In Ohio, a quiet legislative move is stirring a loud constitutional debate. House Bill 265 (H.B. 265), signed into law by Governor Mike DeWine on January 8, 2025, and set to take effect April 9, 2025, promises to tighten the screws on so-called “vexatious litigators”—individuals accused of clogging courts with frivolous lawsuits. But beneath its surface lies a deeper question: Does this law protect the public good, or does it chip away at the bedrock of individual rights? At The Exposer, we’re peeling back the layers of H.B. 265 to reveal its stakes, its critics, and the legal fight brewing in its wake.

This isn’t just about one bill or one person—it’s about the balance between governmental authority and the freedoms Ohioans hold dear. From retroactive restrictions to public records lockdowns, H.B. 265 is a flashpoint that could redefine access to justice and transparency. Let’s dive in.

The Genesis: What is H.B. 265, and Why Now?

H.B. 265, sponsored by Representatives Scott Wiggam and Thomas Hall, sailed through the Ohio General Assembly with unanimous votes—89-0 in the House, 30-0 in the Senate—before landing on DeWine’s desk. Part of a flurry of bills signed on January 8, 2025, it amends Ohio’s vexatious litigator statute (R.C. 2323.52) and Public Records Law (R.C. 149.43). Its stated goal? To shield courts and public officials from abuse while streamlining records disputes. Supporters argue it’s a long-overdue fix for a system strained by persistent litigators.

Key changes include:

Public Records Barriers: Vexatious litigators can no longer request public records without court leave and a specific judicial order (R.C. 2323.52(J)(1)). Public offices can ignore such requests until these conditions are met.

Mandatory Mediation: Before suing over a public records denial, aggrieved parties must file a complaint with the responsible office and wait three business days for a resolution (R.C. 149.43(C)(1))—a delay critics call a roadblock to justice.

Retroactive Reach: The law applies its new rules to existing vexatious litigator designations, meaning past rulings suddenly carry heavier burdens.

On paper, it’s a practical tweak. But dig deeper, and H.B. 265 reveals a tension between efficiency and liberty—one that’s now spilling into Ohio’s courts.

A Case in Point: The Mandamus Challenge

Take, for example, a recent filing in the Tenth Appellate District Court of Appeals. A Defiance resident, designated a vexatious litigator in 2022 by the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, has launched a Complaint for Writ of Mandamus against Governor DeWine. The relator—acting pro se—argues that H.B. 265’s provisions violate the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions, seeking to compel DeWine to halt enforcement of what they deem unconstitutional restrictions. This case, filed under R.C. 2731.01, isn’t just a personal grievance; it’s a test of H.B. 265’s legal footing.

The relator’s 2022 designation came after a default judgment in Case No. 2022-CV-0282, where the court found their legal filings “habitual, persistent, and without reasonable grounds.” H.B. 265 now layers on new limits, prompting a five-count constitutional challenge:

Retroactivity: Ohio’s Constitution (Article II, Section 28) bans retroactive laws that impair vested rights without clear intent. Does H.B. 265’s backward application cross this line?

Due Process: The Fourteenth Amendment and Ohio’s Article I, Section 16 guarantee court access. Can mandatory delays and records restrictions coexist with this right?

First Amendment: The right to petition, upheld in cases like Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB (1983), includes public records access. Is H.B. 265’s lockdown a step too far?

Vagueness: The “reasonable cause to believe” standard for ID demands (R.C. 2323.52(J)(2)) risks arbitrary enforcement—does it pass muster under Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972)?

Equal Protection: By targeting vexatious litigators, does H.B. 265 deny equal access without a rational basis, violating the Fourteenth Amendment and Ohio’s Article I, Section 2?

This mandamus action isn’t alone in questioning H.B. 265—it’s a signal of broader unease about where Ohio’s laws are headed.

The Broader Canvas: Who’s Affected?

H.B. 265 doesn’t just impact one litigant—it touches anyone labeled “vexatious” under R.C. 2323.52, a statute that’s long divided opinion. Designed to curb frivolous suits, it defines vexatious conduct as filings that “harass or maliciously injure” or lack legal grounding. Courts have upheld it before (think Mayer v. Bristow, 2000), but H.B. 265’s expansions—like barring public records requests—push into uncharted territory.

Beyond litigators, the law reshapes public records access for all Ohioans. The three-day mediation rule could slow down journalists, watchdog groups, and citizens seeking transparency. Exemptions for public service workers’ schedules and redaction forms (R.C. 149.43(A)(1)) aim to protect privacy but shrink the pool of accessible information. And for incarcerated individuals, statutory damages and certain records are now off-limits entirely—another layer of exclusion.

Proponents say it’s about efficiency: courts save time, officials dodge harassment, and taxpayers foot less of the bill. Critics, though, see a chilling effect—a system where dissenters, labeled as nuisances, lose their voice.

The Constitutional Crossroads: Efficiency vs. Rights

At its core, H.B. 265 forces a reckoning: How much can Ohio sacrifice rights for order? The Ohio Legislative Service Commission’s Final Analysis frames it as a shield for public servants, citing protections like redacted addresses for former designated workers. Yet, the retroactive clause raises eyebrows—can a 2025 law fairly reshape a 2022 ruling? Legal minds point to Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1988), which demands explicit intent for retroactive laws affecting substantive rights. H.B. 265’s silence on this front could be its Achilles’ heel.

Then there’s the First Amendment angle. Public records are a lifeline to government accountability—cut that off, and you stifle the right to petition. Add due process concerns (think Boddie v. Connecticut, 1971) and equal protection questions (Romer v. Evans, 1996), and H.B. 265 starts to look like a legal tightrope. Will courts see it as a balanced reform or an overreach?

What’s Next: A Fight to Watch

The mandamus case against DeWine is just the opening salvo. As of March 04, 2025, the Tenth Appellate District has yet to rule on the relator’s motion for leave—a hurdle vexatious litigators must clear under R.C. 2323.52(F)(2). If granted, the constitutional claims could climb to the Ohio Supreme Court or even ping federal radar if federal rights take center stage. DeWine, tasked with “faithfully executing” laws (Ohio Constitution, Article III, Section 6), faces a paradox: What if the law itself is flawed?

For Ohioans, this is more than a courtroom drama—it’s a litmus test. Will H.B. 265 solidify the state’s grip on litigious outliers, or will it crack under scrutiny? At The Exposer, we’re tracking every twist. This bill could ripple nationwide, influencing how states balance judicial efficiency with individual freedoms.

Final Reflections: Your Stake in the Game

H.B. 265 isn’t abstract—it’s about who gets heard and who gets silenced. At The Exposer, we’re here to shine a light on these shadows, asking the tough questions. Is this law a shield for the public or a gag on the persistent? Should retroactive rules rewrite past promises? Share your take in the comments below, and subscribe for updates as this saga unfolds. Ohio’s future—and maybe yours—could hinge on what happens next.