## Facts

- In 2014, Toledo’s municipal water supply became undrinkable for several days due to toxin contamination linked to Lake Erie pollution.
- Toledo residents pursued a charter amendment known as the Lake Erie Bill of Rights (LEBOR) through a petition campaign and special election.
- In February 2019, voters approved LEBOR, and it became part of the Toledo City Charter in March 2019.
- LEBOR declared that Lake Erie and the Lake Erie watershed possess rights “to exist, flourish, and naturally evolve,” and that Toledo residents have a right to a “clean and healthy environment.”
- LEBOR authorized enforcement actions by Toledo residents against corporations and governments for violating these rights, purported to nullify conflicting city, state, or federal law, and sought to deny certain legal rights to corporate violators.
- Drewes Farms Partnership, a farming operation in counties near Toledo within the Lake Erie watershed, alleged it used fertilizer consistent with state and federal requirements but faced a credible risk of suit or enforcement under LEBOR’s broad terms.
- Drewes Farms filed a federal action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; the State of Ohio intervened, asserting conflict with Ohio’s regulatory regime.
- The court entered an agreed preliminary injunction preventing enforcement while the case proceeded.
- Plaintiffs moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c); the City opposed on standing and merits grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether Drewes Farms had Article III standing based on a credible threat of liability or enforcement under LEBOR.
2. Whether the State of Ohio had standing to challenge LEBOR based on its sovereign interest in the continued enforceability and uniform application of state law.
3. Whether LEBOR was unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause for failure to provide ascertainable standards of prohibited conduct and enforceable criteria.
4. Whether LEBOR exceeded municipal authority by attempting to nullify or override state and federal law and by regulating beyond local boundaries (including the broader watershed).
5. Whether any invalid provisions could be severed or whether LEBOR had to be invalidated in full.

## Decision

- The court held that Drewes Farms had standing because LEBOR’s breadth and enforcement mechanism created a credible threat of suit or liability traceable to the City’s enactment and redressable by declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The court held that Ohio had standing because LEBOR directly conflicted with and purported to supersede the State’s regulatory regime, impairing the State’s sovereign interests.
- The court declared LEBOR void for vagueness because its central terms (e.g., rights to “flourish” and a “clean and healthy environment”) lacked definitions and enforceable standards, forcing regulated parties and enforcers to guess at the law’s requirements.
- The court concluded LEBOR exceeded Toledo’s authority by purporting to invalidate state and federal permits and laws, strip rights from corporations, and regulate matters extending beyond the City, including the entire Lake Erie watershed.
- The court found the defects nonseverable because the vague rights-creating provisions and supremacy/nullification features were central and intertwined with LEBOR’s purpose.
- The court granted judgment on the pleadings for plaintiffs, declared LEBOR invalid in its entirety, and permanently enjoined its enforcement.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff may establish Article III injury-in-fact by showing a credible threat of enforcement or liability from a challenged law, even before an enforcement action is brought.
- A state may have standing to challenge a local enactment that impairs the state’s sovereign interest in the enforceability and uniform operation of its statutes and regulatory programs.
- Due process prohibits laws so vague that persons of ordinary intelligence must guess at their meaning or that lack standards sufficient to constrain enforcement discretion.
- Municipal home-rule authority does not permit a city to nullify or supersede general state laws or federal law, nor to negate rights protected under state or federal constitutional frameworks.
- Severability is unavailable where invalid provisions are central to the enactment and removing them would require rewriting the measure rather than excising discrete, independent parts.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Toledo’s Lake Erie Bill of Rights in full, holding that its core environmental rights provisions were unconstitutionally vague and that its attempt to override state and federal law and regulate beyond municipal limits exceeded the City’s authority, warranting permanent injunctive relief.


Drewes Farms P’ship v. City of Toledo, 441 F. Supp. 3d 551 (N.D. Ohio 2020)