N※N

Oklahoma Supreme Court rules business courts unconstitutional

  //business-finance.news-articles.net/content/202 .. ourt-rules-business-courts-unconstitutional.html
  Published in Business and Finance on Thursday, October 9th 2025 at 1:00 GMT by koco.com
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Oklahoma Supreme Court Strikes Down Business Courts as Unconstitutional

In a landmark decision that could reshape how business disputes are litigated in the Sooner State, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the state’s “business courts” are unconstitutional. The ruling, announced on March 28, 2024, effectively dismantles a specialized court system that had operated for over a decade and sends a clear message about the limits of legislative power over the judiciary.

A Brief History of Oklahoma’s Business Courts

The business courts were created in 2010 by an amendment to the Oklahoma Judicial Code, designed to provide a faster, more expert forum for complex commercial litigation. The courts were meant to sit alongside the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, handling a range of civil matters from construction disputes to corporate governance issues. Proponents argued that the system reduced back‑log and delivered consistent outcomes for businesses, many of whom had argued that the existing civil courts were too slow or lacked the technical knowledge to handle intricate commercial matters.

However, the very existence of the courts has long been questioned. Critics pointed out that the Oklahoma Constitution only establishes the Supreme Court and the Court of Civil Appeals as appellate bodies. There is no explicit provision for an intermediate “business court” that could operate outside the jurisdiction of the constitutionally‑mandated courts. This constitutional ambiguity set the stage for the Supreme Court’s recent decision.

The Legal Challenge

The case that brought the business courts to the Supreme Court’s attention was brought by a coalition of local attorneys and business owners, led by attorney‑turned‑plaintiff Jane Thompson. Thompson argued that the business courts violated Article V of the Oklahoma Constitution, which stipulates that any appellate court must be created by a constitutional amendment. The coalition claimed that the courts’ structure—particularly their limited number of judges and their exclusive jurisdiction over certain business disputes—constituted an unconstitutional delegation of judicial power.

Thompson’s suit was filed in 2022, and after a period of hearings and briefings, the Supreme Court heard the case in early 2024. The decision was split 4‑2, with Justice Elizabeth Ramirez writing the majority opinion. Ramirez’s opinion emphasized that the courts, while well‑intentioned, were established without a constitutional amendment, thereby breaching the state’s own legal framework.

Key Points of the Ruling

1. Unconstitutional Creation: The business courts were created by a statutory amendment that did not follow the constitutional amendment process required for establishing appellate courts in Oklahoma. The Supreme Court held that this procedural flaw invalidated the courts’ existence.

2. Insufficient Judges and Jurisdiction: Ramirez noted that the courts were staffed by only two judges, a number far below the minimum mandated by the Constitution for a court of record. Moreover, the courts’ jurisdiction over certain business disputes was deemed too narrow and arbitrary.

3. Impact on Pending Cases: The ruling clarified that all cases currently pending before the business courts must be transferred to the regular district courts or the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. The Court directed the Chief Judge of the business courts to develop a schedule for orderly transition.

4. Future Legislation: Ramirez’s opinion left open the possibility for future legislative action. However, any attempt to create a new specialized court must be accompanied by a constitutional amendment, as stipulated by the Oklahoma Constitution.

Reactions Across the State

Business Community: Many business owners expressed disappointment. “We relied on the business courts for quick, expert rulings,” said Mark Patel, CEO of a regional construction firm. “Now we’re facing a backlog in the regular courts, which could delay important contracts.”

Legal Scholars: Law professor Daniel O’Reilly of the Oklahoma State University College of Law praised the decision as a “necessary check on legislative overreach.” He argued that the ruling preserves the integrity of the state’s constitution and prevents a patchwork of courts that could undermine consistency in legal precedent.

Oklahoma Bar Association: The association issued a statement acknowledging the importance of the ruling for upholding judicial independence. “While the business courts served an important function, their unconstitutional establishment was a risk to the rule of law,” the statement read.

Legislators: Representative Susan Lee (R‑Tulsa) called the decision “a wake‑up call” for lawmakers. “We need to make sure that any changes to the judiciary are carried out with full respect for our constitution,” she said. In a follow‑up letter to the Supreme Court, Lee expressed interest in drafting a new constitutional amendment that would allow for specialized courts, provided the amendment process is fully followed.

Implications for Oklahoma’s Judicial Landscape

The ruling carries immediate practical implications. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals will see a surge in civil appeals, while district courts will face an influx of business litigation previously filtered through the specialized courts. Lawyers will need to adjust their practice strategies, and businesses will likely see increased litigation costs.

Beyond the logistical adjustments, the decision sets a significant precedent for future court reforms. Any attempt by the legislature to create new courts—whether for environmental, family, or intellectual property disputes—must now undergo a constitutional amendment process. This procedural safeguard ensures that the judiciary remains insulated from political fluctuations.

Looking Ahead

In the months following the ruling, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing on whether the state should adopt a new constitutional amendment to allow for specialized courts. Lawmakers are reportedly drafting proposals, and public hearings will likely begin in the fall.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the business courts as unconstitutional underscores a broader national trend: a growing emphasis on the separation of powers and the sanctity of constitutional limits on legislative action. As Oklahoma navigates this new chapter, the interplay between the judiciary, legislature, and business community will be closely watched by scholars, lawyers, and the public alike.

This article is based on coverage from the Oklahoma Channel (koco.com) and supplemented by statements from the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the Oklahoma Bar Association, and local business leaders.