Skip to main content

Our Black-Robed Legislators on the Oklahoma Supreme Court


When the nine lawyers on the Oklahoma Supreme Court meet to hear a case, no legislation is safe. That's because the justices on the Supreme Court regularly act as though they are lawmakers instead of judges.

My most recent paper, Legislators in Black Robes: Unelected Lawmaking by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, explains how the justices achieve this lawmaking. 

When the justices decide their mission is to take out a law, they weaponize otherwise mundane provisions of the state constitution (the single subject rule and the ban on special laws, for example) to strike the law down. If that tool is too blunt of an instrument for their purpose, they declare a law “ambiguous” and go about re-writing it from the bench. They justify the re-writing as an attempt to conjure the “intent” of the statute, regardless of what the actual words on the page say. If the law the justices want to strike down isn’t ripe for review, no problem. The Court has invented a concept called “public interest standing,” which allows the justices to hear virtually any case they desire so long as it concerns a “matter of great importance.”

These are not the actions of a properly functioning judicial branch. These are the tactics of political actors who want to substitute their own policy preferences for those of the people elected by the public to make policy. It’s disheartening to see such disregard for the separation of powers from people who went to law school and swore an oath to uphold the Oklahoma Constitution.

Oklahoma’s particular flavor of judicial activism is worse than the type we see in the federal courts because the Oklahoma Constitution dictates far more judicial restraint than does the federal constitution. Where the US Constitution gives Congress very limited powers (making federal courts more justified in striking down legislative enactments), the Oklahoma Constitution allows the legislature to pass any law not specifically forbidden by the state or federal constitution (meaning the state courts should very rarely invalidate the legislature’s enactments).

Worse still, the Oklahoma Supreme Court appears to consistently favor a connected group that has a financial and professional interest in the Court’s rulings. Trial lawyers—despite comprising less than one percent of Oklahoma’s population—have captured the process for selecting justices for the Supreme Court. Unsurprisingly, the Court consistently rules in a manner that expands liability, favoring trial lawyers.

Which brings us to the heart of the problem, and gives us a clue as to a solution. Oklahoma will never be a Top Ten state until we replace judges beholden to trial lawyers with neutral jurists who will simply apply the law. And we will not break the trial bar’s grip on the courts until we change our method of selecting judges and justices. Getting rid of the Judicial Nominating Commission will require a constitutional amendment, but one that is long overdue. We just need some state leaders with enough courage to take the reins and get the job done.

Benjamin Lepak is Legal Fellow at the 1889 Institute. He can be reached at blepak@1889institute.org.

Popular posts from this blog

The Problem of Diffuse Costs and Concentrated Benefits

Do you ever find yourself observing a seemingly illogical government program , spending decision, or other strange practice and ask “how is it that no one has fixed that?” If you are like me, you encounter this phenomenon regularly. This often takes the form of a curious headline (Save Federal Funding for the Cowboy Poets!) that most people see and can’t believe is real. I would like to suggest that this phenomenon often results from the problem of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. To understand this concept, consider a hypothetical law that assessed a $1 tax on everyone in the United States with the proceeds to be given to one individual for unrestricted use as he sees fit. The people harmed by such a law—the individual taxpayers—will not be very motivated to spend the time and effort to convince Congress to change the law. They might resent the dollar taken from them for a silly cause they don’t support, but the lost dollar isn’t worth the trouble of doing something about i...
Read more

If Data Is Supposed to Be Our Guide, the Great Coronavirus Shutdown of 2020 Should End

According to the most widely cited model projecting the course of the coronavirus outbreak, today is supposed to be Oklahoma’s peak in daily deaths. Now is a good time to go back to the beginning of the Great Coronavirus Shutdown of 2020, review the goal of our policy, and assess our current status. If our policy should be “data-driven,” as we are constantly told, then let’s actually look at the data and determine our next policy steps accordingly. Spoiler alert: according to the terms set out by those advocating for the shutdown policy, the policy’s continuance is no longer justified. The stated goal of the shutdown policy was to “flatten the curve” so as to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed with COVID patients. The fear was that the virus would spread so fast that at its peak, the number of cases would exceed the overall capacity of the healthcare system. If that peak could be stretched out over a longer period of time, lives would be saved. This concept was il...
Read more

Even If Pandemic Models Were Right, Were Covid Lockdowns Wrong?

1889 has been quite critical of pandemic modeling that government officials have relied on for their Covid-19 response. We have also criticized shutdown orders in light of flaws in the models. But let’s assume for a moment that the worst predictions really would have come true if nothing was done. Even in those worst case scenarios, it’s fair to ask if our governments did the right thing. Were involuntary shutdowns justified, or would people have found a way to both limit the contagion and maintain some level of productivity? Was putting healthy citizens under house arrest acceptable even if they were willing to risk infection?   While large groups of people are often compared to herd animals, we are not sheep. We don’t behave like animals. We can, have, and will step up when our communities are in danger. When government and journalists give incomplete or false information, people will act irrationally. Depending on the situation, some will blindly follow the first aut...
Read more

Why Does Oklahoma License Polygraph Examiners?

Should polygraph examiners be licensed? In Oklahoma, a license is required to work as a polygraph examiner (a professional who applies lie-detector tests), and it is not at all obvious why. Generally, an occupation is licensed if it is obviously in the public’s interest to prevent potential bad actors from practicing. So, for example, it is argued that doctors must be licensed because, otherwise, some idiot might open a hospital in his garage and really hurt someone. And it is argued that accountants must be licensed because, otherwise, some college-dropout might offer to do accounting for an unsuspecting mom-and-pop shop, tell them their numbers look great (when, in fact, they don’t), and cause them to go bankrupt. In short, occupational licensing is supposed to either (1) prevent real, tangible harm, or (2) assure customers that their service-provider is trustworthy. However, interestingly, licensing polygraph examiners does not accomplish either of those goals because polygraph e...
Read more