HUNSUCKER v. FALLIN
2017 OK 84
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Petitioners (Hunsucker, Edge, Sifers, Fabian) challenged constitutionality of the 2017 Impaired Driving Elimination Act 2 (S.B. No. 643).
- The Act's provisions were scheduled to take effect on November 1, 2017.
- Petitioners sought relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court before the Act's effective date.
- The Court has discretion to grant temporary relief when a short interval exists between argument and an event affecting the controversy.
- The Court assumed original jurisdiction for purposes of issuing a temporary stay.
- By order, the Court stayed the Act’s effective date and barred enforcement of its provisions pending further order or opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should grant temporary relief to prevent the Act taking effect Nov 1, 2017 | Petitioners argued an immediate stay was necessary to protect rights pending adjudication of constitutionality | Respondents implicitly argued the Act should take effect as scheduled and enforcement proceed | Court exercised discretion, assumed original jurisdiction, and issued a stay of the Act and its enforcement pending litigation |
| Whether the Court may act while a short interval exists between argument and an event affecting the controversy | Petitioners: prior authority permits temporary relief in such circumstances | Respondents: (implicitly) no extraordinary relief needed | Court cited precedent allowing temporary relief and applied it here |
| Scope of relief to issue (effective date/enforcement) | Petitioners sought to prevent the Act from taking effect and being enforced | Respondents sought enforcement beginning on the statutory effective date | Court stayed the Act’s effective date and prohibited enforcement until further order |
| Jurisdictional basis to act in original proceeding | Petitioners invoked Court’s original jurisdiction for temporary relief | Respondents challenged the need for original intervention | Court assumed original jurisdiction for the limited purpose of the stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Oklahoma Corp. Com'n, 897 P.2d 1116 (Okla. 1994) (recognizes court’s discretion to grant temporary relief pending resolution of a controversy)
- Initiative Petition No. 314, 625 P.2d 595 (Okla. 1980) (authorizes temporary relief where short period exists between argument and an event affecting the merits)