USA – OKLAHOMA Trends and Developments Contributed by: David Elder, Erin O’Roke Oakley, Michael Whaley and Austin Dodd, Hartzog Conger Cason
tionally, business judges were to be appointed by the governor rather than elected. The aim of SB 632 was clear: increase speed, improve subject-matter expertise, and offer predictability in commercial rulings − all of which are key priorities for businesses considering Oklahoma as a forum and a market. Despite its good intentions, however, SB 632 was met with immediate criticism. Constitutional concerns ultimately led the Oklahoma Supreme Court to invalidate the law, as discussed later. Practitioners and judges also raised the following practical con- cerns. • Docket size per judge − the Oklahoma Legislature authorised only one business judge per division, meaning that one judge in Oklahoma County and one judge in Tulsa County would be handling a large volume of complex litigation matters. Even with a law clerk and subject-matter expertise, many practitioners questioned whether the time to resolution would be any quicker than in district court. In the event of an overload of cases, SB 632 granted the Chief Justice the ability to assign a dis- trict judge to temporarily assist the business court judge. Although this structure sought to alleviate any potential bottleneck from having just one judge per district, the introduction of a temporary judge risked the very inconsistency the business courts sought to alleviate. • Filing fees − the legislation imposed a hefty fee of USD1,500 to file a case in the business court, rep- resenting a significant increase from the USD232 filing fee for ordinary civil cases. Critics argued this fee created a barrier to accessing justice for indi- viduals and small businesses, whereas supporters saw it as minimal compared to the potential value of the disputes being litigated. • Qualifications − the requirement for business judges to have at least ten years of experience was generally seen as a positive requirement. However, the ability to satisfy that requirement through trans- actional experience was met with some scepticism by litigators. • Unequal compensation and tenure − the offer of higher salaries and longer terms to business judges was met with frustration by sitting district judges, who have been advocating for higher pay for years.
• Lack of JNC screenings and politicisation − SB 632 would have bypassed both the electorate and Oklahoma’s Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC), which was created by constitutional amend- ment to vet judicial appointments. Critics viewed the move as ill-conceived and as unnecessarily injecting politicisation into the judiciary. • Geographic accessibility − the creation of busi- ness courts in only the most populous counties was viewed by some as unfair, as parties located in rural areas would be forced to litigate in unfamiliar and potentially inconvenient forums. Why SB 632 failed: constitutional flaws In October 2025, the Oklahoma Supreme Court invali- dated SB 632 in its entirety, holding that it violated multiple constitutional provisions. The court began its decision by analysing the intent of SB 632, con- sidering whether the business court was intended to be a separate court or a division within the district courts. The court acknowledged that the intent of the Oklahoma Legislature may have been to create a standalone court, but it concluded that SB 632 could only be read as creating a new division of the district courts. Under either analysis, however, it held that the law was unconstitutional. As a separate court, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found that the business court would be unconstitu- tional because Article VII, Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution does not give the Oklahoma Legisla- ture the power to create new courts. The Oklahoma Constitution vests judicial power in eight courts − of which, a business court is not one − and it grants the Oklahoma Legislature the power to create only quasi-judicial bodies, municipal courts, and inter- mediate appellate courts. Thus, in the absence of a constitutional amendment expanding the Oklahoma Legislature’s power, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the Oklahoma Legislature could not create a standalone business court. As a division of the existing district courts, the Okla- homa Supreme Court found that the business court − as implemented by SB 632 − was unconstitutional because it provided that judges were to be appointed by the governor. The Oklahoma Supreme Court noted that Article VII, Section 9 of the Oklahoma Constitu-
1230 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook