GREENWOOD CENTRE, LTD v. NIGHTINGALE
465 P.3d 1269
| Okla. | 2020Background
- Petitioners (Greenwood Centre, John Hope Franklin Center, and two individuals) sought a writ of mandamus/temporary injunction to stop SMG/ASM Global (BOK Center managers) from allowing President Trump’s June 20, 2020 rally unless social‑distancing protocols were enforced.
- Petitioners relied on Governor Stitt’s executive order 2020‑20 and the OURS (Open Up and Recover Safely) Plan, and pointed to a Tulsa mayoral executive order referencing OURS, arguing mandatory social‑distancing requirements applied.
- Respondents (state and local authorities and venue managers) argued the OURS Plan vests discretion in business owners and local officials and contains no mandatory social‑distancing commands for entertainment venues.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court denied the application to assume original jurisdiction and refused to issue the requested writ of mandamus, concluding petitioners failed to show the clear legal right required for mandamus and could not show likelihood of success on the merits for an injunction.
- Concurring opinions emphasized that the OURS Plan is permissive (discretionary for venue owners/local officials) and that the judiciary should not create public‑health rules absent mandatory executive or legislative directives (separation of powers concern).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners have a clear legal right to a writ of mandamus/temporary injunction preventing the rally unless social‑distancing is imposed | OURS and local orders require social‑distancing; court should enjoin the rally to protect public health | OURS is discretionary; no mandatory prohibition exists; petitioners haven’t shown a legal right | Denied — petitioners failed to show the clear legal right required for mandamus or likelihood of success for injunction |
| Whether the OURS Plan imposes mandatory social‑distancing requirements on entertainment venues | OURS and referenced local orders mandate social‑distancing measures | OURS expressly leaves social‑distancing to the discretion of business owners/local officials; it is permissive | OURS is permissive and discretionary for entertainment venues; no mandatory language supports relief |
| Whether the Court may fashion rules/regulations in the absence of explicit executive or legislative mandates | Court can and should act to protect public health where officials do not | Judicial role is to apply law, not to make policy; separation of powers bars creating new mandates | Court refused to create rules; emphasized separation of powers and limited judicial role |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandler U.S.A., Inc. v. Tyree, 87 P.3d 598 (2004 OK 16) (mandamus requires showing a clear legal right to the relief sought)
- Zeier v. Zimmer, Inc., 152 P.3d 861 (2006 OK 98) (judiciary’s role is to interpret law, not create policy)
- State ex rel. York v. Turpen, 681 P.2d 763 (1984 OK 26) (reinforcing separation of powers between branches)