Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants in a challenge to the validity of HB 2630, which created a defined-contribution system within the Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System. The Court held that the alleged violation of the Oklahoma Pension Legislation Actuarial Analysis Act was non-justiciable and could not support a taxpayer claim for illegal expenditure of public funds, but remanded an independent claim concerning the use of retirement-plan assets because the trial court had not addressed it.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether an alleged violation of the Oklahoma Pension Legislation Actuarial Analysis Act, based on the asserted inaccuracy of the Legislative Actuary's certification of HB 2630, is justiciable and can support a taxpayer claim alleging an illegal expenditure of public funds.
- Whether the Supreme Court could decide plaintiffs' independent claim that HB 2630 violated Oklahoma Constitution article 23, section 12 and 26 U.S.C. § 401(a)(2) when the district court had not adjudicated that claim.
- Whether the district court's grant of summary judgment should be affirmed.
Holdings
- An alleged violation of the Oklahoma Pension Legislation Actuarial Analysis Act based on the accuracy or sufficiency of the Legislative Actuary's certification is non-justiciable and cannot support a taxpayer claim that legislation resulted in an illegal expenditure of public funds.
- The Supreme Court will not exercise appellate jurisdiction to make a first-instance determination of a disputed question of fact or law that the trial court did not adjudicate.
- The district court's grant of summary judgment was affirmed as to the claim based on the alleged violation of the Oklahoma Pension Legislation Actuarial Analysis Act.
Key quotations
“We hold a violation of OPLAAA, as alleged in this matter, is non-justiciable and cannot be the basis for finding an illegal expenditure of public funds.” (¶22)
“This Court will not exercise appellate jurisdiction to make first instance determinations on disputed questions of fact or law.” (¶23)
Factual background
HB 2630 created the Retirement Freedom Act and established a defined-contribution system within the Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System for most employees who initially joined OPERS on or after November 1, 2015, while maintaining a defined-benefit plan for earlier participants. The Legislative Actuary certified HB 2630 as a nonfiscal retirement bill under the Oklahoma Pension Legislation Actuarial Analysis Act. Plaintiffs, Oklahoma taxpayers and vested OPERS participants, alleged that the certification was incorrect, that the Legislature consequently used the wrong procedures, and that OPERS assets might be used for costs associated with the new system.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed a petition challenging HB 2630, alleging that the Legislature violated the Oklahoma Pension Legislation Actuarial Analysis Act and that the statute violated constitutional and federal-law protections concerning public retirement funds. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The district court granted defendants' motion, finding that plaintiffs had individual standing but that the issues were not ripe and that the Act had not been violated. The Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment ruling on the justiciability issue but remanded plaintiffs' independent claim concerning the use of OPERS funds because the district court had not adjudicated it.
Remand instructions
The district court must conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinion on plaintiffs' independent taxpayer claim that HB 2630 violated Oklahoma Constitution article 23, section 12 and 26 U.S.C. § 401(a)(2) by diverting OPERS defined-benefit-plan assets.