Cleveland.com reports on the decision.
[Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]