Justia Oklahoma Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioners, resident taxpayers and registered voters in Oklahoma County, challenged the constitutionality of Senate Bill 632, which sought to create business court divisions within the district courts of Oklahoma County and Tulsa County. The Act provided for the appointment of business court judges by the Governor, with confirmation by the Senate and candidate lists supplied by the Speaker of the House. It also set forth qualifications, terms, salaries, and operational details for these judges and courts. Petitioners argued that the Act violated their constitutional rights, particularly the right to elect district judges, and would result in the unlawful expenditure of public funds.Prior to review by the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, the Honorable Lonnie Paxton and Kyle Hilbert, legislative leaders named as respondents, moved for dismissal based on legislative immunity, which the court granted. The Governor, the remaining respondent, moved to dismiss the case, arguing he was not a proper party. The court denied this motion, finding the Governor’s role in appointing business court judges central to the dispute. The Oklahoma Association for Justice filed an amicus brief supporting Petitioners. The court assumed original jurisdiction, issued a temporary stay of the Act’s effectiveness, and heard oral arguments.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma held that Petitioners had standing as both taxpayers and voters. The court found Senate Bill 632 unconstitutional because it violated Article VII, Section 9 of the Oklahoma Constitution by circumventing the requirement that district judges be elected by voters. The court further determined that the unconstitutional provisions were not severable from the rest of the Act, rendering the entire Act void and unenforceable. The petition for declaratory relief was granted, and the temporary stay remained in effect pending any rehearing. View "White v. Stitt" on Justia Law

A group of proponents filed an initiative petition seeking to repeal the existing constitutional provision governing Oklahoma’s primary elections and replace it with a new system. The proposed amendment would establish an “open primary” for certain state and federal offices, where all candidates appear on the same ballot regardless of party, and any qualified voter may vote for any candidate. The two candidates with the most votes would advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation or endorsement. The ballot would display each candidate’s party registration or independent status, with a disclaimer clarifying that such registration does not imply party nomination or endorsement. The measure would not affect elections for presidential electors, municipal, judicial, or school board offices.After the petition was filed with the Secretary of State, the Oklahoma Republican Party and another petitioner protested its legal sufficiency before the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. They argued that the initiative was facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, claiming it infringed on the right of political association and failed strict scrutiny. They also asserted that the gist and ballot title were misleading, particularly in their use of the term “open primary” and in the explanation of changes to general elections.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the petition. Applying its standard of review, the court found no clear or manifest facial constitutional infirmity, holding that the proposed system did not impose a severe burden on associational rights under relevant U.S. Supreme Court precedents. The court determined that the gist was not misleading, as it adequately described the practical effect of the measure. The challenge to the ballot title was deemed premature, as statutory procedure requires such review after the signature-gathering phase. The court held that the initiative petition was legally sufficient for circulation and signature gathering. View "IN RE INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 448, STATE QUESTION NO. 836: THE OKLAHOMA REPUBLICAN PARTY v. SETTER" on Justia Law

The Governor of Oklahoma issued an executive order requiring all full-time employees of state agencies to return to in-person work, with limited exceptions. A member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives challenged this order, arguing that it improperly created new law and usurped legislative authority. The legislator sought a declaratory judgment to invalidate the order and an injunction to prevent its enforcement, claiming the order encroached on the legislature’s exclusive authority over personnel policy.The case was first heard in the District Court of Oklahoma County. The Governor moved to dismiss, arguing that the legislator lacked standing because he did not suffer a direct, concrete injury from the executive order, which applied only to executive branch employees and not to legislators or their staff. The district court agreed, finding that the legislator failed to establish a sufficient personal stake or injury in fact, and dismissed the case.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Supreme Court held that the legislator did not meet the threshold requirements for standing, as he was not directly affected by the executive order, nor did the order impact his legislative votes or participation. The Court distinguished this case from prior precedent where a legislator’s vote was directly at issue. The Supreme Court concluded that the legislator failed to demonstrate an actual, concrete injury and that the executive order did not usurp legislative power. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that the legislator lacked standing to challenge the executive order. View "Fugate v. Stitt" on Justia Law

Fred Hodara filed a lawsuit against the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC) for alleged violations of the Open Records Act, seeking access to records related to the drugs used in executions. Initially, the DOC claimed it had no responsive records, but later provided some documents, albeit heavily redacted. Hodara sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the DOC's refusal to provide the requested material was unlawful. The DOC moved to dismiss the case, citing a statutory exemption under Title 22, Section 1015(B), which was later amended in 2024 to broaden the scope of confidentiality.The district court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment due to unresolved factual disputes. However, after the statutory amendment, the DOC filed a second motion to dismiss, which the court granted, concluding that the amended statute precluded Hodara's Open Records Act claim. Hodara appealed the dismissal, challenging the retroactive application and constitutionality of the amended statute.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case de novo, focusing on the October 4, 2024, order. The court found that the 2024 amendment to Section 1015(B) did not create a new confidentiality privilege but clarified the existing one. The court held that the amendment could be applied retroactively and did not violate the Oklahoma Constitution. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the DOC's refusal to provide the requested records was lawful under the amended statute. View "HODARA v. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to Oklahoma's H.B. 1775, which prohibits mandatory gender or sexual diversity training and restricts the teaching of certain concepts related to race and sex in public schools and higher education institutions. Plaintiffs, including the Black Emergency Response Team and other organizations, argue that the law is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, claiming it is vague, overbroad, and imposes viewpoint-based restrictions.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma reviewed the case and certified several questions of state law to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The district court granted in part and denied in part motions from both plaintiffs and defendants, enjoining certain provisions of the law as unconstitutionally vague. Specifically, the court enjoined the enforcement of the second sentence of § 24-157(A)(1) and parts of § 24-157(B)(1).The Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed the certified questions, determining that the term "requirement" in § 24-157(A)(1) pertains only to orientation requirements and does not apply to classes, courses, or curricular speech. The court declined to answer the remaining certified questions related to § 24-157(B)(1), stating that the terms and phrases in question could be interpreted using their common, ordinary meanings and that the federal court could undertake this task. The court also noted that answering these questions would not avoid or alter the constitutional challenge to the statute and could result in an advisory opinion. View "BLACK EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM v. DRUMMOND" on Justia Law

The State of Oklahoma moved to terminate a mother's parental rights due to her methamphetamine addiction and failure to provide a stable environment for her child. The child was placed in emergency custody in May 2022, and the mother entered and left multiple inpatient treatment programs without completing them. The State filed a motion to terminate her parental rights in April 2023, and a jury trial was set for August 2023. The mother failed to appear for the trial, and her attorney requested a continuance, which was denied. The trial court held a nonjury trial and terminated her parental rights.The mother appealed the decision, and the Court of Civil Appeals, Division III, affirmed the trial court's ruling. The mother argued that the statute allowing the trial court to deem her failure to appear as a waiver of her right to a jury trial was unconstitutional. The Court of Civil Appeals did not substantively address this constitutional claim.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and found that the statute in question is constitutional. However, the court emphasized that due process requires that the record must reflect that the parent received notice of the possible consequences of failing to appear for the jury trial. The court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the mother had received sufficient notice. The trial court is to hold the hearing within 30 days and submit findings of fact and conclusions of law to the Supreme Court within 15 days after the hearing. View "IN THE MATTER OF FB v STATE OF OKLAHOMA" on Justia Law

In the spring of 2018, People's Electric Cooperative and Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E) submitted competing bids to provide retail electric service to the Tall Oak Woodford Cryo Plant in Coal County, Oklahoma. The Plant is located in People's certified territory, which grants them exclusive rights to provide electricity under the Retail Electric Supplier Certified Territory Act (RESCTA). OG&E's proposal relied on the Large Load exception to RESCTA, which allows a supplier to extend its service into another supplier's territory for large-load customers. OG&E used third-party transmission facilities to provide service to the Plant without extending its own distribution lines.The Oklahoma Corporation Commission enjoined OG&E from serving the Plant, finding that OG&E was not "extending its service" as authorized by RESCTA. The Commission determined that a retail electric supplier may not use third-party transmission lines to extend its service into another supplier's certified territory under the Large Load exception. OG&E appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and upheld the Commission's determination. The Court held that Article 9, Section 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution requires a limited review of the Commission's order. The Court affirmed the Commission's interpretation that the Large Load exception does not permit a supplier to use third-party transmission lines to extend its service into another supplier's certified territory. The Court's decision applies prospectively only and does not affect existing retail electric services and facilities established under the Large Load exception. View "OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. v. STATE" on Justia Law

