Reagan Tokes Law upheld by the Supreme Court of Ohio

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — A challenge to the Reagan Tokes Law, which allows for offenders who break the law or other rules behind bars to be held up to their maximum prison term, has been shot down by the Supreme Court of Ohio.

The law is named after Reagan Tokes, a 21-year-old Ohio State student who was abducted, raped, and killed in February 2017 by Ohio parolee Brian Golsby.

In 2018, Gov. John Kasich signed the Reagan Tokes Act into law, which requires judges to set a minimum and maximum prison term for those convicted of first- and second-degree felonies.

Wednesday's decision involved the cases of two Ohio prisoners, Christopher Hacker and Danan Simmons Jr., who were both sentenced under the new law in December 2019. The pair argued that because the law allows the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (DRC) to extend the minimum sentence if it finds the inmate is a continued threat to society, it violates the separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches, with the DRC acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury.

The Court voted 5-2, to uphold the law, agreeing that the Regan Tokes Law does not violate the constitutional rights of inmates. The majority opinion was written by Justice Joseph T. Deters, who was joined by Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, and Melody Stewart.

"Both Hacker and Simmons provide hypothetical situations in which an offender’s incarceration may be maintained beyond the minimum prison term for committing a minor infraction," Deters wrote in the opinion. "But while such situations—if they do occur—may show that the Reagan Tokes Law is vague as applied, they do not satisfy the requirement in a facial challenge that the law be unconstitutional in all circumstances."

Deters followed up by stating the prisoners' arguments were not sufficient to overturn the law.

"The fact that the law 'might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances is insufficient to render it wholly invalid,'" Deters added.

The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Jennifer Brunner who was joined by Justice Michael P. Donnelly.

While Justice Brunner stated that she agreed with "several of the majority’s determinations in its analysis," the prisoners' arguments would ultimately lead her to invalidate the entire law.

"I part ways with the majority in that I do not agree with its conclusions about procedural due process," Brunner wrote. "The procedures created by the RTL are insufficient in light of the gravity of the decision being made—whether to release a person from prison on his or her presumptive release date. This imbalance facially violates offenders’ right to due process and is unconstitutional."