[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio State Senate, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1912.]

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2022-OHIO-1912

THE STATE EX REL. JOHNSON ET AL. v. OHIO STATE SENATE ET AL.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio State Senate, Slip Opinion No. 

2022-Ohio-1912.]

Mandamus—Writ sought to compel Ohio Senate and its members to uphold Article 

I, Section 21 of the Ohio Constitution—Relief sought in complaint is beyond 

this court’s jurisdiction to grant—Motion to dismiss granted—Cause 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

(No. 2021-1313—Submitted January 25, 2022—Decided June 8, 2022.)

IN MANDAMUS.

________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} In this original action, relators, Nathan C. Johnson, Tony Louis 

Deluke III, Shannon Paul Barrett, Julie Erin Boso, and Robert J. Becaj Jr., seek a 

writ of mandamus against the Ohio State Senate and its 33 members individually

(collectively, “the Senate respondents”). The Senate respondents have filed a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

motion to dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, we grant the motion and dismiss 

the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Background

{¶ 2} Article I, Section 21(A) of the Ohio Constitution provides that “[n]o 

federal, state, or local law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, 

employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.” Relators

allege that, beginning in March 2020 and continuing to the present, Ohioans have 

been subjected to ongoing violations of this constitutional provision. Specifically, 

citizens have been required to “wear alleged medical devices,” provide DNA 

samples, have their temperatures taken, receive vaccinations, undergo contact 

tracing, and participate in the collection of health-care information.

{¶ 3} To remedy these alleged violations, relators ask this court to issue a 

writ of mandamus to compel the Senate respondents to uphold the Ohio

Constitution—specifically Article I, Section 21. More specifically, relators ask for 

a writ compelling the Senate respondents to defend Article I, Section 21 “against 

any passage of legislation which may possibly conflate, obfuscate or otherwise 

subvert the clarity of rights conveyed by” Article I, Section 21. And finally, relators 

ask for a writ compelling the Senate respondents to order the Ohio Attorney General 

to halt the operation of any public or private entity that is participating in the alleged 

constitutional violations within the state of Ohio. Relators allege that the Senate

respondents’ duty to undertake these actions flows from their oaths of office to 

support and defend the Ohio Constitution.

{¶ 4} We have considered the Senate respondents’ motion to dismiss and

the arguments presented in relators’ two memoranda in opposition, and we grant 

the motion.

Analysis

{¶ 5} A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, “exercised by this 

court with caution and issued only when the right is clear.” State ex rel. Brown v. 
January Term, 2022

3

Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Elections, 142 Ohio St.3d 370, 2014-Ohio-4022, 31 N.E.3d 

596, ¶ 11. To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a party must establish by clear and 

convincing evidence (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal 

duty on the part of the respondent to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate 

remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See State ex rel. Love v. O’Donnell, 150 

Ohio St.3d 378, 2017-Ohio-5659, 81 N.E.3d 1250, ¶ 3.

{¶ 6} Relators’ request for a writ to compel the Senate respondents to 

“defend” Article I, Section 21 can be read in two ways: as a request to compel the 

Senate respondents to enact legislation prohibiting the practices to which relators 

object or as a request to prohibit them from enacting legislation that would conflict 

with Article I, Section 21. Under either theory, we have no jurisdiction to grant the 

requested relief.

{¶ 7} “While Ohio, unlike other jurisdictions, does not have a constitutional 

provision specifying the concept of separation of powers, this doctrine is implicitly 

embedded in the entire framework of those sections of the Ohio Constitution that 

define the substance and scope of powers granted to the three branches of state 

government.” S. Euclid v. Jemison, 28 Ohio St.3d 157, 158-159, 503 N.E.2d 136 

(1986). The legislative power of this state is vested in the General Assembly. Ohio 

Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C., 

125 Ohio St.3d 280, 2010-Ohio-1029, 927 N.E.2d 1092, ¶ 36. As such, the General 

Assembly has the power to enact, amend, and repeal statutes, Ohio Constitution,

Article II, and “[t]his lawmaking prerogative cannot be delegated to or encroached 

upon by the other branches of government,” Toledo v. State, 154 Ohio St.3d 41, 

2018-Ohio-2358, 110 N.E.3d 1257, ¶ 26.

