Why It Matters
The Ohio Supreme Court is weighing a question with broad implications for municipal authority across the state: whether cities retain the power under Ohio’s Constitution to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products, or whether a state law passed by the legislature takes precedence. The outcome will clarify the scope of home rule powers that Ohio cities have exercised since 1912.
What Happened
Justices heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case originating with Columbus, which banned flavored tobacco sales in December 2022. That local ordinance took effect in January 2024. Before it could be challenged by state action, Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed legislation in January 2023 that would have stripped Ohio municipalities of the ability to regulate tobacco and vaping product sales.
Ohio lawmakers overrode DeWine’s veto in 2024, setting a new state law to take effect in April 2024. Columbus, joined by Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo, and eventually a coalition now totaling 21 cities, sued the state to block the measure. Courts at both the Franklin County Common Pleas and Tenth District Court of Appeals levels sided with the cities, leaving the flavored tobacco bans in place while litigation continued. The state appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Legal Framework
At the heart of the dispute is the Ohio Home Rule Amendment, ratified in 1912, which grants municipalities the authority to govern local affairs. The cities argue their flavored tobacco restrictions fall squarely within that authority. The state contends that once the legislature established a comprehensive tobacco regulatory framework, local rules cannot be layered on top of it.
The court will apply a four-prong test established in a 2002 Ohio Supreme Court decision to determine whether the cities’ ordinances must yield to state law. The 21 plaintiff cities argue that the state’s restrictions fail that test and that local governments should remain free to address community-specific public health concerns.
Ohio Deputy Solicitor General Zachery Keller argued on behalf of the state that uniformity is essential. “We already have a comprehensive system of state tobacco regulations, and we do not want municipalities having a local patchwork on top of that,” he said during arguments.
Columbus City Solicitor General Richard Coglianese pushed back, emphasizing that the home rule amendment was designed precisely for situations like this. “The home rule amendment says that municipalities have the right to go ahead and address problems that they themselves face,” he said.
By the Numbers
- 21 Ohio cities are now parties to the lawsuit challenging the state tobacco preemption law.
- 1.63 million middle and high school students nationwide used vaping products in 2024, according to national figures cited in the case.
- Nearly 19% of Ohio high school students report vaping — a figure cities have used to justify local action.
- 1912 — the year Ohio voters ratified the Home Rule Amendment that municipalities are now invoking.
- 2002 — the year the Ohio Supreme Court established the four-prong test central to this case.
Zoom Out
The Ohio case reflects a national tension between state legislatures and city governments over tobacco and vaping regulation. Several states have moved to preempt local restrictions on flavored tobacco, often under pressure from the tobacco and convenience retail industries, while cities have argued they need flexibility to address youth vaping rates that remain high despite federal and state-level restrictions. Federal courts have similarly wrestled with questions of where state authority ends and local power begins in areas ranging from voting rights to public health.
What’s Next
The Ohio Supreme Court is not bound by a set timeline to issue its ruling, but decisions in high-profile constitutional cases typically follow within months of oral argument. Until a ruling is issued, the flavored tobacco bans in Columbus and the other plaintiff cities remain in effect. A ruling favoring the state could simultaneously lift those local bans across all 21 cities involved. A ruling for the cities would affirm municipal home rule authority in Ohio and could embolden other localities to pursue similar restrictions. State supreme courts across the country have increasingly become venues for resolving disputes between local governments and state legislatures on a range of policy questions.