Kelly Patrick Donaldson was convicted of second-degree rape in 2005 and became subject to the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA). At that time, SORA did not prohibit sex offenders from residing near parks. The Oklahoma Legislature later amended the law to prohibit sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a city park. In 2021, Donaldson sought to live in El Reno, Oklahoma, but was informed by the police that the property he intended to purchase was within 310 feet of a city park, violating the amended residency restrictions.The District Court of Canadian County granted summary judgment in favor of Donaldson, ruling that applying the 2019 residency restrictions to him violated the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state constitutions. The court found that the version of SORA in effect at the time of Donaldson's conviction should apply, which did not include the park residency restriction.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and reversed the lower court's decision. The court held that the residency restrictions in 57 O.S.Supp.2019, § 590(A) do not amount to punishment and therefore do not violate the ex post facto clause. The court determined that the legislative intent behind SORA was civil and regulatory, aimed at protecting the public and reducing recidivism, rather than punitive. Consequently, the current residency restrictions apply to all sex offenders, regardless of when they became subject to SORA. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Lake El Reno qualifies as a park under the statute and if the property in question falls within the restricted area. View "DONALDSON v. CITY OF EL RENO" on Justia Law

The State of Oklahoma sought to terminate the parental rights of Albert Parker, the natural father of J.O., a child who is a member of the Choctaw Nation. Parker was unaware of his paternity until genetic testing confirmed it in June 2022. The State filed a petition alleging that J.O. was deprived while in the mother's care, and the child was adjudicated deprived. Parker, who was incarcerated, had limited contact with J.O. and had not established a relationship with the child. The trial court terminated Parker's parental rights after a jury trial.The Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial, finding that Parker's due process rights were violated and that the State was not required to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requirements. Both Parker and the State petitioned for certiorari review, which was granted.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and found that Parker's due process rights were indeed violated when the trial continued without his presence after his video feed was disconnected. The court also determined that the ICWA requirements apply in this case, regardless of whether Parker had a prior relationship with J.O. The court vacated the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, reversed the trial court's decision, and remanded the case for a new trial, ensuring compliance with ICWA and OICWA provisions. View "In re J.O." on Justia Law

The Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, on behalf of the state, sought a writ of mandamus and declaratory relief against the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board and its members. The state argued that the board's contract with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, a religious charter school, violated state and federal law and was unconstitutional. The state contended that the contract violated the Oklahoma Constitution, which mandates that all charter schools be nonsectarian in their programs, admission policies, and other operations. The state also argued that the contract violated the federal Establishment Clause, which prohibits the state from using public money for the establishment of a religious institution.The Charter School Board had approved St. Isidore's application to become an Oklahoma virtual charter school and later approved its contract for sponsorship. The contract recognized certain rights, exemptions, or entitlements applicable to St. Isidore as a religious organization under state and federal law. The contract also stated that St. Isidore had the right to freely exercise its religious beliefs and practices consistent with its religious protections.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma assumed original jurisdiction over the case. The court found that the contract violated the Oklahoma Constitution, the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, and the federal Establishment Clause. The court held that St. Isidore, as a public charter school, was a governmental entity and a state actor. The court also held that the contract violated the Establishment Clause because it allowed for the use of state funds for the benefit and support of the Catholic church and required students to participate in religious curriculum and activities. The court granted the extraordinary and declaratory relief sought by the state and directed the Charter School Board to rescind its contract with St. Isidore. View "DRUMMOND v. OKLAHOMA STATEWIDE VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD" on Justia Law