Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court denied petitioners' application to assume original jurisdiction and their requested writ of mandamus concerning social-distancing requirements for a presidential campaign rally at Tulsa's BOK Center. The court concluded that petitioners lacked a clear legal right to relief because the applicable state and local guidance was permissive and discretionary rather than mandatory. Separate concurring writings addressed the discretionary nature of the applicable guidance and the court's role in applying, rather than creating, legal requirements.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court should assume original jurisdiction over petitioners' application for extraordinary relief.
- Whether petitioners established a clear legal right to a writ of mandamus requiring social-distancing protocols for the proposed rally.
- Whether petitioners demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to support temporary injunctive relief.
Holdings
- The Court denied petitioners' application to assume original jurisdiction because petitioners failed to establish a clear legal right to the requested relief.
Key quotations
“Petitioners cannot establish the necessary elements for a writ of mandamus, specifically that Petitioners possess a clear legal right to the relief they seek.” (order)
“The OURS Plan is permissive, suggestive and discretionary.” (Combs, J. concurring, ¶ 1)
Factual background
Petitioners sought to prevent or restrict a June 20, 2020 presidential campaign rally at the BOK Center unless social-distancing protocols were implemented. Oklahoma's Open Up and Recover Safely Plan stated that entertainment venues had discretion to determine whether and when to apply social-distancing measures. The Governor's and Tulsa Mayor's executive orders presented to the Court did not impose a mandatory social-distancing requirement for the event.
Procedural history
The petition was presented directly to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Court denied the application to assume original jurisdiction because petitioners could not establish a clear legal right to the requested mandamus relief. A concurring writing explained that the applicable executive orders and the Open Up and Recover Safely Plan made social-distancing measures discretionary rather than mandatory.