Thomas v. Henry
2011 OK 53
| Okla. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Thomas sues for declaratory judgment that H.B.1804 (OKla.2007) is unconstitutional.
- Defendants include Governor Henry; Tulsa County Board dismissed; standing challenged.
- Trial court held Sections 13(A)(1)-(2) violated single-subject rule and severed them; rest survived.
- Thomas appeals; defendants counter-appeal challenging standing and severability.
- Court address multiple constitutional challenges: Special Law, Non-delegation, Establishment of Bureau of Immigration, and Single-Subject Rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the Act | Taxpayers suffer illegal funds expended; standing available. | Standing requires fiscal/appropriation basis; not present here. | Sufficient taxpayer standing to challenge the Act. |
| Special law prohibition under Art. 5, § 46 | Section 5(C) creates flight-risk presumption as a special law altering evidence. | Section 5(C) must be read with rest of §171.2; not a prohibited special law. | Section 5(C) unconstitutional as a special law; severable. |
| Non-delegation doctrine | HB1804 unlawfully delegates to federal authorities without standards. | statute defers to federal systems for verification; not a policy delegation. | No violation of non-delegation; statute acknowledges federal immigration regulation. |
| Single-subject rule | HB1804 contains unrelated provisions violating one-subject requirement. | Provisions share a common theme to discourage illegal immigration. | Most provisions germane; Section 5(C) severed; overall Act sustained with severance. |
| Establishment of a Bureau of Immigration/Art. 5, § 48 | HB1804 creates a state Bureau of Immigration and funds it. | Act only cooperates with federal system; not creation of a bureau or appropriation. | No Bureau of Immigration established; provisions compatible with federal cooperation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oklahoma Public Employees Association v. Oklahoma Department of Central Services, 2002 OK 71 (Okla. 2002) (taxpayer standing to seek equitable relief for illegal expenditure of public funds)
- Grimes v. Oklahoma City, 49 P.3d 719 (Okla. 2002) (general law with local application may exist; art. 5 §59 context)
- Anderson v. Walker, 333 P.2d 570 (Okla. 1958) (germaneness and one-subject principles recognized)
- Zeier v. Zimmer, 152 P.3d 861 (Okla. 2006) (one-subject test focuses on relatedness of provisions)
- Campbell v. White, 856 P.2d 255 (Okla. 1993) (one-subject standard: germane, relative, cognate provisions)
- Edmondson v. Pearce, 91 P.3d 605 (Okla. 2004) (one-subject rule applied to ensure articulated theme)
- Brill v. Gurich, 965 P.2d 404 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998) (bail standards and findings for safety of community)
- DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (U.S. 1976) (immigration policy is federal concern; states may act compatible with federal aims)
- Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1875) (historical limits on state regulation of immigration)
- Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (U.S. 1875) (state vs federal control of immigration matters)
- Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U.S. 88 (U.S. 1992) (preemption threshold requires significant tension with federal objectives)
- Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1984) (preemption/occupational safety and related federal supremacy principles)