COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The Ohio Supreme Court on Tuesday not only ended a challenge to the constitutionality of legislation creating JobsOhio but also gave few details about who could rightly challenge it.

The court ruled 5-2 that ProgressOhio, Democratic state Sen. Michael Skindell of Lakewood and former Democratic state Rep. Dennis Murray do not have standing -- the legal right to pursue its claim in court -- to bring an action against the legislation that created JobsOhio.

The suit, filed by ProgressOhio in 2011, contends that the law that set up JobsOhio and sends state liquor profits to the nonprofit corporation violates the Ohio Constitution. But the case never went to trial. A lower court ruling dismissed the action, saying ProgressOhio did not have standing.

For its Supreme Court appeal, ProgressOhio asserted standing under several provisions, including the public-right doctrine, taxpayer status and the Declaratory Judgment Act. But the majority of justices said the group waived its right to sue as taxpayers and under the Declaratory Judgment Act because they did not make those claims in the lower court hearings.

ProgressOhio's executive director, Brian Rothenberg, said Tuesday the decision will limit who protects taxpayers from unconstitutional legislation. Rothenberg said fiscal conservatives and constitutionalists will regret this decision the most in the future.

"What [this decision] means is through legal schemes and crafty lawyering, public money can be sent into unaccountable venues and not challenged at all," Rothenberg said.

But Justice Judith French, writing for the majority, said injured parties who have standing can still challenge JobsOhio's constitutionality.

"We do not hold, and the parties do not suggest, that no person could ever have standing to challenge JobsOhio," French wrote. "A proper party—i.e., one with legal standing—may unquestionably contest the constitutionality of JobsOhio. As to that proper party, the courthouse doors remain open."

Will the ruling prevent other activist groups from challenging state laws in court? Or was the court right to reject ProgressOhio's claim? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.