Expediting the Commercial Litigation Process in Oklahoma: An Update on the Legislature’s Attempt to Create a Specialised Business Court

In Oklahoma, securing a hearing on the civil docket in a timely manner is increasingly difficult. Complex commercial disputes often wait many months for judicial attention and even longer for meaningful progress towards a resolution. The problem seems clear: district courts are overburdened and under-resourced. For businesses, especially those with high-stakes legal matters, this environment introduces real uncertainty.

Recognising this strain, Oklahoma law-makers attempted a bold fix: the creation of a specialised business court under Oklahoma Senate Bill 632 (“SB 632”). Modelled loosely on Delaware’s Court of Chancery and Texas’s newly established business courts, the legislation aimed to offer a streamlined, expert-driven alternative to Oklahoma’s district courts.

The initiative was championed by Governor Kevin Stitt and legislative leaders as a way to make Oklahoma more attractive for business investment, offering predictability and efficiency comparable to the Delaware and Texas business court systems. However, the legislation was immediately challenged on grounds that it ran afoul of Oklahoma’s constitution. It was also met with mixed reactions from Oklahoma attorneys and sitting district judges − many of whom questioned the judicial qualification and appointment process specified by the Oklahoma Legislature, among other issues.

In October 2025, a five-justice majority of the Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down SB 632, concluding that it violated state requirements that district judges be elected. Governor Stitt expressed his disappointment with the decision but indicated that there was still a path to implementing a business court system in Oklahoma. Members of the task force originally charged with proposing a business court framework are expected to reconvene to discuss the ruling and formulate a proposal that will pass constitutional muster.

While the path forward is uncertain, it is apparent that the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision will not be the end of legislative efforts to create a business court in Oklahoma. SB 632 therefore remains a significant development and offers a useful roadmap to what businesses can expect from future legislation, while also providing insight into the existing challenges businesses face in litigating complex matters in Oklahoma’s district courts.

This article is intended as a practical guide for businesses navigating Oklahoma’s evolving business and legal landscape. It first describes the current litigation environment in Oklahoma’s district courts. It then provides a general overview of SB 632, discussing the law’s notable features and shortcomings. Lastly, it offers some predictions about how the Oklahoma Legislature may respond and recommends some practical steps litigants can take to best position themselves for success in Oklahoma state court.

A system under strain

Oklahoma’s district court system is under visible and increasing strain. While Oklahoma’s district courts are staffed by capable and dedicated judges who handle a broad array of cases with professionalism, even the most experienced judges are constrained by a court system that is chronically under-resourced and increasingly overburdened.

In Oklahoma’s most populous counties, including Oklahoma County and Tulsa County, civil litigants face months-long delays to schedule a hearing and it can be years before complex civil cases get to trial. Cases involving shareholder and corporate governance disputes, high-value contract disputes, business torts, and other complex matters must compete for time within district courts of general jurisdiction, which hear all types of cases both in the civil as well as the criminal realm. Increasingly, litigants in civil matters − especially those involved in complex commercial disputes − face mounting delays and inconsistent results.

For litigants, delay and inconsistency entail real costs: uncertainty, prolonged risk exposure, delayed recoveries, and increased litigation costs. The reasons are largely structural, as follows.

• Heavy caseloads − with more than 120,000 new court cases filed annually in Oklahoma County alone, district court judges are often responsible for thousands of cases across a wide array of subjects.
• Lack of support − unlike federal courts or courts in some other states (or even the business courts as proposed in SB 632), Oklahoma district judges do not have law clerks or staff attorneys to assist with legal research and case management. This, of course, places an enormous burden on judges, who may hear 20 or more motions on a civil motion docket.
• Budgetary constraints − judicial compensation in Oklahoma remains low. Oklahoma currently ranks 48th in the nation and last in the region when it comes to judicial compensation, making it difficult to attract and retain experienced judges. With stagnating pay, the number of applicants for judicial vacancies has fallen by roughly two-thirds.
• No structural fast-track for business disputes – unlike jurisdictions with specialised courts (eg, Delaware and Texas) (and as SB 632 attempted to do), Oklahoma has no mechanism to expedite or prioritise complex business litigation. Nor is there any guarantee that an assigned district judge will have prior business law experience that could help ensure consistency of results.

The result of these systemic problems is a litigation environment that lacks speed, consistency, and predictability − all of which are essential to businesses considering Oklahoma as a place to invest in, operate, and resolve disputes.

The legislative response: SB 632 – a case study in judicial reform

The Oklahoma Legislature sought to address some of these issues with the creation of a business court. The legislature authorised the Oklahoma Supreme Court to create a business court division more than 20 years ago. After decades of inaction, however, the Oklahoma Legislature took matters into its own hands, creating a task force to study the implementation and effect of a business court. SB 632 was the result of that study. It established business court divisions in Oklahoma’s two most populous counties and granted those courts jurisdiction to hear “complex” commercial disputes where the amount in controversy exceeded USD500,000. It also granted the business courts jurisdiction over cases seeking equitable relief under various state statutory schemes, including Oklahoma’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code and the General Corporation Act, among others (see 20 OS Section 91 7c).

The legislation sought to ensure that business court judges would have subject-matter expertise in business law, as well as greater resources than are currently available in the district courts. By way of example, rather than the two years of experience in legal practice required for associate district judges, SB 632 required ten years of experience in complex civil business litigation, business transactional law, or civil judicial (or judicial clerk) service. The legislation also provided that business judges would receive a higher salary (comparable to an Oklahoma Supreme Court justice) and have the funding to hire a law clerk. Additionally, business judges were to be appointed by the governor rather than elected.

