Ohio
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
The Ƶ, the Ƶ of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the law firm WilmerHale, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm, on behalf of Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio, Preterm-Cleveland, Women’s Med Group Professional Corporation, Dr. Sharon Liner, and Julia Quinn, MSN, BSN, amended a complaint in an existing lawsuit against a ban on telehealth medication abortion services to bring new claims under the Ohio Reproductive Freedom Amendment, including additional challenges to other laws in Ohio that restrict access to medication abortion in the state.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2015
LGBTQ Rights
Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges - Freedom to Marry in Ohio
The Ƶ, the Ƶ of Ohio and Alphonse Gerhardstein of Gerhardstein & Branch have filed suit on behalf of Jim Obergefell and David Michener, two widowers, and Robert Grunn, a funeral director, in a challenge to the Ohio constitutional and statutory marriage recognition bans.
All Cases
26 Ohio Cases
Ohio
Feb 2026
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose
Voting-rights and civil-rights organizations filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new Ohio law that threatens to wrongly strip eligible citizens—particularly naturalized citizens—of their right to vote.
The case arises from Ohio Senate Bill 293 (SB 293), a law that mandates aggressive, automated purges of Ohio’s voter rolls based on flawed citizenship data. Under SB 293, state officials are required to conduct frequent database checks and cancel voter registrations for people flagged as “noncitizens”—often without advance notice or a meaningful opportunity to correct mistakes.
Plaintiffs brought this case to stop a system that places thousands of eligible voters at risk of disenfranchisement and undermines fundamental protections guaranteed by federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
Explore case
Ohio
Feb 2026
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose
Voting-rights and civil-rights organizations filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new Ohio law that threatens to wrongly strip eligible citizens—particularly naturalized citizens—of their right to vote.
The case arises from Ohio Senate Bill 293 (SB 293), a law that mandates aggressive, automated purges of Ohio’s voter rolls based on flawed citizenship data. Under SB 293, state officials are required to conduct frequent database checks and cancel voter registrations for people flagged as “noncitizens”—often without advance notice or a meaningful opportunity to correct mistakes.
Plaintiffs brought this case to stop a system that places thousands of eligible voters at risk of disenfranchisement and undermines fundamental protections guaranteed by federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
Ohio
Jan 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Moe v. Yost
Two transgender adolescents and their families are challenging Ohio’s House Bill 68, a law passed in January 2024 that prohibits gender-affirming medical care that is widely accepted to treat gender dysphoria, helping alleviate the distress of gender dysphoria and significantly improving patients’ mental health and well-being. Such treatment is supported by leading medical experts and all major U.S. medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Explore case
Ohio
Jan 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Moe v. Yost
Two transgender adolescents and their families are challenging Ohio’s House Bill 68, a law passed in January 2024 that prohibits gender-affirming medical care that is widely accepted to treat gender dysphoria, helping alleviate the distress of gender dysphoria and significantly improving patients’ mental health and well-being. Such treatment is supported by leading medical experts and all major U.S. medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Ohio
Feb 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, et al. v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
In December 2020, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed into law Senate Bill 27, a fetal tissue disposal requirement that mandates burial or cremation of all embryonic and fetal tissue from a procedural abortion, imposing severe burdens on patients and stigmatizing essential care. On January 31, 2022, an Ohio judge preliminarily enjoined the law, finding that the law likely violates the Ohio state constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. The victory followed a previous April 5, 2021, preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the law, because compliance would have been impossible due to the Ohio Department of Health’s (ODH) failure to establish necessary rules and regulations. In April 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding a claim that the law violated the newly established Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment of the Ohio Constitution, and in August 2024 filed a 12(C) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that Senate Bill 27 is unconstitutional as a matter of law under that Amendment for discriminatorily targeting procedural abortion. In February 2025, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas agreed, granting the Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings and permanently enjoining enforcement of Senate Bill 27.
This lawsuit was filed by the Ƶ, Ƶ of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm on behalf of Ohio abortion providers.
Explore case
Ohio
Feb 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, et al. v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
In December 2020, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed into law Senate Bill 27, a fetal tissue disposal requirement that mandates burial or cremation of all embryonic and fetal tissue from a procedural abortion, imposing severe burdens on patients and stigmatizing essential care. On January 31, 2022, an Ohio judge preliminarily enjoined the law, finding that the law likely violates the Ohio state constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. The victory followed a previous April 5, 2021, preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the law, because compliance would have been impossible due to the Ohio Department of Health’s (ODH) failure to establish necessary rules and regulations. In April 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding a claim that the law violated the newly established Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment of the Ohio Constitution, and in August 2024 filed a 12(C) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that Senate Bill 27 is unconstitutional as a matter of law under that Amendment for discriminatorily targeting procedural abortion. In February 2025, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas agreed, granting the Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings and permanently enjoining enforcement of Senate Bill 27.
This lawsuit was filed by the Ƶ, Ƶ of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm on behalf of Ohio abortion providers.
Ohio Supreme Court
Oct 2024
Voting Rights
Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose (Amicus)
Just weeks before absentee voting begins in Ohio, Secretary LaRose issued Directive 2024-21 to curtail the use of drop boxes. The directive deprives everyone who is lawfully assisting another voter from using a drop box, and mandates that drop boxes may be used only by voters who are returning their own ballot. We filed an amicus brief to explain the harsh, unnecessary burdens this directive will impose on voters and election officials alike.
Explore case
Ohio Supreme Court
Oct 2024
Voting Rights
Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose (Amicus)
Just weeks before absentee voting begins in Ohio, Secretary LaRose issued Directive 2024-21 to curtail the use of drop boxes. The directive deprives everyone who is lawfully assisting another voter from using a drop box, and mandates that drop boxes may be used only by voters who are returning their own ballot. We filed an amicus brief to explain the harsh, unnecessary burdens this directive will impose on voters and election officials alike.
Ohio Supreme Court
Sep 2024
Prisoners' Rights
State v. Morris
This case in the Ohio Supreme Court concerns the scope of the state constitutional right to counsel. The police in this case interrogated the defendant, Isaiah Morris, without mentioning his already-appointed counsel or asking him to waive his right to counsel. This procedural circumstance risks confusing criminal defendants and undermining their state constitutional rights. The Ƶ’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Ƶ of Ohio and WilmerHale, filed an amicus brief arguing that merely providing a defendant notice of Miranda rights falls short of the bare minimum requirements for a valid waiver.
Explore case
Ohio Supreme Court
Sep 2024
Prisoners' Rights
State v. Morris
This case in the Ohio Supreme Court concerns the scope of the state constitutional right to counsel. The police in this case interrogated the defendant, Isaiah Morris, without mentioning his already-appointed counsel or asking him to waive his right to counsel. This procedural circumstance risks confusing criminal defendants and undermining their state constitutional rights. The Ƶ’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Ƶ of Ohio and WilmerHale, filed an amicus brief arguing that merely providing a defendant notice of Miranda rights falls short of the bare minimum requirements for a valid waiver.