The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Jan. 13 that House Bill 2783 is unconstitutional in a challenge brought by the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund against Governor Kevin Stitt and other state officials.
In *Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund v. Stitt* (2026 OK 1), the court assumed original jurisdiction over the dispute and granted declaratory relief to the petitioner. The brief opinion states that the court found HB 2783 unconstitutional, though the full reasoning remains unclear as the opinion has not been released for publication.
The case involved a constitutional challenge to legislation that apparently threatened the operations or funding of the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund. The trust fund, established from Oklahoma's share of the national tobacco settlement, provides funding for health-related programs and cancer research in the state.
Governor Kevin Stitt was named as the primary respondent, along with other key state officials including President Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma Senate Lonnie Paxton, Speaker of the Oklahoma House Kyle Hilbert, Attorney General Gentner Drummond, State Treasurer Todd Russ, State Auditor Cindy Byrd, and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
The tobacco settlement endowment represents a significant source of funding for Oklahoma's health initiatives. Created from the state's portion of the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement between major tobacco companies and state governments, the fund was designed to provide long-term financing for tobacco cessation programs, cancer research, and other health-related activities.
The constitutional challenge suggests that HB 2783 may have attempted to redirect funds from the trust or alter its governance structure in ways that violated state constitutional provisions. The Oklahoma Constitution contains specific protections for dedicated funds, and courts have previously struck down legislative attempts to raid or redirect money from constitutionally protected accounts.
The case drew significant legal representation from multiple parties. Bob Burke of Oklahoma City represented the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund in the challenge. The Governor's office was represented by Benjamin M. Lepak, Remington D. Dean, Audrey A. Weaver, and William T. Milam III from the Oklahoma Office of the Governor.
Attorney General Gentner Drummond's office provided representation through Solicitor General Garry M. Gaskins II and Assistant Solicitor General Sam Black, along with attorneys Zach West and Cullen D. Sweeney. The Attorney General's office also represented Senate President Pro Tempore Paxton and House Speaker Hilbert.
State Auditor Cindy Byrd was represented by Heidi J. Long from Leonard Long & Cassil, while the State Superintendent of Public Instruction was represented by Jacquelyne K. Phelps from the Oklahoma State Department of Education.
Notably, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids participated as amicus curiae, represented by Wyatt A. McGuire from the McGuire Law Firm in Edmond. The involvement of this national tobacco control advocacy organization suggests the case had implications beyond Oklahoma's borders and could affect tobacco settlement funds in other states.
The opinion was authored by Vice Chief Justice Kuehn, though the full text of the court's reasoning has not yet been released. The court's decision to assume original jurisdiction indicates the justices viewed this as a matter of statewide importance requiring immediate resolution at the highest state court level, rather than proceeding through the typical trial and appeals process.
Original jurisdiction cases are relatively rare and typically involve disputes between state governmental entities or matters of urgent constitutional importance. The Oklahoma Supreme Court's willingness to hear the case directly suggests the potential for significant harm to the trust fund if the challenged legislation remained in effect.
The ruling comes at a time when many states are grappling with budget pressures and looking for ways to redirect dedicated funds to general government operations. The Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision to protect the tobacco settlement endowment from legislative interference reinforces constitutional protections for dedicated funding sources.
The impact of this decision extends beyond the immediate parties to the case. Healthcare organizations, cancer research institutions, and tobacco cessation programs that rely on funding from the endowment likely view the court's ruling as critical protection for their ongoing operations.
While the full opinion remains unpublished and subject to potential revision, the court's clear declaration that HB 2783 is unconstitutional provides immediate protection for the trust fund. The declaratory relief granted by the court prevents state officials from implementing or enforcing the challenged legislation.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between legislative budget priorities and constitutional protections for dedicated funds. As states continue to face fiscal challenges, similar disputes over tobacco settlement funds and other constitutionally protected accounts may arise in other jurisdictions.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court's swift action in assuming original jurisdiction and striking down the challenged legislation demonstrates the court's commitment to enforcing constitutional limits on legislative power over dedicated funding sources.