CLEVELAND, Ohio – Cleveland is one of 14 cities suing the state of Ohio over a state ban that prohibits local tobacco regulations.
The suit, filed Tuesday in Franklin County Common Pleas Court, argues the state ban is unconstitutional, because it treads on home-rule powers granted to Ohio cities by the state Constitution.
“This lawsuit represents a united front in standing up for what is morally right and is an imperative next step to ensure that we are prioritizing the health of Ohioans above profits for the tobacco industry,” Mayor Justin Bibb said in a statement. “We cannot and will not remain silent.”
At issue is a new state law that prohibits local governments, like Cleveland, from enacting tobacco policies that are stricter than those of the state. Gov. Mike DeWine had vetoed the law, characterizing it as a win for big tobacco. But state lawmakers overrode his veto in January and moved forward with the ban, which is set to go into effect in two weeks.
The city of Columbus -- which has a local law on the books that prohibits the sale of flavored tobacco products -- led the charge on the lawsuit. Cleveland and Cincinnati joined in as plaintiffs, as did smaller Ohio cities like Dublin, Bexley and Oxford.
The suit seeks a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to stop the state ban from going into effect, said Cleveland Director of Public Health Dave Margolius.
“The number one leading cause of preventable death in our community is tobacco. Our smoking rate is 35%, compared to the national average of 11%. And because the state passed a pre-emption, our hands are tied in our ability to help people in our community quit smoking,” Margolius said.
Columbus’s local ban on flavored tobacco sales could be jeopardized by the state law. Cleveland doesn’t have such a law, but Margolius and Mayor Justin Bibb have been trying for over a year to pass a similar one here. They introduced a proposed ban on flavored tobacco sales to City Council in February 2023, but council, thus far, has been unwilling to give it a hearing.
The lawsuit argues that the existence of the state ban has “chilled any further action” by City Council on Bibb’s proposed law.
While it appears City Council is not open to passing such a ban, Margolius said some council members may have some appetite to pass a different provision of the proposed law that would give the health department more ability to inspect local tobacco retailers, and enforce age restrictions for tobacco buyers.
The state ban threatens those potential regulations in Cleveland, and others that are already in effect, Margolius said.
The complaint lists at least seven current regulations in Cleveland that could be affected by the state ban, such as laws that prohibit smoking on city property, and giving tobacco products to children.