{¶ 8} “A writ of mandamus will not issue to a legislative body or its officers 

to require the performance of duties that are purely legislative in character and over 

which such legislative bodies have exclusive control.” State ex rel. Grendell v. 

Davidson, 86 Ohio St.3d 629, 633, 716 N.E.2d 704 (1999). In other words, we 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

have no jurisdiction to order the General Assembly to enact a specific piece of 

legislation. In Grendell, for example, the issue was whether this court could compel 

the inclusion of an airport-funding appropriation in the General Assembly’s 

conference report. The relators argued that the appropriation had been approved 

by both chambers of the legislature and that the conference committee failed to 

follow the legislative rules when it deleted the provision. We denied the writ, 

holding that the separation-of-powers doctrine prohibited a court from directing the 

legislature to perform duties that were “purely legislative in character.” Id. 

Likewise, in Wapakoneta v. Helpling, 135 Ohio St. 98, 19 N.E.2d 772 (1939), the 

relator sought a writ of mandamus to compel a municipal legislature to build a light 

and power plant. We denied the writ because the construction project would 

involve the performance of discretionary duties that were “purely legislative in 

character,” involving “a responsibility and burden which is outside the scope of the 

judicial function.” Id. at 108.

{¶ 9} Under the same theory, we also have no jurisdiction to preemptively 

order the General Assembly not to enact legislation “because the separation-ofpowers doctrine precludes courts from enjoining the General Assembly from 

exercising its legislative power to enact laws.” Toledo at ¶ 2.

{¶ 10} Judicial power is conferred upon the courts of Ohio by Article IV, 

Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution. “ ‘It is emphatically the province and duty of 

the judicial department to say what the law is.’ ” Adams v. DeWine, __ Ohio St.3d 

__, 2022-Ohio-89, __ N.E.3d __, quoting Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177, 2 

L.Ed. 60 (1803). But the courts cannot tell the legislature what the law should be

or dictate how the General Assembly should carry out its constitutional 

responsibilities. “It is a fundamental principle of the separation of powers that ‘the 

legislative branch [of government] is the “ultimate arbiter of public policy.” ’ ” 

Gabbard v. Madison Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 165 Ohio St.3d 390, 2021-

Ohio-2067, 179 N.E.3d 1169, ¶ 39, quoting Urbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 
January Term, 2022

5

Ohio St.3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948, 880 N.E.2d 420, ¶ 21, quoting State ex rel. 

Cincinnati Enquirer Div. of Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Dupuis, 

98 Ohio St.3d 126, 2002-Ohio-7041, 781 N.E.2d 163, ¶ 21.

{¶ 11} For similar reasons, we may not order the General Assembly to 

compel the attorney general to perform his duties in a certain fashion. The attorney 

general is an independently elected executive-branch official. Ohio Constitution,

Article III, Section 1; R.C. 109.01; State ex rel. Doerfler v. Price, 101 Ohio St. 50, 

128 N.E. 173 (1920), paragraph 3 of the syllabus. We express no opinion as to the 

scope of the General Assembly’s authority to control how the attorney general 

performs his duties, except to say that if the General Assembly were to impose 

restraints on an executive-branch official, it would have to do so through the 

passage of legislation. And the separation-of-powers doctrine precludes us from 

telling the General Assembly what legislation it should enact.

{¶ 12} In their memoranda opposing the motion to dismiss, relators suggest 

that dismissal is inappropriate because service had not yet been perfected on some 

of the Senate respondents. However, failure of service of process is an affirmative 

defense that may be waived if a defendant appears in the action without preserving 

the defense. See Williams v. Gray Guy Group, L.L.C., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 

16AP-321, 2016-Ohio-8499, ¶ 19 (citing cases). It follows, therefore, that a party 

may file a motion to dismiss without waiting to receive service of process. And 

contrary to the claim made in relators’ two memoranda, the motion to dismiss was 

filed on behalf of all the respondents.

{¶ 13} The relief sought in this complaint is beyond our jurisdiction to 

grant. We therefore dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Motion granted

and cause dismissed.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., 

concur.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion.

BRUNNER, J., concurs in judgment only.

_________________

KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment only.

