“Application to assume original jurisdiction is denied.”

That’s all the Oklahoma Supreme Court wrote in arguably the most important decision it made in 2022. The case was Jones v. Ziriax, and the only issue presented was “whether a special election to replace the Honorable James M. Inhofe (‘Senator Inhofe’) as a member of the United States Senate from Oklahoma may occur prior to Senator Inhofe actually vacating his office.” 

As Oklahomans may recall, Sen. Inhofe submitted an “irrevocable pledge to retire from the United States Senate” on February 25, 2022. Sen. Inhofe had just been re-elected in 2020 and still had four years left on his term. The Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, in relevant part, “[w]hen vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.” 

The case brought by Enid attorney Stephen Jones argued that so long as Sen. Inhofe was in office, there was no “vacancy.” Therefore, Jones argued, it was unlawful for Governor Kevin Stitt to call for a special election to elect Sen. Inhofe’s replacement. It’s hard to argue Jones was wrong. Until Sen. Inhofe officially left office, it’s not impossible to imagine a Tom Brady-like scenario where he changes his mind and rescinds his intended resignation. 

Nevertheless, the State filed a brief defending the special election to replace Sen. Inhofe making several arguments—not all of them on the merits. In addition to arguing the special election did not violate the Seventeenth Amendment, the State also argued that Jones lacked standing, a procedural challenge. Having read the briefs, both sides had good arguments for why they should win. The case really could have gone either way.

In the end, the Oklahoma Supreme Court decided against Jones, denying his requested relief. The problem comes in how they did so. Instead of writing an opinion analyzing the arguments made by the parties, the Court denied Jones’s relief in a single sentence.

One of the duties of a judge or justice is to establish precedent. Politicians are free to make decisions on any basis they please and need not tell anyone why they voted as they did.  Judges, on the other hand, because they are bound to decide according to the law, must explain the legal basis of their decisions. If they do not explain their reasoning, the foundation of legal precedent, neither lawyers nor the people will have any idea of what the law is. As mentioned, the State made different arguments, but Oklahomans have no idea whether the Court ruled based on the merits or on standing grounds. Suppose this scenario reoccurs. Would another litigant—one with a better standing argument—be more successful than Jones? We have no idea. And this is far from the only case where the Court declined to write an opinion.

One can only guess why not a single justice elected to write anything that could serve as a guide for future cases. Of course, as highlighted by the minimum wage case, the Oklahoma Supreme Court doesn’t feel compelled to follow its own precedent, so any precedential value would have to be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, Oklahomans—litigators and otherwise—deserve to know why the Court is ruling the way it is. More importantly, the rule of law requires the Court to explain its reasoning.

Photo credit: Google Maps