The Oklahoma Bar Journal October 2026

ENDNOTES

1. See, e.g., Question submitted by: The Honorable James E. Covey, State Representative, District 57, 2004 OK AG 15, ¶2 2. Okla. Stat. tit. 11 §1-102(1) 3. 2004 OK AG 15 ¶5 (citation omitted) 4. City of Tulsa v. Public Employees Relations Bd., 1990 OK 114 ¶9 (citation omitted) 5. Okla. Con. Art. 18 §3(a) 6. Okla. Stat. tit. 11 §13-109; See also, Okla. Stat. tit. 11 §1-102(1) (“Once a municipal charter has been adopted and approved, it becomes the organic law of the municipality in all matters pertaining to the local government of the municipality and prevails over state law on matters relating to purely municipal concerns[.]”) 7. Edwards v. City of Sallisaw, 2014 OK 86 ¶11 8. Thomas v. Oklahoma City, 1998 OK CIV APP 14, ¶7 (citing Moore v. City of Tulsa, 1977 OK 43) 9. City of Tulsa v. Public Employees Relations Bd., 1990 OK 114 ¶10 10. Id. 11. Id. 12. Id. (citation omitted) 13. City of Chickasha v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 1981 OK CIV APP 5, ¶7 14. Id. 15. Id. 16. U.S. Elevator Corp. v. City of Tulsa, 1980 OK 69 17. Moore Funeral Homes, Inc. v. City of Tulsa, 1976 OK 96 18. Question Submitted by: Robert E. Jones, Jr., Executive Director, Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, 2008 OK AG 15 19. Hampton v. Hammons, 1987 OK 77, ¶26 20. Id. 21. Town of Luter v. State, 1967 OK 59 22. Id. 23. Edwards v. City of Sallisaw, 2014 OK 86 ¶10 (citing Thurston v. Caldwell , 1913 OK 714 ¶10) 24. See, Question Submitted by: The Honorable Pual Taliaferro, Oklahoma State Senate, 1981 OK AG 213 ¶4 (likening the application of charter preemption to “beating a path through a jungle.”); Edwards v. City of Sallisaw, 2014 OK 86 ¶11 (“The line between chiefly municipal affair and a sovereign state interest is not well illuminate.”) 25. Question Submitted by: The Honorable Homer F. Rieger, Oklahoma House of Representatives, 1981 OK AG 90, ¶7 26. City of Enid v. Public Employees Relations Board, 2006 OK 16, ¶22 (citing Lackey v. State, 1911 OK 270, ¶20) 27. Kingfisher v. Oklahoma, 1998 OK CIV APP 39 28. Question Submitted by: The Honorable Paul Wesselhoft, State Representative, District 54, 2005 OK AG 27 29. Fossett v. State, 1926 OK CR 150 30. Question Submitted by: The Honorable Frank Harbin, Oklahoma House of Representatives, 1981 OK AG 287 31. Thomas v. Oklahoma City, 1998 OK CIV APP 14, ¶7 32. Question Submitted by: The Honorable Pual Taliaferro, Oklahoma State Senate, 1981 OK AG 213, ¶2

Ordinances authorized by charters may run concurrent with the general laws of the state but not counter to it when addressing matters of statewide interest. 32

cities have full power of local gov ernment and may enact ordinances to protect the public peace, order, health, morals, and safety, even though state statutes may address the same subjects.” 31 Ordinances authorized by charters may run concurrent with the general laws of the state but not counter to it when addressing matters of state wide interest. 32 Legal practitioners involved in municipal law – whether challeng ing municipal act, defending those acts, or advising municipalities – should stay cognizant of the authority vested in municipal charters. In particular, they should: 1) discern whether a municipality has a charter; 2) determine if the charter conflicts with state law; and, if so, 3) analyze whether it is a matter of purely municipal concern or a matter of statewide interest.

when ordinances take effect; 21 and the form of city government the municipality adopts. 22 Municipal preemption is not unbounded, however. “[M]unicipal authority can be overcome despite ‘chiefly local interest’ if ‘the state has a sovereign interest’ in the munic ipal matter.” 23 This line between “chiefly municipal affairs” and “sovereign state interest” is murky at best. 24 Indeed, “many courts have acknowledged that they deliberately refuse to define the terms ‘munic ipal affairs’ and ‘state affairs’ in order that each case as it arises may be considered on its own facts[.]” 25 If the legislation “involves matters of the state at large” or if it “affects its people generally” state legislation will not be preempted by munici pal charters. 26 Examples where the state’s sovereign interest over come “local interest” include: the Open Meetings Act; 27 regulation of dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs; 28 the court a municipal con viction is appealed to; 29 and school board elections. 30 Aside from preempting conflict ing state law pertaining to munici pal concerns, “[c]hartered home-rule

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Gunner Briscoe is a municipal judge for Oklahoma City’s Municipal Criminal Court of Record.

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.

10 | OCTOBER 2026

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL