On April 16, a state trial judge in Ohio issued a sweeping injunction that bars state officials from enforcing the entirety of a recently enacted law that addresses transgender issues in three different contexts—child-custody adjudication, medical and mental-health treatment, and sports competition. Judge Michael Holbrook did not limit his relief to the actual plaintiffs in the case, nor did he limit it to the only parts of the law—on medical and mental-health treatment—that the plaintiffs alleged would harm them. Rather, he ordered state officials not to enforce any part of the law with respect to anyone.
Whether or not plaintiffs were entitled to any relief, they surely were not entitled to an injunction against parts of the law that they did not allege would affect them, nor did Judge Holbrook have authority to extend relief to individuals who are not parties to the case. But Holbrook evidently calculated that he could get away with his judicial mischief because Ohio law, unlike federal law and the laws of most states, does not make preliminary injunctions appealable. So Holbrook and the plaintiffs expect to keep that injunctive relief in place for the months or years it takes for him to enter a final judgment.
Fortunately, the Ohio attorney general has given the state supreme court an opportunity to put an end to this mischief. The state has filed an emergency motion for a writ that would limit Holbrook’s injunction to the plaintiffs in his court and the parts of the law that they allege harm them.
Let’s hope the Ohio supreme court grants the state’s motion and puts trial courts on notice that it will not tolerate overbroad universal injunctions.