From: tjlodge50@PROTECTED
<1749523158097blob.jpg>
June 9, 2025
TO: All Ohio Representatives and Ohio Senators RE: Request to deny passage of HB 1/SB 88 Via email only
To all members of the Ohio House and Ohio Senate: The undersigned organizations, representing hundreds of Ohio voters, oppose the HB 1/SB 88 for many reasons. The General Assembly is wasting its time legislating xenophobic laws that are clearly unconstitutional and ultimately will harm the interests of Ohioans. House Bill 1/Senate Bill 88, as written, is overly broad, constitutionally questionable, and would discriminate against people who are simply trying to live, work, and contribute positively to life in Ohio. While purportedly the bill would protect people and entities who are supposedly associated with “foreign adversaries” from owning property within 25 miles of military installations or critical infrastructure, but truly, it would punish immigrants, international students, small business owners and families. HB 1/SB 88 is an illegal “bill of attainder.” A bill of attainder is legislation that imposes punishment on a specific person or group of people without a judicial trial. See, e.g., Nixon v. Adm’r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 468 (1977). The U.S. Constitution bans enactment of bills of attainder by either the U.S. Congress or state legislatures. U.S. Const. Art. I. Sect. 9, Cl. 3. The U.S. Supreme Court first relied on the clause against state bills of attainder in a Reconstruction-era case, Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277 (1866), which involved a post-Civil War amendment to the Missouri constitution that required persons engaged in certain professions to swear an oath that they had never been disloyal to the United States. The Court held that the purpose and effect of the challenged provision was to punish people who had been disloyal to the United States by permanently barring them from professions which required an oath of loyalty to the U.S. The Court invalidated the provision as an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Id. at 325-329.
Moreover, this proposal would violate several provisions of the Ohio Constitution. Article I, § 1 of the Ohio Constitution classifies as an “inalienable right” the acts of “acquiring, possessing, and protecting property. . . .” HB 1/SB 88 would thus violate the property rights of targeted Ohioans. Also, Article I, § 2 states that “[g]overnment is instituted for [the people’s] equal protection and benefit,” and the bill would treat people unequally. In addition, Article I, § 16 prohibits deprivation of property without due course of law through the courts. The provisions forcing targeted Ohioans to sell their real estate within a fixed period of time are confiscatory. Related to that, the thwarting of property ownership by “foreign adversaries” would breach Ohio’s eminent domain provision at Article I, § 19, which requires that when private property is taken in time of “public exigency,” that “a compensation shall be made to the owner, in money.” Finally, HB 1/SB 88 closely resembles Florida's Senate Bill 264, enacted in 2023, which sought to restrict property ownership by individuals from certain countries, including China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and others. This law was immediately challenged. In February 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted a preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of the law against two Chinese nationals who were in the process of purchasing property. Shen v. Simpson, No. 4:23-cv-208-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla. 2023), appeal docketed, No. 23-12737 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2023) (Order granting motion for injunction pending appeal, Feb. 1, 2024). The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the Florida law was preempted by the federal Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA), which grants the federal government authority over foreign investment in the U.S. The Court of Appeals noted that the law could violate Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection by discriminating based on national origin.
This bill is patently unfair and flatly violates both the U.S. and Ohio constitutions. Please let it die in committee and put a halt to any further bigoted political grandstanding.
Sincerely,
/s/ Terry J. Lodge Terry J. Lodge, Esq. Co-Convenor, Northwest Ohio Peace Coalition
/s/ Mary S. Kuehn Mary S. Kuehn Co-Convenor, Northwest Ohio Peace Coalition
/s/ Khani Begum Khani Begum Convenor, Peace Alliance of Bowling Green
/s/ Josie Setzler Josie Setzler People for Peace and Justice Sandusky County | |
|---|
|
|---|
|
<1749523158097blob.jpg>
