Title: Ritter v. Oklahoma
Citation: 2022 OK 73
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: September 20, 2022

Ritter v. Oklahoma Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary The plaintiffs/appellees, doctors, parents, and the Oklahoma State Medical Association, (collectively, doctors) brought a declaratory judgment action against the State of Oklahoma and the Governor seeking: (1) a declaration that Senate Bill 658 (codified as 70 O.S. Supp. 2021 Ch. 15, §§1210-189 and 190), which restricted school districts of local control of public schools from making decisions about mask wearing to school in order to protect all students from contracting or spreading a highly contagious and infectious disease, only when the Governor declared a state of emergency was unconstitutional; and (2) an injunction enjoining the alleged unconstitutional legislation from being enforced. The trial court granted a temporary injunction, enjoining the State from enforcing portions of Senate Bill 658. The State and Governor appealed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that 70 O.S. Supp. 2021 §§1210-189 and 190, were an unconstitutional, impermissible delegation of Legislative authority. However, because the objectionable provision was stricken, the remainder of the statutes could be upheld. Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Oklahoma Supreme Court? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Oklahoma Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . RITTER v. STATE 2022 OK 73 Case Number: 119840 Decided: 09/20/2022 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. DR. VALERIE RITTER, for herself as an Individual and for and on behalf of her Minor Children RR and ER; KIMBERLY BUTLER, for herself as an individual and For and on behalf of her Minor Child HB; DR. BRITNEY ELSE, for herself as an Individual and for and on behalf of her Minor Child BJ; and THE OKLAHOMA STATE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, an Oklahoma Not For Profit Corporation, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA; AND THE HONORABLE KEVIN STITT In his official capacity as GOVERNOR OF OKLAHOMA, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County Honorable Natalie Mai, Trial Judge ¶0 The plaintiffs/appellees, doctors, parents, and the Oklahoma State Medical Association, (collectively, doctors) brought a declaratory judgment action against the State of Oklahoma and the Governor in the District Court of Oklahoma County. They sought: 1) a declaration that Senate Bill 658, codified as 70 O.S. Supp. 2021 Ch. 15, §§1210-189 and 190, which restricts school districts of local control of public schools from making decisions about mask wearing to school in order to protect all students from contracting or spreading a highly contagious and infectious disease, only when the Governor declares a state of emergency is unconstitutional; and 2) an injunction enjoining the alleged unconstitutional legislation from being enforced. The trial court granted a temporary injunction, enjoining the State from enforcing portions of Senate Bill 658. The State of Oklahoma and the Governor appealed. We retained the cause and hold that 70 O.S. Supp. 2021 §§1210-189 and 190, are an unconstitutional, impermissible delegation of Legislative authority. However, because the objectionable provision is stricken, the remainder of the statutes may be upheld. APPEAL PREVIOUSLY RETAINED; ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT VACATED. Robert A. Nance, Chad C. Taylor, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Donald M. Bingham, Sharon K. Weaver, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs/Appellees. Bryan Cleveland, Mithun Mansinghani, Office of the Attorney General, State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellants. Hilary H. Clifton, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Jesse L. Marks, Denver, Colorado, for American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Oklahoma Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics, Amicus Curiae. Jeffrey B. Dubner, Jessica Anne Morton, Democracy Forward Foundation, Washington, D.C., for American Academy of Pediatrics, Amicus Curiae. Nick Southerland, Brian S. Wilerson, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Oklahoma Disability Law Center, Amicus Curiae KAUGER, J.: ¶1 The determinative question presented is whether Senate Bill 658, codified as 70 O.S. Supp. 2021 Ch. 15, §§1210-189 and 190, is an unconstitutional restriction of the ability of public schools to exercise local control of the health and welfare of students.1 We hold that 70 O.S. Supp. 2021 Ch. 15, §1210-189 and 190 are an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority in violation of art. 4, §1 of the Oklahoma Constitution only to the extent that they require the Governor to declare an emergency before local school districts may make decisions regarding local health matters.2 We strike the offending provision and the remainder of the statutes remain upheld.3 THE PARTIES, THE ALLEGED FACTS, AND THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY. ¶2 The plaintiff/appellee, Dr. Valerie Ritter, is a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, specializing in Pediatrics. She is also the parent of two children who are under the age of twelve, and who are enrolled in the Tulsa Public School system. One of her children has a history of bronchiectasis and hospitalizations for respirator distress and pneumonia. The plaintiff/appellee, Kimberly Butler, is the mother of four minor children also enrolled in the Tulsa Public School System. One of her children has epilepsy and Autism Spectrum Disorder. Ms. Butler, whose graduate degree is in public health, also works in the medical industry as a Senior Program Officer overseeing Maternal Child Health at the George Kaiser Family Foundation. She also serves on the Board of Directors for a Tulsa hospital and on the City of Tulsa's COVID-19 Testing Task Force. ¶3 The plaintiff/appellee, Mary Ann Martin is the parent of three minor children who are enrolled in the Norman Public School System. One of her children has serious health issues and a compromised immune system. The plaintiff/appellee, Dr. Britney Else is the parent of a minor child who is enrolled in the Broken Arrow Public School System. Dr. Else is a family-medicine and sports-medicine physician. The plaintiff/appellee, Oklahoma State Medical Association is a domestic not for profit corporation whose mission is "Better Health for Oklahoma." ¶4 On March 15, 2020, Oklahoma's Governor, J. Kevin Stitt, declared a statewide emergency due to the coronavirus pandemic and the impending threat of the spread of COVID-19 to the people of this State and their peace, health, and safety.4 As the pandemic spread, the Governor continued to issue several modifications to his state of emergency declaration, until, in an executive order issued May 3, 2021, and made effective May 4, 2021, the Governor rescinded his previous emergency declaration.5 Subsequently, the Oklahoma Legislature passed Senate Bill 658 in May of 2021, and the Governor signed it into law on May 28, 2021. ¶5 Senate Bill 658 concerns additions and amendments to school health and safety statutes 70 O.S. 2011 Ch. 15, §§1210.191-1210.194 which were enacted in 1970. The statutes concern school immunizations, exemptions from immunizations,6 and the control of contagious diseases and head lice.7 Prior to the 2021 additions/amendments, the statutes expressly listed immunization requirements for minor children to attend schools operating in the state. For example, 70 O.S. 2011 Ch. 15 §1210.191, provides in pertinent part: A. No minor child shall be admitted to any public, private, or parochial school operating in this state unless and until certification is presented to the appropriate school authorities from a licensed physician, or authorized representative of the State Department of Health, that such child has received or is in the process of receiving, immunizations against diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, haemophilus influenzae type B (HIB), measles (rubeola), (rubella), poliomyelitis, varicella, and hepatitis A or is likely to be immune as a result of the disease.8 Title 70 O.S. 2011 Ch. 15 §1210.194 provides in pertinent part: A. Any child afflicted with a contagious disease or head lice may be prohibited from attending a public, private, or parochial school until such time as he is free from the contagious disease or head lice. . . . ¶6 However, Senate Bill 658 creates/adds two new sections, 70 O.S. Supp. 2021 §§1210-189 and 190, which work together.9 Section 1210-189 relates to vaccination restrictions and COVID-19 mask mandates. It provides: A. A board of education of a public school district or a technology center school district, the board of regents of an institution within The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education, the governing board of a private post secondary educational institution, the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, the State Board of Education or the State Board of Career and Technology Education shall not:1. Require a vaccination against Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a condition of admittance to or attendance of the school or institution;2. Require a vaccine passport as a condition of admittance to or attendance of the school or institution; or3. Implement a mask mandate for students who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19.B. As used in this section, "vaccine passport" means documentation that an individual has been vaccinated against COVID-19.C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to any public or private healthcare setting. Section 1210-190 provides: A. A board of education of a public school district or a technology center school district may only implement a mandate to wear a mask or any other medical device as provided in this subsection.1. A board of education of a public school district or a technology center school district may only implement a mandate to wear a mask or any other medical device after consultation with the local county health department or city-county health department within the jurisdiction of where the board is located and when the jurisdiction of where the board is located is under a current state of emergency declared by the Governor.2. The mandate shall explicitly list the purposes for the mandate.3. The mandate shall reference the specific masks or medical devices that would meet the requirements of the mandate.4. Any mandate to implement wearing a mask or any other medical device shall be reconsidered at each regularly scheduled board meeting. (Emphasis supplied.) ¶7 On August 12, 2021, the plaintiffs/appellees, the two doctors (doctors) and the two additional parents on behalf of their minor children (parents), along with the Oklahoma State Medical Association (OSMA) (collectively, doctors) filed a lawsuit in the District Court of the Oklahoma County against the State of Oklahoma, acting through the Legislature and the Governor, (collectively, the State). The doctors sought to enjoin the State from enforcing 70 O.S. Supp. 2021 Ch. 15, §1210-189 and 190.10 ¶8 They argued that the new additions to the legislation were unenforceable because: 1. They were an unconstitutional violation of equal protection and due process guaranteed by Okla. Const. art. 2, §7,11 because they only applied to public school districts, and not private and parochial schools, even though the existing provisions applied to all schools within the State of Oklahoma;2. They were a violation of the Okla. Const. art. 5, §46 which prohibits the enactment of special laws regulating the affairs of school districts;123. They were a violation of the Okla. Const. art. 5, §57 which requires every act of the Legislature to embrace only one section;13 and4. They were a violation of Oklahoma childen's right to a free education in a safe environment guaranteed by the Okla. Const. art. 1, §5.14 The plaintiffs do not take issue with the minor modifications which were made to 70 O.S. 2021 Ch. 15, §1210-191.1 by Senate Bill 658.15 Consequently, we do not review this statute for constitutional validity.16 ¶9 On September 8, 2021, the trial court filed an order in which it granted, in part, the doctors' amended motion for a temporary injunction. The order states that: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Temporary Injunction is granted in part. The State of Oklahoma and Governor Kevin Stitt are enjoined from enforcing certain sections of SB658 enacted in 2021 against any board of education of a public school district that has exemptions as described herein, specifically 70 O.S. §1210.189(A)(3) prohibiting a mask mandate for unvaccinated K-12 students and 70 O.S. §1210.190 prohibiting a board of education of a public school district from implementing a mandate to wear a mask against K-12 public schools until further order of this Court. Any mask mandate or requirement for students in a K-12 public school must include the same exemptions that are present in 70 O.S. §§1210.192-1210.193." ¶10 The State appealed on September 9, 2021. The doctors filed a counter-appeal on September 20, 2021. According to the doctors' counter petition in error, the result of the trial court's order is that public school districts must honor the absolute immunization "veto" by parents as to masking, but private schools are not similarly bound by such a requirement. Both parties filed motions to retain the appeal in this Court. We granted the State's motion to retain the appeal on September 15, 2021, and the doctors' motion to retain on September 23, 2021. After the expedited briefing cycle was completed, the cause was assigned on December 28, 2021, for an opinion.17 TITLE 70 O.S. SUPP. §§1210-189 AND 190 ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY WHICH VIOLATES THE OKLA. CONST. ART. 4 §1 ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY REQUIRE THE GOVERNOR TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY BEFORE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS MAY MAKE DECISIONS REGARDING LOCAL HEALTH MATTERS. WE STRIKE THE OFFENDING PROVISIONS AND THE REMAINDER OF THE STATUTES REMAIN UPHELD. ¶11 The standard of review imposed for the issuance of a temporary injunction is whether the trial court abused its discretion or entered a decision against the evidence.18 Much of the State's arguments misdirect the attention away from the dispositive issue to larger, public policy and political issues which are not before us. Because we decide the matter on improper legislative delegation of authority, we need not address the other constitutional arguments of unconstitutional violation of equal protection and due process, the enactment of special laws regulating the affairs of school districts, violation of the single subject rule, or a child's right to a free education in a safe environment. ¶12 Title 70 O.S. Supp. 2021 §§189 and 190 do not prohibit public schools from requesting that students wear masks to school, nor do they prohibit students from wearing masks to school. Nor do they require vaccines for COVID or prohibit students from getting vaccinated. Rather, they prohibit a public school district from requiring a vaccination or proof of a vaccination before attending in-person school and from mandating masks for unvaccinated students, unless the district first consults with the local county health department or city-county health department within the jurisdiction of where the school board is located and then, only if the Governor declares a state of emergency in that same jurisdiction. If the Governor, as he has publicly indicated, will not declare a state of emergency due to COVID, then the statute acts as a state wide prohibition for masks for public schools.19 ¶13 The Oklahoma Governor has limited autonomous authority. The Court in Treat v. Stitt, 2020 OK 64, ¶¶4-5, 473 P.3d 43, explained the separation of powers as follows: . . . The legislative branch sets the public policy of the State by enacting law not in conflict with the Constitution. Okla. Const. art. V, § 1. The Governor has a role in setting that policy through his function in the legislative process, but the Governor's primary role is in the faithful execution of the law. Okla. Const. art. VI, §§ 8 & 11. ¶14 Section 8 provides: "The Governor shall cause the laws of the State to be faithfully executed, and shall conduct in person or in such manner as may be prescribed by law, all intercourse and business of the State with other states and with the United States, and he shall be a conservator of the peace throughout the State." As far as the Governor's general authority goes, it is recognized that the drafters of the Oklahoma Constitution placed provisions to protect the people of the State of Oklahoma against excessive political and economic power. ¶15 Oklahoma's historical underpinnings were economically conservative. Fearing excessive power in the hands of one individual, the framers of the Oklahoma Constitution intentionally created a weak state chief executive. The Governor's authority is limited by the Constitution, because the Chief Executive may exercise only the power specifically granted by the Legislature. The Governor is without authority to exercise a discretion not validly and specifically granted by the statutory law and not within the power conferred upon the Chief Executive by the Constitution.20 ¶16 On the other hand, the Legislature has plenary authority to establish the public policy of the State and the Legislature has wide latitude in what it can do with public schools. The Oklahoma Constitution Preamble expressly recognizes that it was established to promote the mutual welfare of citizens.21 The furtherance of the health and safety of citizens has long been recognized as a valid basis of police power.22 We have expressly acknowledged that it is the Legislature which sets the public policy of the State as long as it does not conflict with the Constitution.23 ¶17 The Legislature goes to great lengths and devotes great resources to curtail the spread of infectious diseases. The necessity of curtailing the spread of contagious diseases is also well-grounded and authorized by the Oklahoma Legislature through statutory authority.24 As we noted in Fair School Finance Council of Oklahoma, Inc. v. State, 1987 OK 14, ¶47, 746 P.2d 1135 , "[t]here is simply no doubt that local participation and control are an objective of the Oklahoma scheme, because these are expressly mentioned in 70 O.S. 1981 §18-101." The school system is "designed to strengthen and encourage local responsibility for control of public education, with the maximum public autonomy and responsibility remaining at the local level." Fair, supra at ¶45. ¶18 Public health codes "in a clear and compelling fashion" articulate a well-defined, firmly established, state public policy.25 Oklahoma, along with every other state, already requires most of the CDC recommended immunizations for children and teens, without differentiating why a COVID vaccine might be treated differently than any others.26 ¶19 At the heart of the legislation in this matter is local control usurped or impeded by requiring the Governor to declare or not declare a state of emergency. The statutes remove the school board's authority to act independently and exercise the authority granted to the school board and it grants that authority to the Governor -- who has neither constitutional nor statutory authority over the operation of schools. ¶20 This is an impermissible delegation of authority. One branch of government may neither directly or indirectly control another branch -- nor subject it to coercive influence.27 While the Legislature may not delegate its authority to make policy, it may delegate rulemaking authority to implement its policies.28 Any rulemaking authority is subordinate to the statute itself, which must both establish policy and provide definite standards for the delegated exercise of rulemaking power.29 But such a delegation cannot confer the power to change the underlying law.30 ¶21 The statutes go far beyond a delegation of rulemaking authority. A school board is prohibited from deciding to implement any mask mandate, even after consulting local health department experts. Instead, that decision is controlled by a separate, independent action by the Governor. This allows the Governor to alter the implementation of the law without any legal authority to do so, even though the Governor does have the statutory authority, in limited circumstances, to issue executive orders declaring a state of emergency. ¶22 The question in this cause is whether the Governor's limited ability to declare an emergency can serve as the basis for a legitimate exercise of authority over public school decisionmaking. It cannot because the clause in the statutes does not merely grant the Governor the authority to declare an emergency, but instead, it requires the Governor to exercise legislative authority over school boards, and, as such, is impermissible. ¶23 In some circumstances an invalid portion of a statute may be stricken, while the remainder of the statute remains enforceable. This is the case when the valid provisions are separable, or are capable of being executed in accordance with the legislative intent of the statute as enacted.31 A local district's authority to protect its students under the statutes at issue is totally dependent on the governor declaring an emergency. Without such a delegation the school district is powerless and it is denied local control. Accordingly, striking the objectionable delegation to the Governor's declaration of an emergency further enhances the legislative intent of the statutes. Therefore, the remainder of the statutes remain upheld. CONCLUSION ¶24 The Okla. Const. art 4, §1 prohibits one branch of the government from exercising powers properly belonging to another branch.32 Local control of schools is usurped by requiring the Governor to exercise executive authority to declare a state of emergency. The statutes remove the school board's authority to act independently and exercise the authority granted to school boards and it grants that authority to the Governor -- who has neither constitutional nor statutory authority over the operation of schools. That responsibility cannot be abrogated through the Governor's independent action. Consequently, striking the clause found in the last sentence of Section 1210-190(A)(1) "and when the jurisdiction of where the board is located is under a current state of emergency declared by the Governor," removes the constitutional infirmity and enhances the school board's authority to act independently and exercise authority over local public health and welfare matters. APPEAL PREVIOUSLY RETAINED; ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT VACATED. DARBY, C.J., KAUGER, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, GURICH, ROWE, KUEHN, JJ., concur. FISCHER, S.J., with whom COMBS, J., joins: concurs in part, dissents in part. KANE, V.C.J., recused. FOOT