Judge tosses lawsuit as state of emergency ends
Case of bar, restaurant owners declared moot
In the wake of Gov. Kevin Stitt’s announcing the end of the COVID-19 state of emergency in Oklahoma, a district court judge on Thursday ruled in favor of the state in a lawsuit over whether the governor had legal authority to impose a curfew on bars and restaurants during a surge in coronavirus cases.
“I find this case is moot and therefore I dismiss it,” Oklahoma County District Court Judge Susan Stallings said.
Stitt issued a curfew order Nov. 16 requiring bars and restaurants to cease the sale of food or alcohol for on-premise consumption from 11 p.m. to 8 a.m.
A group of bar and restaurant owners later won a temporary injunction against the curfew, with Stallings finding that the court needed additional credible evidence showing how bars remaining open after 11 p.m. helped spread COVID-19.
The temporary injunction was to be revisited in court in July.
Oklahoma’s COVID-19 state of emergency officially came to an end Tuesday, and Stallings ruled in favor of the state, who argued that the bar and restaurant owners’ case was moot.
Assistant Solicitor Randall J. Yates argued that with the state of emergency lifted and the curfew no longer in place “there is no legal controversy.”
Frank Urbanic, a lawyer representing the bar and restaurant owners, argued that business owners were hurt by the curfew; it remains unclear what authority the governor has under the Oklahoma Emergency Management Act to impose such measures; and enforcement mechanisms, including punishment for violations, are also unclear.
Urbanic argued that without legal clarification, the governor could impose such restrictions again.
“The people of Oklahoma need to know what their government can or can’t do pursuant to the OEMA,” Urbanic said.
Stalling issued her ruling “without prejudice,” which could lead to the case being refiled.