Over the past two weeks, courts made a pair of rulings regarding two of Oklahoma’s most controversial education policies: HB 1775 and Oklahoma’s latest social studies standards.
HB 1775, a 2021 law that proponents say limits discrimination and opponents say limits academic freedom regarding race and gender, has been litigated for years. On June 17, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued answers to questions from a federal judge. Both proponents and opponents of the law declared it a victory.
More recently, Oklahoma’s social studies standards garnered national attention after quiet changes called for students to “identify discrepancies in 2020 election results.” Now, a district judge has dismissed attorney Mike Hunter’s challenge to the standards, although the former attorney general said he plans to appeal.
Meanwhile, have a little sympathy for the Turnpike Troubadours, if they really are working on the Illinois River on a long hot summer day: The river is still full of chicken scratch 20 years after a lawsuit against poultry companies began.
For more information on these items and much more, read the legal roundup below.
Oklahoma Supreme Court rules on its portion of HB 1775 litigation
Nearly 10 months after being asked, the Oklahoma Supreme Court answered three questions this month posed to justices by a federal judge but declined to answer three more relating to years-long litigation over the state’s controversial HB 1775.
The law, which supporters say bans “critical race theory” in college and grade school classrooms, does not mention the academic theory in its text. Rather, its original language passed in 2021 bans teaching that “any individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously,” that “any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex” or that “meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.”
Parts of the law have been enjoined — or paused pending the legal challenge — since June 2024, when the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma issued an injunction against some of the sweeping law but allowed other elements to stand. Additionally, Judge Charles Goodwin sent six certified questions to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, asking justices to rule on questions of state law that had arisen during the litigation.
With Justice James Winchester writing for the majority, the court answered three of those questions, finding that the Legislature only has the power to regulate the content of college orientations but not the content of “classes, courses, or curricular speech.”
The court declined to answer three other questions that asked for clarification on what the law specifically requires of K-12 schools.
Vice Chief Justice Dana Kuehn concurred in part and dissented in part, saying the court should not have answered any of the questions.
Justice M. John Kane also concurred in part and dissented in part, saying only, “I would answer all of the federal questions presented in this case.”
Both supporters and opponents of HB 1775 claimed victory in press releases June 17.
“I am grateful that the state Supreme Court has unanimously recognized and agreed with my office’s longstanding and common sense interpretation of the Legislature’s language in this bill,” said Attorney General Gentner Drummond. “The ACLU’s position here has never been plausible and is now rightly rejected.”
But the ACLU also praised the court’s ruling, calling it a “win for academic speech.”
“Almost four years since the initial filing, students and professors at Oklahoma’s universities and colleges have a clear answer: HB 1775 does not apply in Oklahoma’s higher education classrooms,” said Adam Hines, a legal fellow at the ACLU of Oklahoma. “For far too long our educators have felt the impact of HB 1775 and its attempt to censor discussions about race and gender in the classroom. But this answer for higher education is only half the battle. Parts of HB 1775 remain in effect in K-12 schools, and we will continue to fight for the rights of Oklahoma’s K-12 students and families to receive an equitable education where they can freely learn and talk about the history, experiences and viewpoints of all marginalized communities in this country.”
Justice Richard Darby recused from the proceedings. Justice Travis Jett, the court’s newest appointee, was disqualified from participating.
District judge dismisses lawsuit against Walters’ social studies standards
After weeks of anticipation regarding the civil lawsuit opposing the implementation of state-approved social studies standards, Oklahoma County District Judge Brent Dishman made two June 13 rulings — denying plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and granting various motions to dismiss the case.
The following Monday, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters — who led the charge to approve the controversial standards — celebrated the “massive victory” in a press release touting that “despite liberal union lies, Oklahoma kids will be taught truth in history.”
“Oklahoma kids will be taught facts, not indoctrination,” Walters said June 16. “They will be taught to critically think and not to become liberal activism. I am unapologetic that students will receive a pro-America education as the days of pushing woke DEI, CRT, and anti-American propaganda in our schools are over.”
