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

Lies We Tell in Government, and Our Debts to Truth

HBO’s mini-series,  Chernobyl ,  is a drama depicting  the disastrous  1986  explosion ,  and  hero ic efforts to control the  resulting  meltdown ,  of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine  (then part of the Soviet Union ).  A flawed man, but true hero,  Valery  Alexeyvich   Legasov , worked tirelessly to ameliorate the disaster’s consequences and  chiefly  investigated its cause. He was  Deputy Director of the  Kurchatov  Institute of Atomic Energ y , a Soviet elite, who  is portrayed at the end of  the  series making a dramatic speech at a trial about how the nuclear reactor exploded, when  such an explosion in that type of reactor  should not have been possible. In the course of the series, the audience  learns  that the reactor had a design flaw that had been covered up by the Soviet State (true).  The audience also learns  that...
Read more

When It Comes to the Cox Center, “What if I Get to Meet a Movie Star?” Isn’t Good Enough

In a recent   post , 1889 Institute expounded on the fiduciary duty of elected officials “to act in the best interest of the people of the state as a whole,” a “high duty, executed as a public trust … wherein one puts the people’s interest above one’s own.” This fiduciary duty must not stop with elected officials. Once an elected body or an elected official – the legislature, a city council, the governor, or a mayor – has taken final action, the faithful implementation of each enacted law, policy, or program falls to an army of bureaucrats. Thus, a fiduciary duty to execute laws and policies with diligence and integrity, tantamount to that of elected officials, must extend to government employees. Recently, I had a few moments to sit down and watch a show with my children. Unsurprisingly, my son picked a series entitled “The Stinky and Dirty Show.” I was naturally skeptical that the show would yield any real value. However, as I watched, I found myself pleasantly surprised. Each ep...
Read more

Present Reforms to Keep the Ghost of State Questions Past from Creating Future Headaches

Oklahoma, like many western states, allows its citizens to directly participate in the democratic process through citizen initiatives and referendums. In a referendum, the legislature directs a question to the people — usually to modify the state constitution, since the legislature can change statutes itself. An initiative requires no legislative involvement, but is initiated by the people via signature gathering, and can be used to modify statute or amend the constitution. Collectively, the initiatives and referendums that make it onto the ballot are known as State Questions.   Recently, there have been calls to make it more difficult to amend the constitution. At least two proposals are being discussed. One would diversify the signature requirement by demanding that a proportional amount of signatures come from each region of the state. The other would require a sixty percent majority to adopt a constitutional amendment rather than the fifty percent plus one currently in place. ...
Read more

AG Hunter Lowers Boom on Barrier to Entry; Legislature Should Follow His Lead

Even as the Oklahoma Supreme Court  struck down  a recent alcohol distribution law, the Attorney General paved the way for the state’s Alcoholic Beverage Law Enforcement Commission (ABLE) to remove an obstacle from the expansion of liquor store competition - finding that Oklahoma’s five-year in-state residency requirement before one can own a liquor store likely runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution and recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent.  The AG’s  opinion , issued at the end of December, informs the state’s alcohol commission that portions of the state constitution (Article 28A, Section 4(A) & (B)) are unenforceable. These provisions require that ABLE issue a Retail Spirits License or Wine and Spirits Wholesaler License only to someone who has been a resident of Oklahoma for the previous five years. Presumably ABLE, who requested the opinion, will now begin issuing licenses to otherwise qualified applicants regardless of how long they have lived in Okl...
Read more