In a ruling that could reshape the tobacco retail landscape across Ohio, the Tenth District Court of Appeals has sided with the City of Columbus and other municipalities in affirming their right to regulate tobacco sales—including flavored and menthol products. This landmark decision, issued on July 8, reinforces Ohio’s Home Rule Amendment and sends a clear message: local governments can make their own rules on tobacco. 

🧾 Quick Summary: 

Home Rule Upheld: The court ruled that a 2023 state law attempting to override local tobacco regulations violated Ohio’s Constitution. 

Cities Empowered: Municipalities like Columbus can continue banning flavored tobacco and e-cigarettes, including menthol. 

Retail Impact: Retailers and manufacturers now face a patchwork of regulations across cities—compliance just got more complicated. 

Potential Appeal: The case may head to the Ohio Supreme Court, where a Republican-majority bench could take a different view. 

🚨 The Legal Backdrop 

This case began in 2023 when the Ohio General Assembly inserted language into the state budget that banned local governments from regulating tobacco product sales. Governor Mike DeWine vetoed the measure—twice—but was overridden by the legislature both times. 

In response, Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein filed suit, arguing that this legislative maneuver infringed on cities’ constitutional rights under Ohio’s Home Rule Amendment, which allows municipalities to govern health and safety matters unless in direct conflict with general state law. 

Judge David Leland of the 10th District agreed, warning that preempting local laws would gut cities’ ability to: 

Keep tobacco out of public parks 

Enforce zoning and licensing laws on retailers 

Address marketing and availability concerns in vulnerable communities 

🏙️ What It Means for Retailers 

Retailers and manufacturers must now navigate a city-by-city framework across Ohio. That means: 

Some cities will allow flavored and menthol sales. 

Others—like Columbus—will continue to enforce bans. 

Retailers operating in multiple municipalities face increased compliance costs and legal uncertainty. 

This fragmented approach presents serious challenges for distribution, inventory planning, and consumer messaging. Retailers will need to work closely with legal counsel and supply chain teams to ensure they're aligned with each city’s policies. 

🗣️ The Political Angle 

This is likely not the last word. The Ohio Attorney General’s office is reviewing the decision and could appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, which has a 6–1 Republican majority. Whether the court takes the case—and how it might rule—is uncertain but politically significant. 

Judge Leland’s opinion and the panel’s unanimous Democratic composition have already sparked speculation about how partisanship may influence the next legal step. 

🛑 Why This Matters Nationally 

Ohio’s legal tug-of-war mirrors similar battles playing out across the U.S. Over the past five years, local bans on flavored tobacco and e-cigarettes have surged in places like San Francisco, New York, and Chicago. Industry groups have challenged many of these laws, often pushing for state-level preemption to prevent a maze of local rules. 

The Ohio ruling, if it stands, will embolden other municipalities to take bold regulatory steps—and may also inspire other states to test or challenge Home Rule powers. 

🔍 Final Thoughts 

This decision could mark a turning point for local authority in tobacco regulation—not just in Ohio but nationwide. Retailers and manufacturers must stay informed and agile, especially as more municipalities consider local bans or restrictions. 

In the meantime, Ohio businesses should prepare for a regulatory landscape that is more localized, more complex, and potentially more litigious than ever before. 

Stay tuned for updates on whether the case heads to the Ohio Supreme Court and what it could mean for your business.