The Oklahoma County District Judge who earlier suspended enforcement of Oklahoma’s anti-ESG act following a lawsuit by a state retiree granted summary judgment in the case on Friday.
Judge Sheila Stinson also added three more violations of the state Constitution in her ruling against the Energy Discrimination Elimination Act of 2022, an act challenged by retiree Don Keenan in a lawsuit filed in December 2023. Keenan’s lawsuit argued the creation of a blacklisting of companies that discriminated against the oil and gas industry harmed him. He sued State Treasuer Todd Russ for enforcement of the Act and the creation of a list of firms that were not allowed to do financial business with state agencies, including the retirement systems.
Judge Stinson in her granting of summary judgment said the “Act prohibits private causes of auctions and assesses attorney fees against any individual or entity challenging the statue, with no consideration of whether they are successful or not in their challenge.”
She added, “The Act creates an unconstitutional monetary barrier to the access to courts guaranteed by Art. 2 section 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution.”
The judge’s third addition stated, “Furthermore, the Act creates a special law by creating a class of litigants treated differently than smilarly situated persons or entities in violation of Art. 5, sec 46 of the Oklahoma Constitution”
In reaching her ruling, Judge Stinson relied heavily on a similar ruling in Missouri where a permanent injunction was issued in the Western District involving environmental, social, and corporate governance administrative rules.
“While the Missouri rules differ from the Oklahoma Act as to procedural requirements and applications, the Court finds Ashcroft persuasive as to the issue of commercial speech and the objective of similar legislation.”
She also concluded that Oklahoma’s Act “is more extensive than is necessary to serve the governmental interest.”
In her earlier granting ofa partial summary judgment, the Judge found there were constitutional violations pertaining to the “Exclusive Purpose of Benefits” and “Due Process,” which she found were “unconstitutionally vague.”
“This ruling is a victory for current and future retirees who depend on Oklahoma’s pensions for their financial security, as well as for the state’s taxpayers and businesses,” said Tim Hill, president of the Alliance for Prosperity and a Secure Retirement (APSR).
“First responders, teachers, and other public employees deserve sound financial management of their pensions without the increased risks that come when political agendas are added to the mix,” he said.
“We’re happy to see the courts agree and impose a strong permanent injunction to this law that protects Oklahoma pensioners and taxpayers. I hope other states considering similar laws are paying attention,” Hill concluded.
The State Attorney General, who took control of defending the State Treasurer, took the case to the State Supreme Court prior to the judge’s granting of the summary judgment. A new briefing scheduled was recently granted by the Chief Justice and the new deadline for filings in the case is Oct. 30.
Drummond wasted no time in responding with a press release after the Judge’s ruling, and immediately pointed the finger of blame at the attorney who previously had represented State Treasurer Todd Russ before Drummond’s office took over representation. He said the Act would not be in “this predicament” had Russ not insisted on using his preferred legal counsel to defend it.
“I am committed to repairing the damage done by the Treasurer and his hand-picked attorney. Frankly, Oklahomans deserved better than allowing this law to be jeopardized,” he said in the statement.
In May, Drummond took over the defense of the lawsuit from the Treasurer.
You can read the judge’s order here.