Former Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter, representing a group of plaintiffs made up of Oklahoma educators, parents and grandparents, filed a lawsuit May 7 to contest the legality of the process by which the State Department of Education reviewed, drafted and approved the FY 2026 social studies standards.
RELATED
Revised OSDE social studies standards tell students to ‘identify discrepancies in 2020 election results’ by Sasha Ndisabiye & Bennett Brinkman
Although the new standards initially became controversial owing to the addition of religion-based curriculum, the focus shifted after quiet changes directed teachers and students toward widely debunked theories of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election — adjustments that were not posted publicly or specified to board members before the Feb. 27 approval vote. The legality of the standards’ passing was called into question after the then newly-appointed State Board of Education members asserted that they did not have adequate time to review the standards, as well as any subsequent revisions, after receiving the final version of the standards at 4 p.m. the afternoon before the Feb. 27 board meeting.
Citing information and testimonies given during a May 28 hearing on the social studies standards, Dishman denied Hunter’s request for a temporary injunction on the basis that the plaintiffs’ argument did not fulfill four requirements — the likelihood of eventual success on merits, irreparable harm to the parties seeking injunctive relief if the injunction is denied, threatened injuries outweighing the injury the opposing party will suffer under the injunction and the injunction being in the public interest.
Dishman also granted three separate motions to dismiss filed on behalf of the defendants. Dishman said the plaintiffs’ use of Article 1, Section 306 of the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act failed because Section 306 only allows the challenge of an administrative rule “if it is alleged the rule, or its threatened application, interferes with or impairs, or threatens to interfere with or impair, the legal rights or privileges of the plaintiff.”
“Plaintiffs have not cited any statute or law that supports a finding that these concerns rise to the level of legally protected rights or privileges for students or teachers,” wrote Dishman. “Oklahoma law provides the board with unfettered discretion to adopt and revise subject matter standards like the social studies standards at issue in this action.”
Toward the end of the ruling, Dishman also asserted that the Oklahoma Legislature’s oversight of the revision process and ultimate approval of the standards — by not rejecting them — rendered the plaintiffs’ action a “non-justiciable political question.”
Hunter told The Oklahoman an appeal to the Oklahoma Supreme Court is in the works.
“We’re obviously disappointed in the ruling,” Hunter said. “We think the judge got it wrong on several points. We will be appealing his decision and will let the appeal speak for itself.”
Awaiting third trial, Glossip remains in jail for now
Following a hearing that lasted around two hours June 17, Oklahoma County District Judge Heather Coyle declined to rule on whether former death row inmate Richard Glossip should be able to post bond as he awaits his third trial for a 1997 murder he claims he did not commit.
For now, Glossip remains in the Oklahoma County Jail as Coyle reviews the transcripts from his preliminary hearing and his first and second trials. Coyle told the attorneys after the hearing that she hoped to have an order by July 23.
Glossip was convicted in 1998 for the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese, an OKC motel owner for whom Glossip worked. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals later vacated that conviction, and Glossip was convicted again, after a new trial, in 2004. Both times, Glossip was sentenced to death.
But after a series of appeals, including one to the U.S. Supreme Court in which Attorney General Gentner Drummond argued on Glossip’s behalf, the nation’s highest court found that prosecutorial misconduct occurred during the 2004 trial and remanded the case back to the state.
Now, Drummond, who has said he believes Glossip is “guilty of at least accessory after the fact,” is prosecuting Glossip for the third time but not seeking the death penalty.
At the June 17 hearing, Jimmy Harmon, who leads the criminal division in the AG’s office, opposed setting bond for Glossip, calling him a “manipulative conman.”
Glossip’s attorney, Corbin Brewster, pushed back on Harmon’s assessment and provided the judge numerous letters complimenting Glossip’s character, including some from state lawmakers.
“He’s spent the last 28 years incarcerated,” said Brewster. “He’s entitled to bail.”
Unusual motion sealed, hints at deal in former Garfield County judge’s case
While Brian Lovell resigned as associate district judge for Garfield County in September, criminal cases for two separate drive-by shooting incidents in Oklahoma and Texas continue to move through the state’s respective district courts. Lovell, who has cited a diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia to explain his criminal behavior and sexual indiscretions, is currently facing charges related to a February 2023 drive-by shooting of his brother-in-law’s home in Bison. He also appears to have two pending criminal cases in Travis County, Texas, related to a September 2023 road rage incident.
