THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 16 | APRIL 2026 primarily for personal, family or household purposes but may permit business courts with the ability to exercise jurisdiction over mass actions or class claims involving individual consumer claims. 54. Id. at §6.F. 55. Id. 56. Id. 57. Id. 58. Id. at §§7-8 (codified at 20 O.S. §§91.7d and 91.7e). 59. Id. at §7. 60. Id. 61. Id. If an application for temporary injunction is pending on the date the party requesting removal of the action discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, facts establishing the business court’s jurisdiction over the action, then the notice of removal shall be filed not later than 30 days after the date the application is granted, denied or denied as a matter of law. Id. 62. Id. 63. Id. 64. Id. at §8 (codified at 20 O.S. §91.7e). 65. Id. 66. Id. at §8.B. 67. Okla. Constitution, Art. 2, §19; SB 632 at §6.A. 68. Id. at §6.A; see Waggoner v. Johnston, 1965 OK 192, ¶10, 408 P.2d 761 (holding the right of a trial by jury does not extend to equitable actions). 69. SB 632, at §9.A (codified at 20 O.S. §91.7f). 70. Id. at §9.B. 71. White and Waddell v. Gov. Stitt, President Pro Tempore Paxton, and Speaker Hilbert, No. 123222 (Okla. Sup. Ct. filed Jun. 26, 2025) (White). 72. Murray Evans, “Oklahoma Supreme Court quickly stays new law that would establish business courts,” The Oklahoman (Jul. 15, 2025, 6:20 p.m.), https://bit.ly/4kVyO3D. 73. White, 2025 OK 68, _ P3d _. 74. Id. at ¶¶24, 25 and 26. See Okla. Const. Art. 7. 75. Okla. Const. Art. 7B, §4. The constitutional provisions for judicial appointment and other matters regarding the judiciary were adopted by three votes of the people in 1966 and 1967. The state questions and related implementing legislation were a judicial reform package designed to depoliticize the judiciary after an Oklahoma Supreme Court scandal involving vote buying. Bob Burke, “From the Ashes of Scandal Came Court Reform,” OBJ (May 2023); see also “About JNC: Rules of the Oklahoma Judicial Nominating Commission,” Oklahoma Judicial Nominating Commission, https://okjnc.com/about-jnc (May 4, 2021). 76. Id. 77. Id. at Art. 7, §8 78. Id. at §9. 79. The court specifically identified the manner of appointment, term of service and lack of election as unconstitutional features for the business court judges. Although not specifically identified, the reasoning would suggest that the higher compensation of business court judges would also be unconstitutional since the constitutional and statutory framework implies that all district court judges (including business court judges) are compensated at the levels fixed by statute. See 20 O.S. §92. Some other distinctions between the business court judges and district court judges might pass muster. SB 632 imposes more stringent qualification requirements for business court judges. The Oklahoma Constitution addresses qualifications and concludes by saying that district court judges “shall have such additional qualifications as may be prescribed by statute.” Id. at §9. This leeway and the nexus of the qualifications to the business court purposes might be sufficient to preserve the constitutionality of those qualifications. Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==