State ex rel. Engler v. LaRose (amicus)

On April 14, 2026, Judge David Engler, a probate judge in Trumbull County filed a mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court against the Ohio Secretary of Sate, the Ohio Attorney General, and the Ohio Ballot Board. He claims that their 2023 certification of the Reproductive Freedom Amendment to the ballot violated the Ohio Constitution and his rights as a judge.

Judge Engler claims that a ballot initiative cannot supersede existing, “structural” features of the Ohio Constitution—namely, Article IV. He contends that he has not received as many petitions for judicial bypass as he had been accustomed to since the passage of the Reproductive Freedom Amendment. Therefore, he believes Ohio is no longer enforcing parental-consent requirements for abortions. Judge Engler contends that removing this category of cases from his jurisdiction is an injury to him as judge. That supposed conflict means, to him, that it was improper to certify the amendment as to minors and parental consent.

Article IV only establishes the authority of the courts, generally, and does not impart any specific jurisdiction to juvenile courts. Judge Engler’s jurisdiction, especially over judicial bypass petitions, is established by statute, not the Constitution. In addition, the purpose of constitutional amendments is to modify, or even override, previously established sections of the Constitution. Finally, with no relevant parties or facts presented, it is improper at this time to consider the implications of the Reproductive Freedom Amendment as applied to parental consent and judicial bypass.

Judge Engler filed his Complaint in Mandamus in the Ohio Supreme Court on April 14, 2026. On May 11, the State filed a Motion to Dismiss. With the ACLU Ohio as the amicus party, the Reproductive Rights Law Initiative at CWRU and our legal team filed an amicus brief in support of the motion, also on May 11. Judge Engler opposed the dismissal motion on May 20.

On August 19, 2026, unanimously and without publishing an opinion, the Court granted our motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of the motion to dismiss and granted the State’s Motion to Dismiss.