His Garfield County case is currently set for trial Sept. 22, and attorneys are in the midst of making pre-trial motions. Stacked among the normal procedural motions, including notice that Lovell intends to raise mental illness as a defense, sits an odd motion to “compel the enforcement of a deferred prosecution agreement entered into April 17” between Attorney General Gentner Drummond and defense counsel Stephen Jones. Filed on June 6, that agreement was promptly sealed June 12. The motion also objected to the state’s request to reevaluate Lovell’s mental health with their own expert.
The request to seal, signed by attorney William Jewell, and the now-sealed motion are unusual. Jones and Drummond spoke for 20 minutes over the phone after the now-sealed motion was filed and reached an agreement to settle the criminal case, according to court documents.
“This matter is now moot because the attorney general and defense counsel, Stephen Jones, have reached the framework of an agreement during that June 6 call that will resolve the case, resolve the need for an evaluation of the defendant, and avoid a trial when finalized,” Jewell wrote to the court. “The concerns expressed by defendant in the motion are, in light of the June 6 conversation with the attorney general, moot and have been overtaken by events.”
Comanche County District Judge Emmit Tayloe, who was brought in to hear the case since Lovell’s former colleagues are prevented from presiding owing to judicial ethics rules, ordered the motion sealed June 12 and released a written order the next day.
“The court finds that the issues presented by the defendant in his response are now moot since defense counsel and the attorney general resolved them almost immediately after the filing of the response,” Tayloe wrote. “Both parties have a compelling privacy interest in the sealing of the June 6 response which outweighs the public’s interest in the record. The defendant has a compelling interest because certain information revealed in the response concern his personal and private medical condition. The state has a compelling privacy interest because the filing contains information related to the inner-workings of the attorney general’s office.”
A pretrial hearing for Lovell’s felony case filed in Travis County, Texas, is set for Nov. 7.
Jim Rea sues PAC, Tomahawk Strategies founder’s grandmother
Former Deputy Tulsa County Commissioner Jim Rea filed a lawsuit against the political action committee Oklahomans for a Positive Change, Liberty Action Funds Inc., an “A. Flowers,” Gail Harjo and several currently unknown parties, alleging causes of action for conspiracy, fraud and libel. The allegations stem from anti-Rea mailers distributed during last year’s Democratic primary for the Tulsa County commissioner race. Several voters in the district received mailers criticizing Rea and promoting his opponents in the primary.
Rea campaigned for his then-boss Karen Keith’s office before placing last in a three-candidate Democratic primary. Rea’s attorney, Laurie Phillips, alleged the defendants committed fraud by intentionally deceiving others and that they libeled Rea “maliciously” in order to injure his reputation.
Rea specifically objected to the mailers implying he was responsible for abuse and sexual assault at the Tulsa County Juvenile Justice Center, associating Rea with the QAnon shaman and “MAGA Trump consultants” and stating “something is off about Jim Rea” because “his boss pays a political consulting company.”
Libel claims brought by public officials are subject to a higher standard than those brought by private citizens, which is why Rea’s suit alleges malice.
According to Rea’s petition, the mailers cost him his government employment.
“Since the general election of Nov. 5, 2024, [Rea] has been quietly disqualified from government employment because of the actions of the defendants,” Phillips wrote. “Defendants, individually and collectively, acted with intent to harm the reputation of plaintiff.”
The Frontier reported John Fritz, a co-founder of campaign firm Tomahawk Strategies, used his grandmother’s name — G. Harjo — to register at least one political group before. A “G. Harjo” also registered the Advance Right PAC to target former Sen. Greg McCortney and the Fed Up Conservative Families PAC to target Tulsa City Councilor Phil Lakin, according to The Frontier. Harjo reported having no knowledge of the political groups, raising ethical and legal questions about Fritz’s work.
