A state attorney asked the Ohio Supreme Court to dismiss Trumbull County Domestic Relations/Juvenile Division Court Judge David L. Engler’s lawsuit seeking to stop abortions in Ohio for “numerous reasons,” including that he had no legal right to file it.

In a Monday response, Julie Pfeiffer, an assistant attorney general, wrote Engler’s April 14 petition for a writ of mandamus should be dismissed because the judge “lacks standing because he has not alleged an injury that is fairly traceable to the conduct of any of the respondent.”

Engler, a pro-life Republican, filed the lawsuit contending the 2023 constitutional amendment legalizing abortions eliminates guardrails for minors — specifically removing parental consent as well as effectively removing a state law that gives juvenile court judges, such as himself, the authority to grant abortions to those under 18 years of age if petitioned through a judicial-bypass hearing. Engler argues that people weren’t aware that minors could obtain abortions without parental or judicial consent when they voted on it.

The lawsuit was filed against Attorney General Dave Yost, Secretary of State Frank LaRose — both Republicans who oppose abortion — and the Ohio Ballot Board, which approves ballot language for statewide constitutional amendments.

Engler’s lawsuit sought “to stop the enforcement of the abortion amendment until the language can be corrected and voted on again.”

Pfeiffer listed four other reasons Monday why the court should dismiss the case, including the court lacking “jurisdiction over claims for declaratory and injunctive relief” which Engler seeks, Engler doesn’t have any clear legal right to judicial-bypass hearings — and if he does, the constitutional amendment “prevails over any conflicting statute,” “any claim related to the ballot language for the amendment is untimely,” and the required affidavit he filed doesn’t comply with the high court’s rules of practice.

Pfeiffer wrote: “For the foregoing reasons, respondents respectfully urge this court to grant their motion to dismiss (Engler’s) petition for a writ of mandamus.”

In the Nov. 7, 2023, election, 57% of voters backed the abortion rights constitutional amendment.

The ballot language, which is now law, reads: “Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on: contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care and abortion.”

Pfeiffer wrote that Engler doesn’t have standing to bring the case because he “fails to adequately allege that he has suffered any injury as a result of the adoption of” the abortion amendment. She wrote even if Engler could “adequately allege a cognizable injury, he has failed to allege that any such purported injury is fairly traceable to the conduct of the respondents. Nor could he. None of the respondents have any enforcement authority over the provision of the” abortion law.

Pfeiffer wrote that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of Engler’s supposed mandamus claim when it is actually a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief.

Pfeiffer contends Engler’s claim fails as a matter of law because he “cannot establish that he has a clear legal right to the continued exercise of judicial power over judicial-bypass proceedings.

Pfeiffer wrote that Engler “is simply mistaken as his claims rest on the erroneous assumption that a constitutional amendment cannot prevail over a statutory grant of jurisdiction to Ohio’s juvenile courts.”

She wrote that Engler’s claim “also rests upon the mistaken assumption that the voters who adopted (the amendment) were required to have been ‘informed’ that its adoption ‘would eliminate judicial-bypass proceeding or strip juvenile courts of jurisdiction’ and the failure to so inform constitutes ‘a material omission.'”

Pfeiffer said Engler’s claim the ballot language was misleading is “untimely and should be dismissed” as it was filed two-and-a-half years after voters approved it.

Pfeiffer pointed to the state Constitution, which states the Ohio Supreme Court has “exclusive, original jurisdiction in all cases challenging the adoption or submission of a proposed constitutional amendment to the electors. No such case challenging the ballot language, the explanation or the action so or procedures of the General Assembly in adopting and submitting a constitutional amendment shall be filed later than 64 days before the election.”

Also, Pfeiffer wrote Engler submitted an incomplete affidavit because it didn’t specify the details of the claim.

Engler, elected to the Trumbull bench in the November 2024 election, unsuccessfully ran in last week’s Republican primary for a seat on the 11th District Court of Appeals. Willoughby Municipal Court Judge Marisa L. Cornachio received 51.16% of the vote to 48.84% for Engler.

Meanwhile, the ACLU of Ohio and the Reproductive Rights Law Initiative at Case Western Reserve University of Law on Monday submitted a motion to file a friend-of-the-court brief in the case arguing Engler lacks standing and that his challenge is meritless.

Maggie Scotece, staff attorney at the Reproductive Rights Law Initiative, said: “This case is yet another example of Ohio elected officials putting their own political careers and personal interests ahead of the will of Ohioans and the clear dictates of the law. Ohioans deserve better and Ohio courts should not be burdened with frivolous claims such as this one.”

When Engler filed the petition for a writ, he said: “My lawsuit asks the Ohio Supreme Court to stop the enforcement of the abortion amendment until the language can be corrected and voted on again. Parents have always had the right to know and the right to protect their children. Judicial-bypass hearings have been a safeguard for decades. Eliminating both parental consent and judicial oversight leaves minors unprotected.”

Engler wants the state’s high court to correct the “unintended consequences of the amendment’s enforcement.”