HUNSUCKER v. FALLIN
2017 OK 100
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (four Oklahoma defense attorneys) sought original jurisdiction challenging the constitutionality of the Impaired Driving Elimination Act 2 (S.B. 643) and Governor Fallin’s Executive Order 2017-19 before the Act’s effective date (Nov. 1, 2017).
- The Act amends numerous Title 47 provisions addressing license revocation/modification, ignition interlock program creation (IDAP), breath/blood testing, criminal penalties for refusal, mandatory seizure and destruction of the plastic driver license upon arrest (§13), evidentiary rules, and related notice provisions.
- Plaintiffs alleged (inter alia) deprivation of due process ( §13 seizure/destruction of license without hearing) and that the Act violated Oklahoma Const. art. V §57 (single-subject rule); they asserted public-interest standing among other bases.
- Senate President Pro Tem Mike Schulz and House Speaker Charles McCall were named as respondents; they moved to be dismissed on legislative immunity grounds.
- The Court (majority) assumed original jurisdiction, held plaintiffs had standing (publici juris), dismissed Schulz and McCall on speech-or-debate/legislative-immunity grounds, found §13 violated Okla. Const. art. II §7 (Due Process), and held the Act violated Okla. Const. art. V §57 (single-subject) and was not severable — invalidating the Act in its entirety. Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue pre-enactment | Plaintiffs (attorneys) claimed public-interest standing because the Act affects large numbers of citizens and will harm their practices and clients. | Respondents argued plaintiffs lack standing to assert hypothetical future harms or third-party claims. | Court: plaintiffs have publici juris standing (discretionary grant) to vindicate issues of great public importance. |
| Legislative immunity of legislative leaders | Plaintiffs named legislative leaders as defendants for passing the bill. | Schulz & McCall: speech-or-debate clause/legislative immunity bars suit for enactment-related conduct. | Court: legislative immunity shields them; they are dismissed as parties. |
| Due process challenge to §13 (seizure & destruction of driver license) | Plaintiffs: seizure and destruction of the physical license without administrative hearing is an arbitrary deprivation of property and violates state due process (Art. II §7). | Respondents: no revocation occurs — driving privilege preserved; license can be replaced; prior cases (Price) permit seizure in regulatory context. | Court: §13 violates Okla. Const. art. II §7 — seizure & destruction without legitimate state purpose or process constitutes unconstitutional deprivation. |
| Single-subject and severability (Art. V §57) | Plaintiffs: S.B. 643 embraces multiple disparate subjects (revocation rules, evidence rules, criminalization, seizure, IDAP creation, notice rules, etc.). | Respondents: bill’s common subject is impaired driving and administrative monitoring — provisions are germane. | Court: Act violates single-subject rule; multiple provisions (§§4,5,6,11,12,13,15) are invalid and the remaining sections are not severable; the Act is void in its entirety. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1971) (driver's license revocation implicates due process; license may be essential for livelihood)
- Price v. Reed, 725 P.2d 1254 (Okla. 1986) (addressed due process in driver's license revocation/seizure context)
- Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (U.S. 2004) (limits on third‑party standing for attorneys asserting rights of hypothetical future clients)
- Brock v. Thompson, 948 P.2d 279 (Okla. 1997) (Oklahoma speech-or-debate/legislative privilege protects enactment-related conduct)
- Gentges v. Oklahoma State Election Board, 319 P.3d 674 (Okla. 2014) (discusses publici juris standing in state court)