Ohio Supreme Court Case Could Restore Up to $3,000 in COVID Unemployment Aid for 300,000 Residents
More than 300,000 Ohioans could receive as much as $3,000 each, depending on how the state Supreme Court rules on a key dispute over COVID-19 unemployment benefits.
Governor Mike DeWine previously cut off the federal pandemic unemployment program early, a move that prevented Ohio residents from accessing roughly $900 million in additional federal aid.
Why It Matters
During the pandemic, the federal government authorized enhanced unemployment benefits, leaving it to each state to distribute the money to eligible workers.
Lower courts in Ohio have already found that DeWine violated state law when he halted those benefits ahead of schedule. If the state Supreme Court upholds those rulings, thousands of residents could see long-delayed payments finally sent out.
Key Background
An additional $900 million in federal COVID-19 unemployment assistance could be paid to qualifying Ohio residents if the state’s high court agrees with the earlier decisions.
DeWine stopped the supplemental payments 10 weeks before they were set to expire, arguing that the expanded benefits were worsening labor shortages. A Franklin County judge later ordered the state to release the funds in February, and the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling in June.
“Ohioans are seeking restitution after the state’s expanded unemployment benefits program was cut short by Governor DeWine,” Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. “The case reached the state’s Supreme Court after lower courts ruled that the governor may have violated state law by refusing to distribute federal funds designated for those benefits.”
More than 300,000 residents had been slated to continue receiving the extra benefits through September 2021.
According to the plaintiffs, state law required the governor to accept and distribute the federal unemployment funds whenever they were made available, regardless of concerns about the labor market.
“This isn’t really about whether the money helped or hurt the economy back then,” Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of MichaelRyanMoney.com, told Newsweek. “It’s about whether a promise made is a promise kept. Governor DeWine argued the extra $300 weekly discouraged work and tightened labor markets. That’s a policy call. But Ohio law from the 1930s doesn’t give governors wiggle room on that. It mandates accepting federal unemployment dollars.”
What People Are Saying
Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek:
“These benefits would have helped Ohioans keep up with rent and other essential expenses during the COVID-19 shutdowns. While it’s possible to get these payments, unspent Covid-19 dollars were required to be sent back to the federal government, so getting those funds back may be another hurdle. Furthermore, many who needed the aid back then have already faced evictions or defaults that can’t be undone.”
Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek:
“For more than 300,000 Ohio residents, this case is an important one. During the pandemic era, an additional $300 a week was allocated to those receiving unemployment benefits, but the state’s Governor’s decision to end those extra payments early due to labor shortages has been a huge point of controversy in the years since.”
Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of MichaelRyanMoney.com, told Newsweek:
“From a household finance perspective, this case matters less for the retroactive windfall and more for what it says about emergency safety nets. When unemployment benefits get caught in political and legal limbo for years, families learn the hard lesson: You can’t count on the safety net being there when you fall.”
What Happens Next
The Ohio Supreme Court voted, by a near–unanimous margin, to take up the case.
“While many will see this as a case of whether or not money is owed, it’s more on did the governor break the law by halting payments early,” Beene said. “The decision could have long-term effects in future situations where state resources are allocated for specific needs during periods like the pandemic.”