Two decades since lawsuit, judge rules Illinois River still polluted
Once touted as one of Oklahoma’s clearest lakes, Tenkiller Ferry Lake has become eutrophic, meaning its oxygen levels have become so low, animal life is dying off.
A finding of fact issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma found Tenkiller’s eutrophication comes from high levels of phosphate in the water. High phosphate concentrations lead to algal blooms, which can have several consequences, including lowering water oxygen levels, killing fish, making swimmers sick and affecting the taste of drinking water. One of the biggest culprits, the court found, is poultry producers in the Illinois River watershed.
Then-Attorney General Drew Edmondson filed a lawsuit against poultry producers back in 2005. The case went to a trial in 2009 that ended in 2010, but it took U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell 13 years to issue a ruling. In 2023, he found the poultry producers had allowed hundreds of thousands of tons of chicken litter to wash into the Illinois River watershed, resulting in critically high levels of phosphate in the river.
On June 17 — just one day after Clifton Adcock of The Frontier published an article detailing the case’s long history — Frizzell ruled the poultry companies have made no meaningful improvements to the watershed.
“The court concludes that the continuing actual and ongoing injury to the waters of the [Illinois River watershed] constitutes irreparable harm,” Frizzell wrote. “Because phosphorus run-off from land-applied poultry waste continues to be a significant source of phosphorus which is causing actual and ongoing injury to the waters of the [watershed], the conditions in the [watershed] have not materially changed since trial.”
Stitt v. Drummond argued before OK Supreme Court
On June 17, attorneys representing Gov. Kevin Stitt and some of his Cabinet secretaries argued before the Oklahoma Supreme Court that Cabinet secretaries who also lead state agencies within their government sector do not violate the state’s prohibition on officials holding dual offices.
Attorney General Gentner Drummond’s solicitor general, Garry Gaskins, argued that Cabinet secretaries could not also be agency heads.
Supreme Court justices asked numerous questions about the extent to which Cabinet secretaries are state officers and subject to the dual office-holding prohibition.
Stitt and a few of his Cabinet secretaries originally filed the case in Oklahoma County District Court in March 2024. The case came in response to an attorney general opinion Drummond released stating that members of the governor’s Cabinet could not also lead agencies. Generally, AG opinions are considered binding unless overturned by a court of law.
“Oklahoma prohibits state officers and deputies from simultaneously holding another state office or serving as the deputy of any other state office,” Drummond wrote. “As of the time of writing, the Legislature has enumerated thirty exceptions to this prohibition. However, none of these exceptions applies to the secretary of transportation, executive director of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (…) or executive director of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority.”
In September, Oklahoma County District Judge Richard Ogden issued a ruling agreeing with Drummond, and he said that while a member of the Cabinet would generally automatically vacate their position upon taking a job leading an agency, if they refuse to give up their Cabinet post, a court could force them to do so.
Stitt appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, calling Ogden’s and Drummond’s reasoning “flawed” in his briefing, saying it flouted two subsections of Title 74, Section 10.3:
- “A Cabinet secretary may be appointed as a position funded by the Office of the Governor from funds available to that office, or as a Cabinet secretary from among the agency heads within the cabinet area;” and
- “[T]he appointment… of a Cabinet secretary who is also an agency head shall not otherwise affect the status of the other duties of the agency head.”
Justices did not say during the hearing when they might issue a ruling in the case.
Tribal eviction case dismissed
The Oklahoma Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of a tribal citizen arguing that Oklahoma state courts lack jurisdiction over eviction proceedings involving tribal citizens within their tribe’s Indian Country reservation. Plaintiff Jasmine Paul-Craven filed a motion to dismiss her appeal April 15 after vacating the property, rendering the eviction case moot.
While the Oklahoma Supreme Court has the discretion to consider the case anyway, the court decided instead to dismiss it. With hundreds of eviction cases filed each month in Oklahoma’s Indian Country, another case may eventually bring the issue back before the court. The topic could become another test of whether the 2020 McGirt v. Oklahoma ruling applies to civil jurisdiction.
