On Tuesday, April 14, 2026, Judge David L. Engler filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Ohio Supreme Court against the Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, and the Ohio Ballot Board. Engler is serving as Judge of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations & Juvenile Division.
Engler’s petition contests the enforcement of Article I, Section 22 of the Ohio Constitution, arguing it eliminates juvenile-court authority over judicial-bypass proceedings without expressly amending Article IV. He claims this enforcement strips juvenile courts of jurisdiction over a class of cases.
The petition asserts a structural separation-of-powers dispute under Article IV of the Ohio Constitution. Engler argues that Article I, Section 22 is being applied to eliminate parental-consent requirements for minors, rendering judicial-bypass proceedings unnecessary or unavailable. He claims this reallocation of authority away from the judiciary occurred without an express amendment to Article IV and without disclosing the structural consequence to voters.
Engler seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to administer and enforce Article I, Section 22 in a manner that preserves juvenile-court jurisdiction over judicial-bypass proceedings under R.C. 2151.85. He also seeks a declaratory judgment that Article I, Section 22 is unenforceable to the extent it eliminates or interferes with juvenile-court jurisdiction and that it must be harmonized with Article IV. Additionally, Engler requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining the Respondents from enforcing Article I, Section 22 in any manner that eliminates or interferes with juvenile-court jurisdiction over judicial-bypass proceedings.
Engler argues that voters were not informed that Article I, Section 22 would eliminate judicial-bypass proceedings or strip juvenile courts of jurisdiction, constituting a material omission. He contends that the Amendment, as enforced, removes a category of disputes from judicial review and reallocates authority away from the judiciary.
The petition includes claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Engler argues that an actual, justiciable controversy exists regarding whether Article I, Section 22 may be enforced to eliminate judicial-bypass proceedings and extinguish juvenile-court jurisdiction without express revision of Article IV. He asserts that irreparable harm arises from the ongoing structural impairment of judicial authority and the removal of adjudicatory proceedings from the courts.
Engler requests the Court to issue an alternative writ directing Respondents to perform the acts required by the Constitution or to show cause why such relief should not be granted. He also requests that the Court establish a structured briefing schedule for the submission of evidence and merits briefing on the constitutional issues presented.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
