Skip to main content

Lack of Transparency by the Oklahoma Supreme Court Continues to Amaze


Squirrels hide acorns for the winter by burying them in the dirt. It is somewhat amusing to watch squirrels in Florida engage in this little ritual, since they live in a place where there is no winter coming. It’s just what squirrels do. They are programmed to hide their nuts.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court seems to have a similar modus operandi: the Court’s default is to hide its actions from public view, even when there is no reason to. Allow me to explain.

The Court recently heard a legal challenge to an initiative petition that seeks to change how Oklahoma draws its legislative and congressional districts (spoiler alert for a future post: the redistricting initiative is a terrible idea). The Court scheduled the case for oral argument on January 21 of this year in the ceremonial courtroom in the State Capitol building. 

This may sound routine, but for the Oklahoma Supreme Court, it is notable. Unlike most appellate courts in the country, the Oklahoma Supreme Court very rarely grants oral argument, instead choosing (for no apparent reason) to deprive itself of the benefit of rigorous adversarial debate on the issues it decides, and the litigants of the opportunity to persuade.

Appellate oral argument, like most court proceedings in the United States, is almost always open to the public. I attended this particular oral argument, and the courtroom was full of reporters, supporters and opponents of the redistricting initiative, lawyers, and other curious members of the public. In the courtroom was a large TV screen facing the audience that provided real-time closed-captioning of the proceedings. A court reporter was transcribing the argument session to produce the closed-captioning.

Notably, the Supreme Court elected to live-stream the oral argument on its website, the Oklahoma Supreme Court Network (OSCN). Though this online broadcast was not well-advertised, I took it as a positive development, nonetheless. The Court has livestreamed previous sessions, but does not do so regularly. It is unclear what criteria the Court uses to determine whether it will broadcast its sessions, but given what we know about Oklahoma’s Court, it would be shocking if they had any criteria at all.

So we should celebrate, right? Not so fast.

The next day, I sat down to pen a quick post explaining the issues argued the day before. I wanted to highlight a particular exchange between the justices and one of the attorneys, but I needed to make sure I had the arguments exactly right and wasn’t misquoting anyone or remembering incorrectly. I checked OSCN, but the video was nowhere to be found.

Since the video had already been made public, I assumed this was a technical issue or the video was pulled down so as not to clutter up the OSCN website. So I called the IT Department at the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to request a copy. I was told someone would get back to me.

The next day, I received an email from an AOC employee notifying me that “the Court has issued an order stating that the court reporter was present for the sole purpose of providing real-time closed captioning, and no official transcript or recording of the oral arguments will be available.”

I was surprised to learn the Court had issued an order of this nature, not only because I had checked the case page on OSCN right before calling to request the video and saw no such order, but also because this would be a highly unusual thing for the Court to do unprompted. I’ve never seen such an order issued out of the blue from a Court. I pulled up the case, and sure enough, there was the order.

Now, I cannot say for certain that my request to the IT Department made its way up through the ranks of AOC and prompted the Chief Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court to issue an order denying access. But the timing does seem awfully, shall we say, serendipitous.

If there is a reason for the Court to refuse to provide a recording (1) it clearly already has on file, (2) of a public session, (3) that the requestor personally attended and therefore has already seen the content, and (4) was broadcast online for all the world to see, I would love to hear it.

I find this incredible. It displays an attitude towards the public worse than dismissive—it’s insulting. 

More importantly, it is revealing. If it looks like a squirrel, and buries nuts like a squirrel, it’s probably a squirrel. In this case, apparently a squirrel of the Florida variety.

We have a Court that:
In so doing, the Court countenances the violation of attorneys’ First Amendment rights, who are forced to fund the Bar Association’s political activities even when they disagree with the Bar’s party line. It just so happens that the primary political activity pursued by the Bar is to entrench its own (and the Supreme Court’s) power by protecting the faulty selection process that put the justices on the Court in the first place. When they are sued for this unconstitutional activity, they claim they are completely immune from lawsuits by virtue of their position of prestige.

These are not the hallmarks of the American court system. They are the characteristics of a Star Chamber.

Powerful, secretive, unaccountable entities do not reform themselves. 

Legislature, your move.

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

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

Muddy, Shallow Thinking Versus Clarity in Education Reform

Monopolies are the best! If we are to gain maximum efficiency and create the greatest value for people, monopoly is the way to go. Competition creates administrative inefficiency since instead of one set of managers, there are as many as there are companies, and all of them cost money. Competitive companies make products that do the same basic things, but waste resources by making products with different features. Standardized products would save money. Were research and development under one roof, instead of many competitive ones, researchers could coordinate more closely, saving money and ultimately being even more innovative. Monopolies would therefore benefit everyone. Everything in the first paragraph is, of course, balderdash . Monopolies, especially those created by government, stifle innovation, develop bloated management, produce too little at low quality, and charge too much. Why? Because they can. They’re monopolists. Without competition and with nearly guaranteed ...
Read more

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

Oklahoma Is OK, but Seriously, That’s Not OK

The Americans at the table, negotiating a business deal, ask one of their number, “You can speak Dutch?” He replies, “I’m OK.” With his fellow Americans looking doubtful, he proceeds to mistranslate what they want him to say to their Dutch counterparts. The “OK” translator tells the Dutch that the Americans really need a hug, when he was supposed to tell them they really need the deal. With that, the AT&T commercial ends as one of the Dutch negotiators gives an American a hug with the announcer saying, “When just OK is not OK.” There are several of these commercials, each with a different scenario, in which, indeed, just OK is not OK. And every time I see one of these commercials I think of the license plates that were once so common – “ Oklahoma is OK. ” As someone who works to develop policy suggestions intended to make Oklahoma better, and hopefully, the best that Oklahoma can be, it often seems that slogan – Oklahoma is OK – gets in the way. The fact is, in most r...
Read more

The Unfairness of Concentrated Wealth is NOTHING Compared to the Unfairness of Redistributing It

Socialist types like to accuse rich corporate types of having “too much” wealth. Simple fairness, they claim, dictates that one person should not have so much when so many have so little. But if we’re going to talk about fairness, let’s really give it fair consideration. That means looking beyond the petty jealousy and thinking about the fairness of seizing wealth from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not.   How did the wealthy get that way? The socialist types claim that the greedy capitalists exploit their workers and their consumers. Is that true? Let’s start with the workers. Jeff Bezos may be greedy. I wouldn’t know, I’ve never met him. But I did work for him - in fact I hired other people to work for him. So I can say with reasonable certainty that he hasn’t created his enormous wealth by exploiting his workers. They were all there voluntarily.   Before attending law school, I spent several months working for the temp agency that hires seasonal workers ...
Read more