{¶ 14} Because relators, Nathan C. Johnson, Tony Louis Deluke III, 

Shannon Paul Barrett, Julie Erin Boso, and Robert J. Becaj Jr., are unable to prove 

any set of facts that would entitle them to the relief requested in their complaint, I 

agree with the majority that their mandamus action seeking to compel respondents, 

the Ohio Senate and its 33 members, to uphold and defend Article I, Section 21 of 

the Ohio Constitution must be dismissed. Consequently, although this case raises 

significant constitutional issues regarding the limits of state government that 

demand resolution, I concur in the judgment of the court, because I must. I write 

separately, however, because the majority confuses the exercise of subject-matter 

jurisdiction with the existence of it.

{¶ 15} Relators allege that the state government’s response to the COVID19 pandemic (imposing mask mandates, screening for infection, conducting contact 

tracing, and providing vaccinations, for example) violated Article I, Section 21(A) 

of the Ohio Constitution, which provides that “[n]o federal, state, or local law or 

rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care 

provider to participate in a health care system.” They seek a writ of mandamus 

directing respondents to defend this constitutional provision against future 

encroachments on Ohioans’ liberty. Respondents have moved to dismiss the 

complaint.

{¶ 16} In deciding a motion to dismiss, we assume the truth of all factual 

allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences from them in favor 

of the relators. State ex rel. Williams Ford Sales, Inc. v. Connor, 72 Ohio St.3d 

111, 113, 647 N.E.2d 804 (1995). We may dismiss for the failure to state a claim 
January Term, 2022

7

upon which relief can be granted only if it appears beyond doubt that relators can 

prove no set of facts entitling them to relief. Id.

{¶ 17} “To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must establish a 

clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of a respondent 

to grant the relief, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the 

law.” State ex rel. Pennington v. Bivens, 166 Ohio St.3d 241, 2021-Ohio-3134, 185 

N.E.3d 41, ¶ 10.

{¶ 18} Respondents do not have a clear legal duty to grant the relief that 

relators request. As we recently explained in Toledo v. State, “[i]n framing the 

Ohio Constitution, the people of this state conferred on the General Assembly the 

legislative power. This lawmaking prerogative cannot be delegated to or 

encroached upon by the other branches of government.” 154 Ohio St.3d 41, 2018-

Ohio-2358, 110 N.E.3d 1257, ¶ 26. “The separation-of-powers doctrine therefore 

precludes the judiciary from asserting control over ‘the performance of duties that 

are purely legislative in character and over which such legislative bodies have 

exclusive control.’ ” Id. at ¶ 27, quoting State ex rel. Grendell v. Davidson, 86 Ohio 

St.3d 629, 633, 716 N.E.2d 704 (1999). Rather, “[c]ourts may intervene only after 

a legislative enactment has been passed and challenged in an action properly before 

it.” Id. at ¶ 29.

{¶ 19} Although granting the relief that relators request would cross the 

boundary between the judicial and legislative branches, that does not mean this 

court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.

{¶ 20} We have recognized that the word “jurisdiction,” set apart by itself, 

“is a vague term, ‘ “a word of many, too many, meanings.” ’ ” Cheap Escape Co., 

Inc. v. Haddox, L.L.C., 120 Ohio St.3d 493, 2008-Ohio-6323, 900 N.E.2d 601, ¶ 5, 

quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 90, 118 S.Ct. 

1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998), quoting United States v. Vanness, 85 F.3d 661, 663 

(D.C.Cir.1996), fn. 2. It can include “[s]everal distinct concepts, including 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

territorial jurisdiction, monetary jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and subjectmatter jurisdiction,” id., as well as “jurisdiction over a particular case,” Bank of 

Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75, 2014-Ohio-4275, 21 N.E.3d 1040, ¶ 18.

“ ‘The often unspecified use of this polysemic word can lead to confusion and has 

repeatedly required clarification as to which type of “jurisdiction” is applicable in 

various legal analyses.’ ” Ostanek v. Ostanek, 166 Ohio St.3d 1, 2021-Ohio-2319, 

181 N.E.3d 1162, ¶ 20, quoting Kuchta at ¶ 18.

{¶ 21} “Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the constitutional or statutory 

power of a court to adjudicate a particular class or type of case,” Corder v. Ohio 

Edison Co., 162 Ohio St.3d 639, 2020-Ohio-5220, 166 N.E.3d 1180, ¶ 14, and “ ‘[a] 

court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is determined without regard to the rights of the 

individual parties involved in a particular case,’ ” id., quoting Kuchta at ¶ 19. 

