Supreme Court of Oklahoma | 2026
Decisions
RE: Suspension of Certificates of Certified Shorthand Reporters
2026 OK 15
Decided: 03/09/2026
The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters has recommended to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma the suspension of the certificate of each of the Oklahoma Certified Shorthand Court Reporters listed on the attached Exhibit for failure to comply with the annual renewal requirements for 2026.
Pursuant to 20 O.S., Chapter 20, App. 1, Rules 20(c) and 23(d), failure to satisfy the annual renewal requirements on or before February 15 shall result in administrative suspension on that date.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the certificate of each of the court reporters named on the attached Exhibit is hereby suspended effective March 9, 2026.
RE: Suspension of Credentials of Certified and Registered Courtroom Interpreters
2026 OK 14
Decided: 03/09/2026
The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters has recommended to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma the suspension of the credentials of each of the Oklahoma Registered Courtroom Interpreter listed on the attached Exhibit for failure to comply with the annual certificate renewal requirements for 2026.
Pursuant to 20 O.S., Chapter 23, App. II, Rule 18(c), failure to satisfy the annual renewal requirements on or before February 15 shall result in administrative suspension on that date.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the credentials of each of the interpreters named on the attached Exhibit is hereby suspended effective March 9, 2026.
CHICK-FIL-A v. THE HONORABLE RICHARD OGDEN & LOZADA, et al.
2026 OK 13
Case Number: 122832
Decided: 03/10/2026
¶0 Petitioner seeks writs of prohibition and mandamus to preclude enforcement and require modification of Respondent’s discovery order. We assume original jurisdiction and grant the writ of prohibition.
GRAY MEDIA AND MARSICANO v. COMANCHE COUNTY FACILITIES AUTHORITY, et al.
2026 OK 12
Decided: 03/03/2026
¶ 1. This is an appeal from an order of the Comanche County District Court denying the Plaintiffs/Appellants’ petition below for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to section 24A.17(B) of the Oklahoma Open Records Act (ORA), 51 O.S. § 24A.17(B). The Oklahoma Supreme Court retained this case on the Court’s own motion and made it a companion with James Lawson v. LeFlore County Detention Center Public Trust, No. 122,806, because both cases concerned whether the ORA’s definition of “law enforcement agency” in section 24A.3(5) included a detention center managed by a public trust.
¶ 2. At the district court, Gray Media Group, Inc., d/b/a KSWO-TV and Seth Marsicano, the trial court plaintiffs, filed for declaratory and injunctive relief, a writ of mandamus, and attorneys’ fees after their request for video footage from the Comanche County Detention Center (CCDC or detention center) was denied. The detention center is operated by the trial court defendant, Comanche County Facilities Authority (CCFA), a public trust created per 60 O.S. §§ 176 et seq. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing they were a “law enforcement agency” under § 24A.3(5) of the ORA and were therefore exempt from producing documents other than those specified in the act. The district court initially found it did not have enough information to decide whether CCFA was a “law enforcement agency” and denied its motion to dismiss. The district court directed the parties to schedule an evidentiary hearing so that more information could be collected. That evidentiary hearing was conducted two months later. After the evidentiary hearing, the district court issued its order concluding that CCFA is a “law enforcement agency,” 51 O.S.2024, § 24A.3(5) under the ORA, and furthermore, that the interest of the public or any individual in seeing the requested records did not outweigh the reasons for the denial. 51 O.S.2024, § 24A.8(B).
¶ 3. The primary issue in this appeal concerns the construction or interpretation of the definition of “law enforcement agency” under the ORA, 51 O.S.2024, § 24A.3(5). Questions of statutory interpretation are legal questions subject to de novo review. Fulsom v. Fulsom, 2003 OK 96, ¶ 2, 81 P.3d 652, 655 (emphasis added). “Law enforcement agency” is defined by statute as
any public body charged with enforcing state or local criminal laws and initiating criminal prosecutions including, but not limited to, police departments, county sheriffs, the Department of Public Safety, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control, the Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission, and the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation.
Whether this statutory definition covers a public trust operating a detention center is the same issue we addressed in Lawson v. LeFlore Cnty. Det. Ctr. Pub. Trust Sec. Comm’n, 2025 OK 87, — P.3d —. In Lawson, we held as a matter of law that a public trust operating a county detention center did not satisfy the ORA’s definition of “law enforcement agency.”