OK Supreme Court: Valid breathalyzer test not required for license revocation
The Oklahoma Supreme Court resolved a division between panels of the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals by finding that an officer’s sworn report combined with the officer’s testimony on their observations during a traffic stop constitute enough evidence to sustain a driver’s license revocation. The decision clarifies the type of evidence necessary for a court to revoke an Oklahoma driver’s license.
The split resulted from two Court of Civil Appeals decisions. Division 3 of the appellate court found that an officer’s sworn report combined with their testimony was enough to revoke a license, while Division 4 found that a valid breathalyzer test was required for revocation.
The Supreme Court clarified there were three routes to license revocation: refusal-based revocation, test-based revocation and sworn report-based revocation. Vice Chief Justice Dana Kuehn explained that, prior to 2019, revocation required both a valid chemical test (blood or breath) and an officer’s sworn statement that “they had reasonable grounds to believe the driver was driving under the influence.”
In 2019, the Legislature changed the language from “and” to “or,” meaning only one of those would be required. The decision outlining the “sworn report-based revocation” clarifies the burden for license revocation in Oklahoma is relatively low.
Justice Kuehn pens parental rights decision
Meanwhile, the Oklahoma Supreme Court vacated a Civil Court of Appeals decision and returned a termination of parental rights case to Tulsa County District Court with instructions to determine whether a mother received “sufficient notice to preserve her right to due process.”
The case involved a child declared legally deprived in June 2022. The child’s mother entered the Tulsa County Family Court Treatment Program, but she failed to complete an inpatient treatment program. In April 2023, attorneys for the state filed to terminate the mother’s parental rights based on her failure to complete treatment. The mother skipped her August 2023 trial with her attorney, telling the court she sought inpatient treatment two days before trial while a DHS caseworker testified the mother told her she planned to enter treatment as a “last ditch effort” to delay the trial.
The district court found that the mother’s failure to appear waived her right to a jury trial, held a nonjury trial in absentia, and terminated the mother’s parental rights. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, but the Supreme Court reversed it, finding principles in the Oklahoma Constitution and state statutes required the mother have prior notice that her failure to appear for a jury trial could ultimately result in the termination of her parental rights.
“When the state seeks to terminate parental rights, the parent has a right to a jury trial. That right may be waived. To protect the affected children and provide timely and expeditious resolution of these cases, the Legislature has provided that, should a parent request a jury trial and fail to appear for it, the trial court may deem that failure to appear to be a waiver of the right to jury trial; if no other party requests a jury trial and the trial court does not find one should occur, the trial court must proceed with a nonjury trial. We find this statutory provision constitutional,” Kuehn wrote for the majority. “However, due process requires that the record must reflect the parent received notice of the possible consequences of her failure to appear. The record before this court is silent as to whether (this) mother received notice.”
Indian land case reversed
In an unpublished decision of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the court reversed an appeal from McCurtain County over a Choctaw allotment. The dispute centered over whether a parcel of land was restricted Indian land, meaning property owned by a tribal government or citizen with special legal protections under federal Indian law.
The McCurtain County Associate District Judge Tim Ragland granted summary judgement, finding the land was restricted based on a Notice of Invalidity of Deeds signed by a Bureau of Indian Affairs official. The appeals court reversed, finding the notice was not enough to prove the land was restricted.
“There is no evidentiary material in the record that supports summary judgment. There are no copies of any deeds and there is no documentation establishing the land is restricted Indian land.” Presiding Judge Brian Goree wrote. “The appellate court has an affirmative duty to test the legal sufficiency of all evidentiary material received in the summary process to support judgement. We cannot take judicial notice of documents that were not presented to the judge and are not in the appellate record.”
While the decision is not precedential, it does indicate the type of documents appellate courts in Oklahoma look for to prove land is restricted by federal Indian law. Practitioners seeking to prove their client’s land is restricted should bring “documentation establishing the land is restricted” to court.
Jodi F. Jayne reappointed magistrate judge
Judges for the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma unanimously reappointed Magistrate Judge Jodi F. Jayne for an eight-year term beginning in September. First appointed in 2017, Jayne is a University of Oklahoma College of Law graduate who spent most of her legal career clerking for District Judge Terence Kern and Sven Holmes.
Her term will run until September 2033.
