Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine doesn't have to ask the federal government for $900 million in expired unemployment payments initially offered as COVID-19 pandemic relief, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled on Aug. 21.
In a 5-2 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the legal fight over whether DeWine had the power to end extra federal benefits 10 weeks early was moot and dismissed the case. Justices Pat Fischer, a Republican, and Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, dissented.
During the pandemic, Congress approved an extra $300 per week in unemployment benefits to help struggling Americans. The program was set to expire in September 2021, but DeWine ended it early. That prompted Ohioans to sue over about $900 million in benefits they could have claimed if the program continued.
The lawsuit has dragged on for years. In 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the issue was moot. In 2023, Ohio lawmakers clarified that DeWine had the power to end federal programs early. But attorneys for Ohioans seeking benefits, including former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, kept fighting.
Dann said that DeWine or his successor could still seek the extra assistance without a court order requiring him to do so.
During oral arguments in May, Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy asked whether the justices could tell the DeWine administration to ask the federal government for that money.
"They have to go ask because we believe that the governor lacked the legal authority to withdraw from the FPUC (Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation) program when he did," said attorney Andrew Engel, who represented Ohioans seeking federal unemployment benefits.
But Ohio Solicitor General Mathura Sridharan said the fight was over long ago.
"This case is moot. The program expired in 2021. This court said so in 2022," Sridharan said during oral arguments. "I would be happy if the court were to simply put an end to the years of litigation and the wasted judicial resources, as well as attorney resources, litigating a case that simply has no point."
On Aug. 21, the five justices who dismissed the case did not issue an opinion. Fischer wrote that he respectfully disagreed and would have resolved the case on the merits.
Brunner wrote a dissent, explaining that Ohioans suing over the benefits might have been entitled to a permanent injunction requiring the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services to secure any remaining benefits.
"In my view, the director had a duty to continue to cooperate with the federal government in securing the FPUC benefits for Ohioans, and to the extent those benefits are still available, he should be required to do sothrough the trial court’s issuance of a permanent injunction," Brunner wrote.
Brunner also wrote that Ohioans suing over benefits hadn't offered a plausible theory as to why state law required DeWine to keep the program running.
Dann said he would ask the Ohio Supreme Court to reconsider its decision, because questions about the separation of powers will matter as Ohioans elect a new governor and state lawmakers.
Ultimately, "working-class people in Ohio need a better lobbyist," Dann said.
Ohio Supreme Court Justice Pat DeWine, the son of Gov. DeWine, recused himself from hearing this case.
State government reporter Jessie Balmert can be reached at jbalmert@usatodayco.com or @jbalmert on X.
This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Ohioans aren't entitled to COVID-era unemployment benefits, court rules
