On Friday, May 9, 2025, Taylin D. Reynolds filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio, challenging a decision from the Erie County Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District, in the case of R*eynolds v. Kamm III et al*. The appeal stems from a judgment issued on March 28, 2025, by the Sixth District Court of Appeals.
The notice argues that the appellate court’s ruling raises significant constitutional issues. Specifically, Reynolds contends that the application of Title 45 of the Ohio Revised Code by the defendants violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by infringing on rights protected under the Ninth Amendment. The appeal claims the Sixth District Court of Appeals failed to address whether Title 45 lawfully governs private, non-commercial property use, distinct from motor vehicle operation, and accuses the court of conflating these issues.
Reynolds further alleges a pattern of misconduct by state officials, including defendants, Judge Roger E. Binette of the Erie County Common Pleas Court, and the Sixth District panel. The notice lists accusations such as exceeding lawful authority, distorting facts, using abusive procedural tactics, misapplying legal precedent, and acting with judicial bias to shield officials from liability. The appeal argues that such actions undermine constitutional governance and set a dangerous precedent if left unaddressed.
The filing asserts that the case qualifies as an appeal by right under Article IV, Section 5(B) of the Ohio Constitution, emphasizing the need for a definitive ruling on whether state actors can misuse statutory authority to infringe on constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court of Ohio will now decide whether to accept the appeal, which seeks to address these constitutional questions and their implications for the rule of law.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
