Justia Oklahoma Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

NonDoc Media and William W. Savage III submitted open records requests to the University of Oklahoma seeking two reports prepared by the law firm Jones Day. The reports resulted from investigations into allegations of misreporting alumni donor data and possible sexual misconduct involving high-ranking University officials. Jones Day was retained under an attorney-client relationship, and the reports included confidential interviews and legal analysis. Portions of the reports were provided to law enforcement under joint-interest agreements and excerpts of the sexual misconduct report were shared with the parties involved pursuant to Title IX protocols.The District Court of Cleveland County conducted an in camera review of both reports. It granted summary judgment in favor of the University, finding the documents protected by attorney-client privilege. The court also found that the reports were exempt under the Open Records Act’s personnel record exemption, and that the sexual misconduct report was further protected by work-product and informer privileges. The court did not find that the University had waived any of these protections, and rejected NonDoc’s arguments to the contrary. NonDoc appealed, and the Supreme Court of Oklahoma retained the case.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the summary judgment de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the attorney-client privilege protects the reports from disclosure, and clarified that the privilege does not expire when the underlying investigation or action concludes. The court also found that the University did not waive the privilege by sharing the reports with law enforcement under joint-interest agreements or by limited disclosure required by law. Summary judgment for the University was affirmed. View "NONDOC MEDIA v. STATE Ex Rel. BOARD OF REGENTS of the UNIV. of OKLAHOMA" on Justia Law

After Oklahoma entered into a Master Settlement Agreement with the tobacco industry in 1998, the state created the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund (TSET) through a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2000. TSET was established to manage and disburse funds from the settlement for health-related programs, especially those targeting tobacco prevention and cessation. The TSET Board of Directors was designed to be independent, with seven members appointed by various state officials for staggered, fixed seven-year terms, ensuring geographic and political diversity and preventing control by any single authority.During the 2025 legislative session, the Oklahoma Legislature passed HB 2783, amending the statute governing the TSET Board. The new law allowed directors to serve at the pleasure of their appointing authority, subject to a maximum seven-year term, effectively converting the Board members’ tenure from fixed terms to at-will appointments. TSET challenged this amendment, claiming it violated the Oklahoma Constitution’s requirement for fixed seven-year terms.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case in its original jurisdiction because of its statewide importance and the need for a prompt decision. The Court found the constitutional language in Article X, Section 40(D) to be clear and unambiguous, requiring staggered, fixed seven-year terms for TSET directors with no provision for at-will removal. The Court held that HB 2783 was unconstitutional because it conflicted with the constitutional mandate for fixed terms and undermined the independence of the Board. Accordingly, the Court granted declaratory relief, invalidating HB 2783. View "TOBACCO SETTLEMENT ENDOWMENT TRUST FUND v. STITT" on Justia Law

A group of Oklahoma taxpayers, parents of public school children, teachers, and clergy challenged the adoption of the 2025 Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies. They argued that the new standards promoted Christianity over other religions, required teaching religious stories as historical fact, and included instructions to question the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential Election and the origins of COVID-19. The petitioners claimed these standards violated state statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution, and their rights as parents and citizens. They further alleged that the procedure used to adopt the standards violated the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, as the public and several Board members received the final version less than twenty-four hours before the Board meeting where the standards were approved.No lower court reviewed this case prior to the current proceeding. The petitioners brought their claims directly to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma by seeking original jurisdiction, requesting declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief, and a stay of enforcement. The Supreme Court previously issued a temporary stay to prevent the implementation of the 2025 Standards while considering the matter.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma assumed original jurisdiction due to the statewide importance and urgency of the controversy. The Court held that the 2025 Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies were adopted in violation of the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, specifically because the public and Board members did not receive proper notice of the content to be considered and acted upon. The Court determined that legislative “deemed approval” did not cure this procedural violation. As a result, the Court declared the 2025 Standards unenforceable, dissolved the earlier stay, and reinstated the 2019 standards until new standards are properly adopted and reviewed. The request for mandamus relief was withheld without prejudice. View "RANDALL v. FIELDS" on Justia Law

The case involves a request made by an individual to the Oklahoma State Department of Health for correspondence related to the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically seeking email records sent to the Governor’s office. The requester asked for digital copies, expressing a preference for receiving the records by email. The Department produced over 11,000 pages of email correspondence in PDF format, but the requester argued that this was insufficient because the PDFs did not contain the embedded metadata present in the emails’ native file format (such as PST files from Microsoft Outlook), which he believed was necessary for fully understanding the records.After initially filing for declaratory and injunctive relief in the District Court of Oklahoma County, the Department responded by providing records in PDF format and, later, some in native format. The Department moved for summary judgment, contending that the Oklahoma Open Records Act (ORA) did not require production in native file format. The District Court agreed, granting summary judgment for the Department and finding substantial compliance with the ORA. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that the Department was required to provide records in their native format if it had the capability to do so. The Department then sought review from the Oklahoma Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma held that the ORA does not require a public body to provide copies of email records in their native file format containing embedded metadata. The Court found the statute’s language clear, interpreting “data files” not to include metadata, and concluded that the Act does not obligate agencies to provide records in any specific format, so long as reasonable access is provided. The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion and affirmed the District Court’s order. View "BROOKE v. REED" on Justia Law