¶ 4. Our holding in Lawson resolves this case. The trial court’s order is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1
RE: Reinstatement of Certificates of Certified Shorthand Reporters
2026 OK 11
Decided: 02/23/2026
ORDER
This Court previously suspended the certificates of several certified shorthand reporters for failure to comply with the continuing education requirements for calendar year 2023 and/or with the annual certificate renewal requirements for 2024. See 2024 OK 11(SCAD 2024-15, dated March 4, 2024).
The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters recommends to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma that the certificates of the Oklahoma Certified Shorthand Reporters named below be reinstated as they have complied with the continuing education requirements for 2023 and annual certificate renewal requirements for 2024 and have paid all applicable fees.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED pursuant to 20 O.S., Chapter 20, App. l, Rules 20 and 23, the certificates of the following shorthand reporters are reinstated from the suspension earlier imposed by this Court:
Name CSR # Effective Date of Reinstatement
Kortney Houts 1804 April 12, 2024
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 23RD day of FEBRUARY, 2026.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OBA v. KLINE
2026 OK 10
Case Number: SCBD-8076
Decided: 02/23/2026
¶1 On January 29, 2026 the Complainant Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) filed a verified complaint against the respondent, Jesse David Kline, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A. The OBA, with the concurrence of the Professional Responsibility Commission, requests an emergency interim suspension of Respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the RGDP.
HOWARD and HOWARD v. THE BARRINGTON HOMEOWNERS, et al.
2026 OK 9
Case Number: 121469
Decided: 02/18/2026
¶0 Plaintiffs filed suit in Oklahoma County District Court alleging that the Board improperly used homeowners’ association dues, improperly sold a storage unit, failed to hold proper meetings, and was permitting unlawful activities on premises. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment which the district court granted. Plaintiffs appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the district court.
In re: AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2 OF THE RULES FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
2026 OK 8
Decided: 02/09/2026
ORDER
¶1 Pursuant to the general administrative authority that Article VII, Section 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution vests in this Court over all courts of this State except the Court on the Judiciary and the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment, the Court hereby adopts the attached amendment to Rule 2 of the Rules for Mandatory Judicial Continuing Legal Education, 5 O.S.2025, ch. 1, app. 4B. A clean copy of the amended rule is attached as “Exhibit A,” and a red-lined copy is attached as “Exhibit B.”
…
“EXHIBIT A”
Rules for Mandatory Judicial Continuing Legal Education
Chapter 1, App. 4B
Rule 2. Approved Courses for Mandatory Judicial Continuing Legal Education.
The hours of Mandatory Judicial Continuing Legal Education must be obtained by attendance at MJCLE courses or programs provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts; offered through the National Judicial College; presented at monthly meetings of the Oklahoma Chapters of the American Inns of Court; funded, facilitated, developed, implemented, or conducted by the Council on Judicial Complaints pursuant to Section 1651.1 of Title 20 of the Oklahoma Statutes; or otherwise specially approved by the Chief Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court for MJCLE. Additionally, general continuing legal education (MCLE) programs or courses for attorneys may be used to satisfy no more than six (6) hours of the MJCLE requirement.
“EXHIBIT B”
Rules for Mandatory Judicial Continuing Legal Education
Chapter 1, App. 4B
Rule 2. Approved Courses for Mandatory Judicial Continuing Legal Education.
The hours of Mandatory Judicial Continuing Legal Education must be obtained by attendance at MJCLE courses or programs provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts,; or offered through the a National Judicial College course,; or programs presented at monthly meetings of the Oklahoma Chapters of the American Inns of Court,; funded, facilitated, developed, implemented, or conducted by the Council on Judicial Complaints pursuant to Section 1651.1 of Title 20 of the Oklahoma Statutes; or any otherwise program specially approved by the Chief Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court for MJCLE. Additionally, Ggeneral continuing legal education (MCLE) programs or courses for attorneys may be used to satisfy no more than six (6) hours of the MJCLE requirement.
CACTUS DRILLING CO. LLC, v. THE HONORABLE KORY KIRKLAND, and FAULKNER, et al.
