A significant legal battle over the enforceability of Ohio’s controversial “heartbeat ban” on abortions has reached a pivotal point. On January 7, 2026, the Court of Appeals for the First Appellate District of Ohio delivered a mixed ruling in a case involving several reproductive health organizations challenging state officials over the constitutionality of Senate Bill 23 (S.B. 23). The plaintiffs, including Preterm-Cleveland and Planned Parenthood affiliates, had initially secured an injunction against the law, arguing it violated constitutional rights.
The complaint was filed by Preterm-Cleveland and other reproductive health entities in Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas against David Yost, Attorney General of Ohio, among others. The plaintiffs argued that S.B. 23’s core provision—prohibiting abortions after detecting fetal cardiac activity—was unconstitutional under Ohio’s newly amended constitution, which guarantees reproductive freedom until fetal viability.
The court’s decision affirmed parts of the trial court’s judgment while reversing others. Specifically, it upheld the injunction against enforcing R.C. 2919.195—the so-called “six-week ban”—but found fault with how the lower court handled other provisions within S.B. 23. The appellate court determined that the trial court had erred by declaring numerous unchallenged provisions unconstitutional without proper basis and misapplied severability principles.
Preterm-Cleveland and its co-plaintiffs had argued that S.B. 23 infringed upon their ability to provide abortion services legally protected under Ohio’s constitution following its amendment in response to changing federal precedents on abortion rights. The State conceded that R.C. 2919.195 was unconstitutional but contended that other provisions should remain enforceable.
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to prevent enforcement of S.B. 23 in its entirety, claiming interconnectedness between its various sections rendered them inseparable from the central unconstitutional provision. However, the appellate court found this approach flawed as it did not align with established legal standards for severability analysis.
In terms of relief sought, Preterm-Cleveland aimed for judicial protection against what they perceived as unlawful enforcement actions by state officials under an invalid statute framework, seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief to safeguard constitutional rights related to reproductive healthcare.
Representing Preterm-Cleveland were attorneys from ACLU of Ohio Foundation and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP among others; defending were representatives from Ohio Attorney General’s office including Mathura J. Sridharan and Stephen P. Carney. The case was presided over by Judge Crouse with Judges Kinsley and Bock concurring in part with dissent on specific legal interpretations related to severability issues under Case ID C-240668.
Source: 2026Ohio23_Preterm_Cleveland_v_Yost_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf