Court Opinion

ID: 9787604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:20:21.427792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:58.495825
License: Public Domain

SUMMERS, C.J.,
Concurring, and joined by KAUGER and WATT, JJ.
111 Although I agree with the opinion, it is my additional observation that the Speech or Debate Clause of the Oklahoma Constitution1 insulates Speaker Benson from suit in this case. Ethics Commission v. Cullison, 1993 OK 37, 850 P.2d 1069 is clearly distinguishable. See separate opinion of Opala, J., concurring in result therein, 850 P.2d at 1083-1085. There the Speaker and President Pro Tem were but nominal defendants; the suit was against the state itself to invalidate specific legislation. Here the acts of the Speaker in conducting business within the chamber of the House of Representatives are called into question; no attack is made against the validity of any particular legislation. The clause has been applied to acts of a legislative nature as well as to speech narrowly defined. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 502, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969). The Speaker is immune from suits of this sort.

. Oklahoma Constitution, Art. V § 22 provides: Senators and Representatives shall, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during the session of the Legislature, and in going to and returning from the same, and, for any speech or debate in either House, shall not be questioned in any other place. (emphasis added)