2026 OK 7
Case Number: 123508
Decided: 02/09/2026
ORDER
¶1 We previously assumed original jurisdiction. Okla. Const. art. VII, § 4. A writ of prohibition is issued to Grady County District Court Judge Kory Kirkland, or any other assigned judge, in James B. Faulkner and Maria Faulkner v. Cactus Drilling Company, LLC, No. CJ-2021-175 (Grady County), barring the enforcement of the September 11, 2025 Journal Entry of Judgment. A writ of mandamus is also issued, ordering the district court to dismiss all claims brought by Real Parties in Interest James B. Faulkner and Maria Faulkner.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel., OBA v. LILE
2026 OK 6
Case Number: SCBD-7941
Decided: 02/10/2026
¶0 Respondent, a lawyer licensed in Oklahoma, received a one-year suspension of his license to practice law before the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. Pursuant to Rule 7.7 of the Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. Ch. 1, App. 1-A (RGDP), the Oklahoma Bar Association filed in this Court documentation of the suspension by the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Supreme Court. We directed Respondent to show cause why a final order of discipline should not be imposed on him by this Court. Respondent requested that no further discipline be imposed and that there be no hearing. The Bar requested this Court to impose the same discipline and suspend his Oklahoma Bar license for one year. After de novo review, this Court finds that no further discipline is warranted.
THE HONORABLE KENDAL SACCHIERI et al., v. SERVICE OKLAHOMA
2026 OK 5
Case Number: 123760
Decided: 02/09/2026
¶1 Petitioner State Senator Kendal Sacchieri, along with 33 other Oklahoma State Senators and Representatives, ask the Oklahoma Supreme Court to temporarily enjoin Service Oklahoma and its Executive Director Jay Doyle from transmitting any record maintained by Service Oklahoma to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators’ State-to-State Verification Service. Senator Sacchieri also asks the Court to declare that Service Oklahoma lacks statutory authority to transmit records to the State-to-State Verification Service.
ALLISON, et al. v. MCCOY-POST, et al.
2026 OK 4
Case Number: 122946
Decided: 02/03/2026
¶1 Referendum Proponents appeal the Cleveland County trial court’s order granting the Protest to the Legal Sufficiency and Signature Count of Referendum Petition 2425-1, Ordinance No. 2425-2 City of Norman, Oklahoma filed by Protestants. We affirm the trial court’s finding that the gist of Referendum Petition 2425-1 is legally insufficient.
ST. ANTHONY, et al., v. GOODWIN and the WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
2026 OK 3
Case Number: 121192
Decided: 02/03/2026
¶1 The issue is whether ordering more than one change of treating physician per claim violated 85A O.S.Supp.2013 § 56(B) 1 of the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act (AWCA). We hold it did not.
NONDOC MEDIA and WILLIAM W. SAVAGE III v. STATE Ex Rel. BOARD OF REGENTS of the UNIV. of OKLAHOMA
2026 OK 2
Case Number: 122808
Decided: 01/13/2026
¶0 The University of Oklahoma denied an open records request from NonDoc Media, which sought the production of two reports prepared by a law firm hired by the University to investigate personnel matters. The University denied the request citing various privileges and statutory exemptions. NonDoc filed suit against the University to compel production of the reports pursuant to the Open Records Act, 51 O.S. 2021, § 24A.1 et seq. The University moved for summary judgment which the district court granted finding the University’s cited privileges and exemptions applicable. NonDoc appealed this ruling, and this Court previously retained the matter. We find the requested reports protected from production by the attorney-client privilege.
TOBACCO SETTLEMENT ENDOWMENT TRUST FUND v. STITT, ET AL.
2026 OK 1
Case Number: 123238
Decided: 01/13/2026
OPINION
¶0 Petitioner brought this action seeking declaratory relief. We assume jurisdiction, find that HB 2783 is unconstitutional, and grant declaratory relief.
…
¶1 Petitioner, the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund (TSET), claims that HB 2783 conflicts with the constitutional requirements for appointment of TSET’s Board of Directors.This case does not concern the general limits of legislative authority, nor does it speak to whether existing statutory provisions for removal of officers do or do not apply to TSET directors. The only issue before us is the narrow constitutional question: does the amended statute, as written, violate the Oklahoma Constitution? We find that it does and grant declaratory relief.