In a major legal development, a U.S. Federal District Court judge has issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of Ohio House Bill 1, a law designed to prohibit foreign nationals from contributing to state election campaigns.
The court found that the law likely infringes upon the free speech rights of lawful permanent residents (LPRs), protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling, delivered by Judge Michael Watson, held that the law’s broad ban on “foreign” donations was unconstitutional as applied to LPRs.
Judge Watson stated that LPRs, who have a recognized legal status in the United States, possess the right to participate in political discourse, including through financial contributions to political campaigns.
The decision noted that the First Amendment safeguards the right of these residents to express their political views, a protection that extends to political donations.
House Bill 1, which sought to prevent foreign electoral interference, was deemed overreaching in its scope, as it failed to differentiate between LPRs and other foreign nationals. Judge Watson pointed out that the law’s lack of regulation on political contributions from foreign corporations further weakened its constitutionality, as it failed to precisely target the issue it was intended to address.
The case against the Ohio law was initiated by OPAWL, a feminist organization advocating for Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) women and non-binary individuals. The lawsuit, filed against Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost on June 27, argued that the law unjustly restricted the political participation of LPRs within the state, violating their constitutional rights.
While OPAWL sought a complete invalidation of House Bill 1, the court issued a partial injunction. The injunction specifically invalidates the law’s definition of “foreign nationals,” rendering the law unenforceable until the definition is appropriately narrowed.
This ruling effectively halts the application of the law against any foreign nationals, including LPRs, while acknowledging that the state retains the authority to regulate political contributions from other categories of foreign nationals, such as temporary residents.
The decision underscores the importance of precise legislative drafting, particularly when constitutional rights are at stake.
The ruling also highlights the ongoing legal debate over the intersection of election law and First Amendment protections, especially as it pertains to non-citizen residents who contribute to the political landscape of their communities.
As the case proceeds, the Ohio State Legislature may be prompted to revisit and revise House Bill 1 to ensure it complies with constitutional standards while addressing the legitimate concerns of foreign electoral interference.
The ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in balancing the state’s interests in regulating elections with the fundamental rights guaranteed to individuals under the U.S. Constitution.