A bail bondsman requested records from a county jail operated by a public trust after an incident involving his ex-wife at the facility. Specifically, he sought audio and video footage, communications, jail policies and procedures, and a list of employees working during a certain time frame, citing the Oklahoma Open Records Act (ORA). The jail trust denied most of the requests, asserting that as a "law enforcement agency" under the ORA, it had discretion to withhold the records except for certain mandatory disclosures.The District Court of LeFlore County granted summary judgment to the jail trust, agreeing with its argument that it qualified as a "law enforcement agency" under the ORA. The court thus found the trust had discretion to withhold the requested records and was not required to provide them to the requester.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the matter de novo and focused on whether the jail trust fit the statutory definition of a "law enforcement agency" under 51 O.S.2022, § 24A.3(5). The court concluded that, although the trust was a "public body," it was not "charged with enforcing state or local criminal laws and initiating criminal prosecutions" as required by the statute. The court emphasized that the trust merely operated the jail and was not responsible for enforcing laws or initiating prosecutions. As a result, the court held that the jail trust does not qualify as a "law enforcement agency" under the ORA. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma reversed the district court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "LAWSON v. LeFLORE CO. DETENTION CENTER PUBLIC TRUST SECURITY COMM." on Justia Law

Several agency heads in Oklahoma were appointed by the Governor to serve concurrently as Cabinet Secretaries. After these appointments, a state senator requested an opinion from the Attorney General regarding whether individuals could simultaneously hold multiple state offices. The Attorney General issued an opinion concluding that Cabinet Secretaries are not exempt from Oklahoma’s prohibition against holding dual office and, therefore, agency heads could not also serve as Cabinet Secretaries without violating state law.Governor Stitt then sought declaratory relief in the Oklahoma County District Court. After a hearing, the district court ruled in favor of the Attorney General, finding that Cabinet Secretaries are subject to the prohibition against holding dual office under Title 51, Section 6. The court reasoned that the expanded authority granted to Cabinet Secretaries, including the power to veto administrative rules, made them officers under Oklahoma law. As a result, the court concluded that agency heads serving as Cabinet Secretaries were unlawfully holding two offices. The district court also determined that Title 74, Section 10.3 did not create an express exception to the dual office prohibition. Governor Stitt appealed, and the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma retained the case.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma held that Title 74, Section 10.3 expressly authorizes agency heads to serve concurrently as Cabinet Secretaries, notwithstanding the general prohibition against holding dual office in Title 51, Section 6. The Court found that the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, and that both statutes can be read together without conflict. The district court’s order was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to enter a declaratory judgment consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. View "STITT V. DRUMMOND" on Justia Law

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

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 Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E) and CKenergy Electric Cooperative, Inc. (CKenergy) regarding the provision of retail electric service to two facilities located in CKenergy's certified territory. OG&E began providing service to these facilities in 2017 and 2018, respectively. CKenergy filed an application with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (the Commission) in 2019, requesting that OG&E be enjoined from continuing to serve the facilities, arguing that OG&E was in violation of the Retail Energy Supplier Certified Territory Act (RESCTA). OG&E contended that it was allowed to serve the facilities under the one megawatt exception of RESCTA.The Commission found that the connected load for initial full operation did not meet or exceed 1,000 kW at either facility and enjoined OG&E from providing service. OG&E appealed the Commission's order. The Commission also issued an order granting OG&E's request for a stay upon posting a supersedeas bond, which CKenergy and the Oklahoma Association of Electric Cooperatives (OAEC) appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case de novo. The Court held that the term "connected load for initial full operation" in the one megawatt exception of RESCTA refers to the total nameplate values of all connected electrical equipment when full operation of the facility commences. The Court found that the Commission's interpretation ignored the plain language of the statute and was not sustained by law. It was undisputed that the connected load for each facility exceeded 1,000 kW when full operation commenced. Therefore, the one megawatt exception applied, and the Commission improperly enjoined OG&E from providing service. The Court reversed the Commission's order and deemed the appeal regarding the stay moot. View "OG&E Co. v. OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION" on Justia Law

The Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority (OCCJA) filed a petition in the District Court of Oklahoma County seeking a writ of mandamus and an injunction against the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) to prevent unannounced jail inspections and an administrative proceeding based on an Administrative Compliance Order. The OCCJA argued that the OSDH exceeded its authority by demanding unannounced access for inspections and issuing compliance orders sooner than the statutory 60-day correction period. The OCCJA also contended that the statutes and administrative rules did not authorize unannounced inspections and that such inspections were unreasonable due to staffing and safety concerns.The District Court for Oklahoma County, presided over by Judge C. Brent Dishman, granted the OSDH's motion to dismiss in part, finding that the OSDH had statutory authority to perform unannounced inspections. The OCCJA appealed this decision. Concurrently, the OSDH filed an application in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma to assume original jurisdiction and sought a writ of mandamus/prohibition and declaratory relief against the OCCJA. The Supreme Court denied the OSDH's application to assume original jurisdiction in No. 122,524 and recast the OCCJA's appeal in No. 122,775 into an application to assume original jurisdiction and petition for a writ of prohibition.The Supreme Court of Oklahoma assumed original jurisdiction in No. 122,775 on the single issue of whether the OSDH has the authority to perform unannounced jail inspections. The Court concluded that the OSDH does have such authority, as unannounced inspections are a reasonable means to ensure compliance with legislative jail standards. The Court found that the District Court's interlocutory order was not contrary to law or an abuse of discretion and denied the OCCJA's petition for a writ of prohibition. View "Oklahoma State Department of Health v Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority" on Justia Law