Jim Crow Voting Rights — Guinn v. United States (1915)

Oklahoma giveth, and Oklahoma taketh away. When Oklahoma was admitted to the union in 1907, the state constitution as written gave any man, of any ethnicity, the ability to vote (subject to some age and residency requirements). Three years later, Oklahoma amended the state constitution to take away the ability to vote unless a citizen could pass a literacy test.

Oklahoma’s literacy requirement applied to all potential voters unless they qualified under the “grandfather clause.” This clause exempted a potential voter from the literacy test if he was the direct descendant of someone who could vote on or before January 1st, 1866. As a result of this literacy requirement, black citizens who could vote under the original state constitution were turned away from the polls.

The literacy requirement and its grandfather clause were eventually challenged in the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the United States argued that Oklahoma’s grandfather clause violated the Fifteenth Amendment. This amendment secures the right of persons to be free from restrictions on voting that are race-based. As the United States asserted, the grandfather clause’s cut-off date, January 1st, 1866, was in effect a race-based restriction on voting.

The Supreme Court agreed. Key to the Court’s determination, the Fifteenth Amendment was not ratified until 1870. But the grandfather clause applied to those whose grandfather could vote in 1866—four years before the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment. Effectively, the grandfather clause exempted white citizens, whose grandfathers could vote before the Fifteenth Amendment, and applied largely to black citizens, whose grandfathers could not vote before the Fifteenth Amendment. The grandfather clause, therefore, was a race-based restriction on voting and the Court struck the clause (as well as the literacy test) down as unconstitutional.

 United States v. Enfield (1918)

President Woodrow passed the Selective Service act in May of 1917. Orville Enfield, an Ellis County Judge was a vocal opponent of the act and spoke out against it almost immediately after the act’s passage. In his response to his activism, the United States Attorney charged Enfield of conspiring to oppose the selective service act by force. These charges led to Enfield’s conviction.

Enfield appealed his conspiracy convictions in federal court. On appeal Enfield argued he was prejudiced by evidence introduced by the government and wrongfully admitted by the trial court. Specifically, the evidence that Enfield’s brother was a military deserter and introduced into evidence an inflammatory speech given by a man named Hicks.

Hicks was an ex-convict with a history of making “anarchistic speeches, intended and calculated to incite lawlessness.” In addition, Hicks had a history of claiming affiliation with organizations of which he was not a member, or which were entirely made up. At the time Hicks testified against Enfield, he was under indictment for his own speeches.

The Eighth Circuit (which then preceded over Oklahoma) found the introduction of the desertion and Hicks’s speech were not only improperly admitted but highly prejudicial.

As to the desertion, the court noted the prosecution failed to allege any connection between Enfield and the actions of his brother. “Enfield was in no way shown to be connected with, or responsible for, the desertion.”

As to the inflammatory speech, though the prosecution promised to connect Hicks to the alleged conspiracy, no connection was ever made. Hicks and Enfield both spoke at the same event, but Enfield had no idea Hicks would be speaking until he arrived at the event. When Enfield learned Hicks would be speaking at the event, Enfield initially refused to speak but ultimately relented at the urging of his friends. The only connections shown between the two men were Enfield applauding at a certain point during Hicks’s speech and testimony by a witness that the two men’s speeches were similar. It was through this tenuous connection that the government introduced a portion of Hicks’s speech deemed “a vicious, scurrilous, seditious outburst against the government, which would naturally inflame the righteous anger of every patriotic man upon the jury.” Without showing Enfield was in any way responsible for the inflammatory speech, the introduction of said speech was, thus, improper and prejudicial.

Enfield’s conviction was reversed.

Information from, and additional reading at,

Enfield v. United States, 261 F. 141 (8th Cir. 1919)

Profile of a Prairie Radical Judge Orville Enfield of Ellis County,” R. O. Joe Cassidy, Jr., Chronicles of Oklahoma, Volume LXXX, Number Two, Summer, 2020

Photo from: Oklahoma City Times (Oklahoma City, Okla.), Vol. 30, No. 54, Ed. 1 Wednesday, June 5, 1918.

