Opinion ID: 4230358
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Petitioners' Standing

Text: ¶3 The new Impaired Driving Elimination Act 2 (IDEA2) contains seventeen numbered sections and according to its title includes, but is not limited to, provisions which relate to revocation, modification, and reinstatement of driver licenses, ignition interlock devices installed in vehicles, making certain acts unlawful, clarifying and deleting procedures relating to blood and breath tests for the presence of alcohol, surrender of driver licenses, and authorization to the Department of Public Safety to create the Impaired Driver Accountability Program by June 30, 2018. Petitioners, four Oklahoma lawyers and licensed drivers raise two constitutional claims on behalf of themselves and their clients and argue they will be adversely affected when the Act is scheduled to become effective on November 1, 2017. Respondents challenge the standing of the petitioners to bring an action challenging a new Act which has not yet been made effective. 1 Standing is a preliminary or threshold issue adjudicated prior to an examination of the merits. 2 ¶4 Petitioners allege they possess standing based upon one or more of five criteria: 1. They are subject to potential criminal prosecution pursuant to the new legislation; 2. They are subject to potential civil drivers' revocation in the future; 3. They represent the interests of future clients subject to civil and criminal proceedings within the scope of the new Act; (4) The new Act will have an adverse economic impact on their businesses which represent many Oklahomans in criminal and civil proceedings related to the subject matter of the new Act; and (5) They possess public interest standing. We need not analyze the issues raised by petitioners and respondents relating to petitioners' standing based upon potential criminal proceedings, 3 potential and hypothetical civil proceedings, their representation of hypothetical future clients, or any potential adverse business impact to their practice of law. 4 We find petitioners possess a public interest standing in this matter as we now explain. ¶5 This Court possesses discretion to grant standing to private parties to vindicate the public interest in cases presenting issues of great public importance. 5 This discretion is properly exercised to grant standing where there are competing policy considerations and lively conflict between antagonistic demands. 6 ¶6 A matter that affects the rights of the citizens of the State is publici juris . 7 During oral argument before the Court all parties commented on publici juris attributes of this controversy, including the great number of Oklahoma citizens in all counties of the State subject to the provisions in the new Act related to impaired driving and other provisions; 8 and additionally certain administrative procedures authorized for Department of Public Safety creation to supplement the Act, but which have not yet been created or approved for the effective date of November 1, 2017; and other administrative procedures which the Department has legislative approval to delay creation until June 30, 2018. ¶7 The adjective-law 9 component to standing in an Oklahoma state court, while creating a barrier in a private-law original jurisdiction action, does not hinder this Court from giving adequate relief in a publici juris original jurisdiction proceeding. 10 Any potential Okla. Const. Art. 7 § 1 jurisdictional/judicial power or justiciability components to standing 11 which may act as potential barriers to petitioners' standing to obtain declaratory relief are resolved by our findings: (1) Petitioners possess interests in challenging this specific Act which are opposed to those of respondents and the controversy presents a lively conflict between antagonistic demands; (2) The controversy is publici juris due to the negative consequences attendant to enforcing alleged unconstitutional provisions statewide which relate to both criminal and civil adjective and substantive law involving operating a motor vehicle; (3) The controversy has an exigent nature due to the effective date for the Act which is linked to an allegation of delayed or untimely administrative regulations affecting substantive rights granted under the Act; 12 and (4) Petitioners' standing to enforce public officials' compliance with constitutional requirements by means of declaratory relief is not a prohibited advisory opinion, but has a common-law prototype in both the historic prerogative writ of mandamus and the bill in equity for an injunction which tested the legality of public officials' conduct. 13 We conclude these petitioners possess standing to vindicate the public interest in a case presenting issues of great public importance.