COLUMBUS, Ohio — The upcoming November elections in Ohio could significantly influence the enforcement of the state’s voter-approved abortion rights amendment, with a critical state Supreme Court race potentially shaping future decisions on reproductive healthcare and transgender rights.
Ohio voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2023 establishing protection for reproductive freedom, which includes access to abortion up to fetal viability. However, existing restrictions are subject to ongoing legal challenges that could eventually reach the Ohio Supreme Court, where Republicans currently hold a six-to-one majority.
The court’s sole Democratic justice, Jennifer Brunner, is seeking re-election against a Republican challenger in the November 2026 election. Should Justice Brunner not retain her seat, the court’s composition could shift to entirely Republican-held, a change that could affect how the amendment is interpreted in future cases, according to WOWO reporting.
Rachel Rebouché, a law professor specializing in reproductive health, noted in an Ohio Capital Journal commentary that state Supreme Court elections merit increased attention. This is due to state courts playing an increasingly vital role in determining the scope of abortion access after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade. That federal ruling eliminated constitutional protection for abortion and shifted the legal debate primarily to the states.
Ohio’s amendment explicitly guarantees the right to make and carry out personal reproductive decisions. This includes choices related to contraception, fertility treatment, continuing a pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion. It generally prohibits the state from interfering with these decisions, though it permits restrictions after fetal viability if necessary to protect a pregnant patient’s life or health, as determined by the patient’s treating physician.
Currently, lower courts are reviewing whether certain existing restrictions align with the amendment. These include Ohio’s 24-hour waiting period for abortion services and its prohibition on telehealth prescribing for medication abortion. The Ohio Supreme Court may ultimately decide these disputes.
Professor Rebouché suggested that a court with a more conservative ideology might interpret the amendment narrowly, potentially allowing more restrictions to remain in effect. This is her assessment of possible legal outcomes, not a definitive court ruling.
The Ohio Supreme Court is also poised to play a significant role in upcoming cases concerning gender-affirming healthcare for transgender minors. Ohio lawmakers enacted a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors, overriding Republican Gov. Mike DeWine’s veto. In 2025, a state appeals court struck down this law. However, the legal dispute could advance through further appeals, potentially reaching the state's highest court, according to WOWO reporting.
Adding to the legal landscape, the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti found that Tennessee’s restrictions on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors did not constitute sex discrimination under the federal Constitution. This ruling makes it easier for states with similar laws to defend them against certain constitutional challenges, though it neither mandates such restrictions nor resolves all legal questions regarding gender-affirming care.
Ohio is among several states where judicial elections could influence these sensitive issues. WOWO reports that Montana, North Carolina, and Michigan also have Supreme Court races scheduled for this year, with potential impacts on abortion rights and transgender healthcare.
In Montana, for example, the state Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that the state constitution protects abortion rights and that specific restrictions on advanced practice registered nurses performing abortions were unconstitutional. This year’s judicial elections could shift the court’s ideological balance. North Carolina’s Supreme Court has a conservative majority, and the re-election bid of Democratic Justice Anita Earls could further cement Republican-backed control if she loses. Michigan presents a different situation, with justices backed by Democrats holding a six-to-one majority on its officially nonpartisan Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh and Justice Noah Hood up for re-election. Michigan voters also approved an abortion rights amendment in 2022, and its state Supreme Court has since dismissed abortion-related challenges.
Across the nation, the implications of these judicial elections extend beyond abortion access. State Supreme Courts are increasingly determining the extent of state constitutional protections for reproductive healthcare and the boundaries of legislative power to restrict medical treatment for transgender individuals.
For Ohio, the fundamental question centers on how the 2023 amendment will be applied to specific restrictions that are already in place. While voters approved the constitutional protection, judges will ultimately decide how its language operates in legal contexts. Professor Rebouché argued that the November election could affect the scope of those future rulings, highlighting the significance of the Ohio Supreme Court race, even if judicial candidates often receive less public attention than other ballot contests.
