Skip to main content

Stopping a Judicial Power Grab Before it Upends Oklahoma

A case is pending at the Oklahoma Supreme Court that will have lasting consequences for governance of the state. You wouldn’t know it from the way the case has been reported, but at stake is a principle no less fundamental than whether Oklahomans will continue to be in charge of their government or whether it will be the other way around. That’s the argument of the amicus brief I filed in the case last week (joined by law professor Andy Spiropoulos and the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs).

According to the Plaintiff (Oklahoma’s Attorney General), State of Oklahoma v. Johnson & Johnson, et al. is about the costs the state has and will incur as a result of the abuse of opioid drugs. He filed a lawsuit against the manufacturers of these legal drugs, claiming that they created a “public nuisance” in the state. All the defendants settled except one, and after a bench trial (no jury), a Cleveland County judge levied a $465 million judgment against J&J to “abate” the public nuisance.

This case isn’t really about opioids, though. It’s about much more fundamental principles like the separation of powers and self-government. Here’s how.

The Attorney General asked for, and the trial judge ordered, an “Abatement Plan” that is materially indistinguishable from a bill one might see enacted during a session of the Oklahoma Legislature. In substance, the trial court’s judgment (1) identifies a broad, complex societal problem facing the state, (2) levies a tax on the industry alleged to have contributed to the problem (or that is in the best financial position to weather the tax), and (3) appropriates the proceeds of the tax to a cornucopia of government agencies and programs in an attempt to ameliorate the problem.

The term for this is “legislating.” But courts and attorneys general aren’t supposed to legislate. That’s what legislatures are for.

Like the federal constitution and all other state constitutions, Oklahoma’s constitution requires policymaking be done by the elected legislature. Outside of the governor’s power to approve or veto legislation, the Constitution gives executive branch officers like the Attorney General no role in the lawmaking process. Even administrative rulemaking is permitted only to the extent the legislature authorizes it, and stays within the confines of the Constitution.

The courts are purposely shielded from the messy legislative process, not only because they are ill-suited to lawmaking, but also to preserve their independence from the hurly burly of politics. Courts decide particularized controversies between individual litigants, making them necessarily limited to the facts relevant to a case as presented to them by the interested parties. This will leave many issues important to the public out of the calculus, increasing the (already steep) odds of unintended consequences when sweeping policy is imposed.

Legislatures, on the other hand, have expansive fact-finding capabilities that can reach far beyond the narrow interests advanced by the parties to a discrete lawsuit. They are elected, lobbied, engage in open debate, and are held accountable to the people who will live under their laws. Legislatures, then, can take a comprehensive view of societal challenges, taking into account the interests of the broad society. When courts are dragged into the policymaking process by lawsuits seeking to regulate entire industries, the judiciary is damaged. And when courts assent to being dragged in, like the court in Norman did, they ought to be reversed on appeal.

The court’s judgment construes Oklahoma’s public nuisance statute so broadly as to leave no limits to future policymaking by litigation. Permitting lawsuits that attempt to comprehensively resolve complex societal challenges, like the opioid epidemic, allows litigants to inject courts into what is—and should be—a democratic policymaking task. Allowing Oklahoma’s public nuisance statute to be weaponized into a catchall vehicle for involving courts in matters the Constitution commits to the elected legislature undermines the separation of powers in Oklahoma government, lacks democratic legitimacy, results in poorly-crafted public policy, and invites ever more policymaking by litigation.

In fact, it already has. Apparently the novel strategy the Attorney General pursued in the opioid case—stretching Oklahoma’s public nuisance law beyond all recognition to achieve policy goals—has inspired would-be social engineers to try their hand at lawmaking by litigation. 

Earlier this year, a lawsuit was filed in Tulsa seeking to abate the “public nuisance” of the last 100 years of race relations in the city. The plaintiffs in that case—African-American citizens and two nonprofits in Tulsa—seek redress in the courts for no less than the entire racial history of the city, including everything from decades of alleged discrimination in housing and economic development policy to failures by public officials to adequately atone for (universally acknowledged as horrific) racial violence that occurred in 1921. 

In effect, the plaintiffs in that suit seek to put society on trial—in a court of law—to remedy historical racism and what they conclude are its modern-day aftereffects. As in need of redress as this history may be, it is obviously a question for politics, not the adversarial system. The plaintiffs in that case were no doubt inspired by—and saw the opportunity for success only after—witnessing what was done to the defendants in the opioid case.

Many people despise pharmaceutical companies in general, and opioid manufacturers in particular. That’s fine (although, I wonder how many of the pharma-haters out there will be lining up for the Covid-19 vaccine Johnson & Johnson is in the late stages of FDA approval for). But this case goes well beyond the two parties involved. If the Oklahoma Supreme Court goes the wrong way on this, the result will not just be to strike a blow at the hated Big Pharma, it will be a blow at your own ability to influence how your state is governed.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will recognize the high stakes. With our amicus brief in the court record, the justices won’t be able to claim ignorance.

-Benjamin Lepak is Legal Fellow at the 1889 Institute. He can be reached at

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

Dear GT Bynum, Let the Children Play

I live close to a large City of Tulsa park that has a golf course, walking trail, green spaces, and a couple of playgrounds. My (almost) three-year old son loves the playgrounds, and often begs us during walks in our neighborhood to detour to “for-chun” (LaFortune Park). This seemingly innocent request can become a hassle when we don’t really have time, but we indulge him as much as possible. It’s good for kids to play outside, especially with other kids they might not otherwise come into contact with. But sometimes we have to contend with an upset toddler who doesn’t understand why we can’t go to the playground right this minute. I’m not complaining, every parent of young kids deals with similar stuff. But during the COVID lockdown, we’ve had to contend with an altogether different LaFortune Park situation with our son. As part of the mayor’s shelter-in-place overkill, all city-owned playgrounds were closed “ indefinitely .” This wasn’t a guideline or suggestion, the city meant busine

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 episod

COVID Inspires Tyranny for the "Good" of Its Victims

The Christian philosopher, C.S. Lewis, once said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." The moral busybodies C.S Lewis warns of reminds me of those who would have Americans give up their liberty to combat COVID-19.   A recent Oklahoman op-ed compared COVID-19 to World War II, stating that the number of deaths from COVID-19 is approaching the number that died fighting for this country and the freedoms it protects. This comparison is, of course, nonsense. This suggests that a virus with a high survivability rate is an equivalent threat to the Nazi and Japanese regimes that brutally murdered millions. The piece uses wartime rationing of meat and cheese, a sacrifice necessary to ensure men on the front lines had adequate nutrition, to justify Americans accepting counterproductive lockdowns in exchange for additional stimulus c

The High Duty of Elected Officials and Ways They Fall Short

With an election just completed (the alleged voting, anyway), a legislative session coming up, constant talk of spending to offset the impacts of COVID-19, and elected officials trying to mandate our way out of a disease, the duty of elected officials in their official positions is worth considering. The 1889 Institute recently published a booklet for state lawmakers that discusses various issues and possible solutions. Included in that booklet is a short discussion of the central duty of elected officials, which is expanded here. What is the central, over-arching duty of an individual after having been elected to public office? Public oaths of office give a strong hint, and the Oklahoma Constitution is a good place to start. Article XV includes the oath of office, which states that an Oklahoma public official swears to “support, obey, and defend” the constitutions of the nation and the state, that the official will not take bribes, and that the official will discharge duties as best