William K. Hale and John Ramsey Case - “The Osage Reign of Terror” (1926)

Between 1920 and 1925, near Fairfax, Oklahoma, over sixty Osage Indians died mysteriously. Most of the murders were never solved. The motive for these violent crimes: Osage oil money.  William K. Hale, also known as “King of the Osage Hills,” was a wealthy and powerful figure in Osage County and active in Osage matters. The mastermind behind many of these murders, Hale executed his plan to acquire tribal wealth through Osage headright holders. Hale, along with his accomplices, Ernest Burkhart, John Ramsey, and several others, were allegedly tied to more than twenty deaths.  The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma tried Hale and Ramsey in the second-floor courtroom of the Oklahoma City historic courthouse from October 20th to 29th, 1926. Both were convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Henry Roan.

George “Machine Gun” Kelly Kidnapping Case (1933)

On July 22, 1933, George Celino Barnes, better known as "Machine Gun Kelly," and another man kidnaped oil tycoon and businessman Charles F. Urschel at his home in Oklahoma City. George and his wife, Kathryn, were convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to life imprisonment in Alcatraz. The case was the first major case solved by the evolving FBI and, until recently, was the only federal case in which cameras had been allowed in the courtroom. Judge Vaught presided at the trial.

Additional information:

A Very OK Podcast, produced by the Oklahoma Historical Society: "Lawlessness and Law Enforcement in the 1920s and 1930s"

https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-bdtis-120378d

 Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (1948)

Despite being “concededly qualified,” Ada Lois Sipuel Fisher was denied admission to the University of Oklahoma School of Law based solely on her race. By this point in time, the Supreme Court had decreed that denial of state sponsored education on racial grounds was illegal. But Oklahoma argued that they planned on opening an all-Black law school in the future and therefore did not have to admit Sipuel to OU Law. In the course of challenging her denial, Fisher took her case all the way to the Supreme Court.

Just four days after oral argument, the Supreme Court returned a unanimous decision in Fisher’s favor. According to Justice Stevens, the Court’s expedience was due in no small part to the elegant and persuasive arguments presented by Thurgood Marshall. Fisher became the first African American to attend the University of Oklahoma School of Law. Her admission was an inspiration to Black college applicants and had a lasting impact on the racial educational politics of Oklahoma.

While at OU law Fisher was subject to harsh restrictions. She was required to sit separately from other students in a section labelled “colored.” In order to eat at the cafeteria, Fisher had to enter from a side door and sit in a chained off area, isolated from everyone except the uniform guard posted to prevent other students from interacting with her. These restrictions would be challenged and overturned later in the McLaurin case.

Years after graduation in 1992 Sipuel was appointed to the board of regents herself. Sipuel’s case was one of a series of cases which lead the groundwork for the hugely impactful Brown v. Board of Education decision desegregating public schools.

Information from, and additional reading at,

Sipuel v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 332 U.S. 631 (1948).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/sp_08-06-05.html

Robert Mcg. Thomas Jr., Ada Fisher, 71; Broke a Law School Color Barrier, N.Y. Times, Oct. 21, 1995, § 1 at 27, N.Y. Times, https://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/21/us/ada-fisher-71-broke-a-law-school-color-barrier.html.

“Separate But Equal” in Higher Education — McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1948)

Following Fisher’s successful challenge to Oklahoma’s segregation of higher education, McLaurin was admitted to the University of Oklahoma to pursue a Doctorate in Education.

As it did for Fisher, the University imposed segregationist restrictions on McLaurin. The University isolated McLaurin by requiring him to sit in a separate but connected room while in class; to sit only at a designated table in the library; and to not only sit at a designated table in the cafeteria, but also to eat at an entirely different time than white students. McLaurin challenged these restrictions arguing that these restrictions denied him equal opportunity to pursue his education.

The Supreme Court agreed. In the lead up to the decision, the university relaxed some of the restrictions placed on McLaurin. Even so, the Supreme Court noted that the imposition of restrictions, however lax, still “sign[fied] that the State . . . sought to set McLaurin apart from the other students.” The restrictions based on race, were found to inhibit McLaurin’s access to education and struck down.

Information from, and additional reading at,

McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, 339 U.S. 637 (1950).

Public School Desegregation — Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell (1963)

In 1961, African American parents sued the Board of Education of Oklahoma City to end intentional school segregation. After nearly 30 years of court directed plans to achieve desegregation, first in 1972, then a student reassignment plan in 1985, the Supreme Court held in 1991 that the Board had achieved unitary status and eliminated the vestiges of segregation. 498 U. S. 237.

Karen Silkwood and Kerr-McGee — Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp. (1974)

Karen Silkwood died in a car accident just eight days after she discovered she was contaminated with dangerous levels of radiation. Silkwood worked as a laboratory assistant for the Kerr-McGee Corporation. Routine radiation testing led to the discovery that Silkwood had been contaminated. . The contamination was of such a high level that Silkwood’s personal belongings had to be destroyed in order to prevent the further spread of radiation. . Silkwood, on her way to meet with a New York Times reporter and an Energy Union leader, was killed in a car accident. “At the time of her death[, Silkwood] was between 25% and 50% of the permissible lifetime body burden allowed by the [American Energy Commission] for plutonium workers.” Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 667 F.2d 908, 914 (10th Cir. 1981).

Silkwood’s estate brought an action posthumously alleging, among other things, negligence in Kerr-McGee’s contamination practices.

Both sides pointed fingers. Kerr-McGee attempted to skirt worker’s compensation law by showing that Silkwood was contaminated outside of work and that she intentionally contaminated herself in an effort to embarrass the company. Silkwood’s estate countered that Kerr-McGee intentionally contaminated Silkwood in order to prevent her from speaking out.

Evidence cut both ways. Information showed that Kerr-McGee knew about Silkwood’s efforts to catalogue their safety failings and was unhappy with her efforts. But in light of a reprimand Silkwood received, it was also established that she sought to embarrass the company. Ultimately, neither party was able to establish intentional exposure.

A  jury found that Kerr-McGee had been negligent. The jury awarded Silkwood’s estate $505,000 in compensatory damages (compensatory damages: money awarded to compensate a party for any losses they have incurred, to return them to their pre-injury status or “make them whole”) and $10,000,000 in punitive damages (punitive damages: money awarded not to compensate but to punish the wrongful party and deter future wrongful conduct).

After a protracted legal battle that twice required input from the Supreme Court, the parties settled for $1.38 million.

The story behind the case was used as the premise for the 1983 movie Silkwood, starring Meryl Streep, Kurt Russell, and Cher.

Information from, and additional reading at,

Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238 (1984)

Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 667 F.2d 908 (10th Cir. 1981).

Myrna Oliver, Firm to Settle Silkwood Case : Kerr-McGee Will Pay $1.38 Million to Estate, Los Angeles Times, Aug. 23, 1986, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-08-23-mn-15774-story.html.

Vincent Canby, Film: Karen Silkwood’s Story, N.Y. Times, Dec. 14, 1983, at C27, https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/14/movies/film-karen-silkwood-s-story.html.

Bribery and Extortion: Governor David Hall — United States v. Hall (1975)

Federal prosecutors swiftly charged David Hall with bribery and extortion after he failed to win reelection as Oklahoma’s Governor in 1974. The scheme, for which Hall was ultimately convicted, concerned a backroom deal to guarantee Oklahoma invested its state retirement fund with a private investment company. In exchange for guaranteeing the $10-million investment, Hall was to receive $50,000 personally.

Key to the jury’s conviction was the testimony of Hall’s Secretary of State, John Rogers. Rogers testified that Hall offered him half of the bribe money ($25,000) for his assistance in securing the investment.

Hall was sentenced to three years imprisonment but served 18 months.

