546 P.3d 882
Okla.2024Background
- Governor Stitt challenged the validity of two bills (S.B. 26x and H.B. 1005x) passed by the Oklahoma Legislature that extended certain State-Tribal compacts relating to tobacco taxes and motor vehicle licensing.
- The Legislature passed these bills during a concurrent special session in 2023, specifically to address budgetary and fiscal concerns related to the expiration of the compacts.
- Governor Stitt vetoed both bills, but the Legislature overrode the veto.
- Stitt then sought a declaratory ruling from the Oklahoma Supreme Court, arguing the session and bills were unconstitutional and infringed on executive authority.
- The litigation centers on the separation of powers, statutory interpretation of the Governor's authority over compacts, and procedural requirements for special legislative sessions.
Issues
| Issue | Stitt's Argument | Treat's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the concurrent special session constitutional? | Constitution bars a special session from running alongside a regular session. | No express constitutional bar against concurrent sessions. | Special session was constitutional; no explicit prohibition in the OK Constitution. |
| Did the bills exceed the special session’s call? | Compacts not specifically listed, so bills exceeded the session’s authorized purpose. | Compacts affect budget-related funds; bills fall within the session's fiscal scope. | No violation; compacts' fiscal impact included within the call’s subject matter. |
| Does the Constitution grant Governor exclusive compacts authority? | Article VI vests exclusive State-Tribal negotiating power in the Governor. | The authority is statutory, not constitutional; Legislature sets parameters via statute. | Authority to negotiate compacts is statutory, not constitutional. |
| Did the bills unlawfully infringe on the Governor’s authority? | Only the Governor can negotiate/extend compacts; bills unlawfully constrain this power. | Legislature retains power to limit delegated statutory authority; no irreconcilable conflict. | No infringement; extension options for tribes run in parallel to Governor’s statutory power. |
Key Cases Cited
- Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 U.S. 505 (State may tax non-tribal sales on Indian land and form compacts with tribes)
- Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Sac & Fox Nation, 508 U.S. 114 (State cannot tax certain activities by tribal members on Indian land)
- Treat v. Stitt, 473 P.3d 43 (Okla. 2020) (Governor must negotiate tribal compacts within limits of legislative authority)
- Treat v. Stitt, 481 P.3d 240 (Okla. 2021) (Governor’s compact authority is statutory, must comply with legislative conditions)
- Glasco v. State ex rel. Okla. Dep't of Corr., 188 P.3d 177 (Okla. 2008) (statutes presumed constitutional unless clearly inconsistent with constitution)
- City of Sand Springs v. Dep't of Public Welfare, 608 P.2d 1139 (Okla. 1980) (statutes should be harmonized unless there is an irreconcilable conflict)