The Oklahoma Bar Journal February 2023

A ppellate L aw

‘Of Public Right’: A Modern Look at the Age-Old Doctrine of Publici Juris and Its Discretionary Application in Appeals and Original Actions Involving the Public Interest

By Melanie Wilson Rughani

W E ALL KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE OLD RIDDLE, “Where does an 800-pound gorilla sit?” Unintended comparisons aside, much the same can be said for the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Under a well-established jurisprudential doctrine, the court can, and does, intervene in disputes effectively “anywhere it wants” – at least when the question presented is of sufficient public import.

courts, they are still established requirements that serve important purposes. As Justice Opala once put it, “Courts are not roving commissions assigned to pass judgment on the validity of the State’s laws.” 1 Doctrines such as standing, ripeness and mootness help ensure the court issues opinions only in cases where the facts are sufficiently developed and the parties are truly adverse, with an incentive to fully litigate the issues. Prohibitions on advisory opinions and adherence to the usual appellate procedures, moreover, help ensure the dockets are not overwhelmed, issues are fully considered, and the courts are not prematurely drawn into political disputes that risk upsetting the separation of powers. 2

Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction that extends “to all cases at law and in equity,” as well as a broad “original jurisdiction” that includes “a general superintending control over all inferior courts and all Agencies, Commissions and Boards created by law,” various “remedial writs” and “such other and further jurisdiction as may be conferred by statute.” In Oklahoma courts, therefore, prohibitions on advisory opinions, standing requirements, ripeness and mootness doctrines, and various other justiciability doctrines are primarily prudential , and the Supreme Court has enormous discretion regarding the exercise of its original jurisdiction. Although the various justiciability doctrines may not be jurisdictional in Oklahoma

Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution vests federal courts with the authority to resolve only certain “cases” and “controversies” – a clause that places important limitations on the jurisdiction of federal courts. Under Article III’s “case or controversy” requirement, federal courts are barred from issuing purely advisory opinions, and they generally may resolve disputes only where the parties asserting claims have standing to do so and an active controversy is presented. While federal courts are thus considered courts of limited jurisdiction, state courts generally are not. The Oklahoma Constitution contains no “case or controversy” requirement. Rather, Article 7, Section 4 of the Oklahoma Constitution vests the Oklahoma

12 | FEBRUARY 2023

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL