Jennifer Brunner

Notable Cases:

• Adams et al. v. DeWine (2022): Signed Justice Donnelly's majority opinion and Justice O'Conner's concurrence in a case that held that the Ohio's congressional-district plan "unduly" favored a political party and split governmental units (43). The dissent argued strongly that the court went beyond its role and did not apply workable standards. The dissent said, "We believe that our authority is limited by the text of Article XIX and the constitutional restraints on the judicial power. Because the majority strays well beyond both, we respectfully dissent" (44). Dissent argued that "undue" meant excessive or unwarranted by valid considerations, and--by those definitions-- it inherently draws a comparison to something else (52). Dissent argued that the majority never clearly stated its baseline of favoritism, against which the plan could be found "undue," but that it implied that this standard was one of proportional representation (54). The dissent found that nothing in Article XIX mandated that standard (55).

• Gabbard v. Madison Local School District Board of Education (2021): Signed Justice O'Connor's majority opinion. Held that a Madison School Board resolution enabling teachers to carry firearms on school property did not comply with Ohio law (2). R.C. 109.78(D) required peace officer training (3). Question in this case was whether the training that R.C. 109.78(D) requires of people other than police officers and security guards who go armed while on duty applied to teachers, administrators, and other school staff whom a board of education has authorized to carry a deadly weapon in a school safety zone (4). Appellant board argued that R.C. 109.78(D) applied specifically to security personnel, while appellee parents argued it applied to all armed staff (9). Held that the plain meaning of "other position" included school employees (9). Held that the statutes reference elsewhere of employees acting "in a police capacity" implies that R.C. 109.78(D) applies to employees generally (13). Rejected use of ejusdem generis rule because the words in this statute were not uncertain (13). Held that R.C. 2923.122 was a criminal statute and that its grant of exception to some classes of individuals did not free them from other regulation/responsibilities (16). Dissent argued that, while claiming not to read the laws in pari materia, the majority does so by subjugating R.C. 2923.122(D)(1)(a) to R.C. 109.78(D) (21). Dissent argued that the majority erred by interpreting each word in isolation (38) Dissent argued that the majority mistakenly relied upon the “presumption of consistent usage" canon in its point about R.C. 109.78(D) not repeating "in police capacities" because that canon admittedly relies on a level of perfection in drafting that is rarely achieved according to Scalia and Garner's Reading Law, and the canon is not strong enough to bear the contextual evidence that the majority's interpretation was incorrect (45)

Info from Other Sources:

• Judicial Votes Count profile