“Instead, ‘the focus is on whether the forum itself is competent to hear the 

controversy.’ ” Id. at ¶ 14, quoting State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-

Ohio-2913, 159 N.E.3d 248, ¶ 23.

{¶ 22} On the other hand, “[a] court’s jurisdiction over a particular case 

refers to the court’s authority to proceed or rule on a case that is within the court’s 

subject-matter jurisdiction.” Kuchta at ¶ 19. This reference to a court’s exercise 

of its jurisdiction over a particular case “involves consideration of the rights of the 

parties,” id., citing Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980, 806 

N.E.2d 992, ¶ 12. That is, “ ‘ “[o]nce a tribunal has jurisdiction over both the 

subject matter of an action and the parties to it, ‘* * * the right to hear and determine 

is perfect; and the decision of every question thereafter arising is but the exercise 

of the jurisdiction thus conferred * * *.’ ” ’ ” (Ellipses added in Pizza.) Harper at 

¶ 26, quoting Pratts at ¶ 12, quoting State ex rel. Pizza v. Rayford, 62 Ohio St.3d 

382, 384, 582 N.E.2d 992 (1992), quoting Sheldon’s Lessee v. Newton, 3 Ohio St. 

494, 499 (1854).
January Term, 2022

9

{¶ 23} The Ohio Constitution establishes the subject-matter jurisdiction of 

this court and expressly provides that we have original jurisdiction over actions in

quo warranto, habeas corpus, prohibition, procedendo, practice-of-law matters, and 

relevant here, mandamus. Article IV, Section 2(B)(1) of the Ohio Constitution. 

We therefore have original jurisdiction to review the complaint filed in this case.

{¶ 24} Nonetheless, the separation-of-powers doctrine is “the sacred maxim 

of free government,” Madison, The Federalist No. 47 at 308 (Clinton Rossiter 

Ed.1961), and “the checks and balances that principle ensures are now deemed 

fundamental to our democratic form of government,” State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 109 

Ohio St.3d 364, 2006-Ohio-1825, 848 N.E.2d 472, ¶ 55. But until today, we have 

never held that the separation-of-powers doctrine should be considered when 

determining the subject-matter jurisdiction of courts, and the two cases that the 

majority cites in support of its holding—Grendell and Wapakoneta v. Helpling, 135 

Ohio St. 98, 19 N.E.2d 772 (1939)—say nothing to that effect. In fact, in Helpling, 

the court reached the merits of the relator’s claims, which would not have been 

appropriate if a jurisdictional bar had been applied.

{¶ 25} In any case, it is not necessary to decide whether the separation-ofpowers doctrine, which is implicitly embedded within the framework of the Ohio 

Constitution, see State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, 933 

N.E.2d 753, ¶ 42, deprives this court of subject-matter jurisdiction notwithstanding 

the express grant of original jurisdiction to review mandamus actions set forth in 

Article IV, Section 2(B)(1)(b). That question has not been presented and argued 

by the parties, and we have held that a court of appeals “should not decide cases on 

the basis of a new, unbriefed issue without ‘giv[ing] the parties notice of its 

intention and an opportunity to brief the issue,’ ” (brackets sic) State v. Tate, 140 

Ohio St.3d 442, 2014-Ohio-3667, 19 N.E.3d 888, ¶ 21, quoting State v. 1981 Dodge 

Ram Van, 36 Ohio St.3d 168, 170, 522 N.E.2d 524 (1988). We should not be so 

quick to reach an unbriefed issue ourselves.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10

{¶ 26} For these reasons, I concur in the majority’s judgment but not its 

opinion. And although I recognize the weighty constitutional questions that relators 

have raised, principles of judicial restraint preclude this court from answering them 

today.

_________________

Nathan C. Johnson, pro se.

Tony Louis Deluke III, pro se.

Shannon Paul Barrett, pro se.

Julie Erin Boso, pro se.

Robert J. Becaj Jr., pro se.

Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Garrett M. Anderson and Bryan B. Lee, 

Assistant Attorneys General, for respondents.

_________________