Information from, and additional reading at,

United States v. Hall, 424 F. Supp. 508 (W.D. Okla. 1975)

Martin Waldron, Jury in Oklahoma Bribery Case Fails in First Effort at Verdict, N.Y. Times, Mar. 13, 1975, at 26, https://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/13/archives/jury-in-oklahoma-bribery-case-fails-in-first-effort-at-verdict.html

Bob Burke, Hall, David, The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture, https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=HA007

Brian Hardzinski, Former Oklahoma Gov. David Hall, Convicted Of Bribery And Extortion, Dies At 85, KGOU, May 16, 2016, https://www.kgou.org/post/former-oklahoma-gov-david-hall-convicted-bribery-and-extortion-dies-85

Randy Ellis, March 14, 1975 David Hall Convicted of Extortion, Bribery, The Oklahoman, Apr. 18, 1999, https://oklahoman.com/article/2649996/march-14-1975-david-hall-convicted-of-extortion-bribery

Oklahoma Governor Is Charged With Seeking Bribe of $50,000, N.Y. Times, Jan. 17, 1975, at 38, https://www.nytimes.com/1975/01/17/archives/oklahoma-governor-is-charged-with-seeking-bribe-of-50000-rogers.html

Federal Recognition of Indian Country — State v. Little Chief (1978)

Jude Fred Daugherty ruled that federal and tribal jurisdiction remained over Indian land.

Penn Square Bank Collapse — (1982)

Penn Square Bank Cases were the result of the 1982 collapse of Penn Square Bank and the bankruptcy case of Penn Square’s holding company and spanned 11 years. Bank regulators called it a “free spending, free-lending, energy bank that hurt investors and financial institutions in at least 35 states.”

County Commissioner Scandal (1981–84)

Oklahoma County Commissioner Scandal – Over a three‑year period ending in 1984, a federal investigation, called “OKSCAM”, resulted in the conviction of approximately 200 individuals, including commissioners representing 60 of 77 Oklahoma counties.

At the time, Oklahoma’s county commissioner scandal was one of the largest kickback scandals in American history.

N.C.A.A. v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma (1984)

This case arose from the National Collegiate Athletic Association's decision to limit the total number of televised collegiate football games while also limiting the number of televised games granted to each individual team during the 1982‑1985 seasons. The Supreme Court held that such restraint was unreasonable, noting that the NCAA was "restricting" rather than "enhancing" the nature of college athletics programs.

Oklahoma City Bombing Case — McVeigh v.
United States (1995–96)

In 1997, Timothy McVeigh was convicted of bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Office Building and killing 8 federal agents.

Sharia Law — Awad v. Ziriax (2013)

In 2010, Oklahoma voters passed a ballot initiative called SQ 755, which intended to ban sharia law from addition to the text of the Oklahoma Constitution. Muneer Awad, a Muslim citizen of Oklahoma, challenged the initiative soon after, claiming the implementation of SQ 755 would violate the First Amendment’s ban on the establishment of religion. Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange, who presided over the heavily watched case, granted Awad’s request for a preliminary injunction, barring the initiative from being certified. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed her decision, agreeing that the initiative was likely unconstitutional.

Awad v. Ziriax was a landmark case; the first time an American court ruled on whether a state could ban or limit Islamic sharia law.

Further Reading: Jeremy Grunert, How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sharia? Awad v. Ziriax and the Question of Sharia Law in America, 40 Pepp. L. Rev. 3 (2013). Available at: Link

Hobby Lobby Religious Freedom Case — Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014)

The seminal case involving whether corporations enjoy free exercise rights under the First Amendment began in the Western District of Oklahoma in front of Judge Joe Heaton. The case involved a clash between two key pieces of legislation: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)—President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare policy—and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). RFRA was a law passed by the U.S. Congress in 1993, in response to the Supreme Court’s then-recent decision in Employment Division v. Smith which had substantially weakened claims of infringement on religious free exercise rights. RFRA reinforced the original idea that religious free exercise rights are entitled to a high degree of protection.

Seventeen years after RFRA was passed, President Obama signed the ACA into law; a measure which, in part, gave the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the discretion to decide which kinds of preventive care for women should be covered by certain plans. The HHS exempted various types of organizations, including so-called “religious organizations.” When Hobby Lobby decided it would not cover specific contraceptives to its employees—citing that the mandate inhibited its free exercise rights—the case instantly made national headlines.

Further Reading: Brougher, Cynthia (July 23, 2014), Free Exercise of Religion by Closely Held Corporations: Implications of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Available at: Link