Background
Ohio participated in the federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation program, which supplemented unemployment benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Governor Mike DeWine notified the U.S. Department of Labor that Ohio would end its participation effective June 26, 2021, before the federal program expired on September 6, 2021. Candy Bowling and other Ohio residents sued Governor DeWine and the director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief based on former R.C. 4141.43(I).
After earlier proceedings concerning preliminary relief, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granted the plaintiffs summary judgment on their declaratory-judgment and injunctive-relief claims and ordered the State to take the actions necessary to reinstate Ohio’s participation and seek the disputed benefits. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Ohio Supreme Court accepted the State’s discretionary appeal.
The Court’s Holding
In a sua sponte judgment entry, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed the cause as moot. It also vacated both the Tenth District’s judgment and the trial court’s judgment. The majority supplied no explanation and did not decide whether former R.C. 4141.43(I) required Ohio to remain in the federal benefits program.
Justice Fischer dissented and would have resolved the case on the merits. Justice Brunner separately dissented, agreeing that the mandamus claim was moot because a 2023 statutory amendment eliminated the director’s relevant duty, but concluding that the claims for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief were not moot because federal benefits might remain available. She would have upheld relief against the ODJFS director under the former statute while directing judgment for the governor.
Key Takeaways
- The court dismissed the entire cause as moot without explaining why meaningful relief was no longer available.
- The court vacated the judgments that had required Ohio officials to pursue retroactive federal pandemic unemployment benefits.
- The majority did not establish a merits precedent interpreting former R.C. 4141.43(I) or determining whether Ohio unlawfully withdrew from the federal program.
Why It Matters
The decision eliminates the lower-court rulings that favored unemployed Ohioans and removes the existing judicial order requiring state officials to seek the disputed federal funds. Because the majority relied solely on mootness, however, it left unresolved the underlying statutory question concerning Ohio’s obligations under the law in effect when the State withdrew.
The dissents underscore the practical stakes: Justice Brunner stated that potentially substantial federal benefits might still have been available and argued that at least some forms of relief therefore remained possible.