The aim of SB 632 was clear: increase speed, improve subject-matter expertise, and offer predictability in commercial rulings − all of which are key priorities for businesses considering Oklahoma as a forum and a market. Despite its good intentions, however, SB 632 was met with immediate criticism. Constitutional concerns ultimately led the Oklahoma Supreme Court to invalidate the law, as discussed later. Practitioners and judges also raised the following practical concerns.

• Docket size per judge − the Oklahoma Legislature authorised only one business judge per division, meaning that one judge in Oklahoma County and one judge in Tulsa County would be handling a large volume of complex litigation matters. Even with a law clerk and subject-matter expertise, many practitioners questioned whether the time to resolution would be any quicker than in district court. In the event of an overload of cases, SB 632 granted the Chief Justice the ability to assign a district judge to temporarily assist the business court judge. Although this structure sought to alleviate any potential bottleneck from having just one judge per district, the introduction of a temporary judge risked the very inconsistency the business courts sought to alleviate.
• Filing fees − the legislation imposed a hefty fee of USD1,500 to file a case in the business court, representing a significant increase from the USD232 filing fee for ordinary civil cases. Critics argued this fee created a barrier to accessing justice for individuals and small businesses, whereas supporters saw it as minimal compared to the potential value of the disputes being litigated.
• Qualifications − the requirement for business judges to have at least ten years of experience was generally seen as a positive requirement. However, the ability to satisfy that requirement through transactional experience was met with some scepticism by litigators.
• Unequal compensation and tenure − the offer of higher salaries and longer terms to business judges was met with frustration by sitting district judges, who have been advocating for higher pay for years.
• Lack of JNC screenings and politicisation − SB 632 would have bypassed both the electorate and Oklahoma’s Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC), which was created by constitutional amendment to vet judicial appointments. Critics viewed the move as ill-conceived and as unnecessarily injecting politicisation into the judiciary.
• Geographic accessibility − the creation of business courts in only the most populous counties was viewed by some as unfair, as parties located in rural areas would be forced to litigate in unfamiliar and potentially inconvenient forums.

Why SB 632 failed: constitutional flaws

In October 2025, the Oklahoma Supreme Court invalidated SB 632 in its entirety, holding that it violated multiple constitutional provisions. The court began its decision by analysing the intent of SB 632, considering whether the business court was intended to be a separate court or a division within the district courts. The court acknowledged that the intent of the Oklahoma Legislature may have been to create a standalone court, but it concluded that SB 632 could only be read as creating a new division of the district courts. Under either analysis, however, it held that the law was unconstitutional.

As a separate court, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found that the business court would be unconstitutional because Article VII, Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution does not give the Oklahoma Legislature the power to create new courts. The Oklahoma Constitution vests judicial power in eight courts − of which, a business court is not one − and it grants the Oklahoma Legislature the power to create only quasi-judicial bodies, municipal courts, and intermediate appellate courts. Thus, in the absence of a constitutional amendment expanding the Oklahoma Legislature’s power, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the Oklahoma Legislature could not create a standalone business court.

As a division of the existing district courts, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found that the business court − as implemented by SB 632 − was unconstitutional because it provided that judges were to be appointed by the governor. The Oklahoma Supreme Court noted that Article VII, Section 9 of the Oklahoma Constitution mandates that district judges be elected in non-partisan elections. The court reasoned that − if business court were a division of the district court − then business court judges were, in fact, district judges who must be elected by the voters. By mandating an appointment process, SB 632 thus circumvented the Oklahoma Constitution. The court also observed that if business court judges were district judges, then the differences in treatment between judges (including qualifications, term length, support, and salaries) were unlikely to pass constitutional muster.

Alternative paths forward

Though SB 632 was ultimately struck down by the Oklahoma Supreme Court as unconstitutional, its introduction signals a clear recognition of the strain on the current system and a willingness by legislators to pursue reform. Supporters of SB 632 have indicated that they are not deterred and will work towards new legislation that avoids the issues identified by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Several likely avenues are available for reform, as follows.

Increasing resources in the existing district courts

Instead of creating an entirely new court division, Oklahoma could focus on enhancing the functionality and capacity of its existing district courts by allocating greater resources to district judges. These resources could include the following. 

• Funding for law clerks − rather than creating new judgeships, funds could be allocated towards law clerks for existing judges. Depending on funding, clerks could be hired to work in a particular court or judicial district, with assignments based on case load or other factors relevant to that district. Although this solution would not directly address complex commercial litigation issues, the availability of clerks would give judges greater ability to perform independent research and review authorities cited by litigants, which should improve consistency of result.
• Increased judicial compensation − to help attract and retain well-qualified district judges, greater funds could be allocated to judicial salaries. Oklahoma lags well behind other states in judicial compensation and past efforts to increase judicial compensation have been only partly successful. The Board on Judicial Compensation has recently recommended a 17.58% pay increase for Oklahoma judges. An approval of this increase would go a long way towards making judgeships competitive.
• Additional judgeships − the Oklahoma Legislature could also look at adding district judge positions based on civil case filings. In districts with significant civil case filings, an additional district judgeship should improve the time to resolution of cases and allow for greater judicial attention per case.

Amending the Oklahoma Constitution

To validly create a standalone business court, the Oklahoma Legislature would need to propose a constitutional amendment to the public during the next general election. This process requires only a majority vote in both houses. The legislature could also put the question to voters in a special election with a two-thirds vote of each house. To pass, a state question needs only a simple majority of voters. Some supporters of SB 632 have already indicated that they may pursue this path.

Creating business court division that conforms to constitutional requirements

Instead of an entirely new court, the Oklahoma Legislature could create a valid business court division within the district courts by making business court judges subject to the same election process as district judges. This option would ensure a designated judge for complex commercial cases, but it would not provide any assurance that the elected judge would have particular subject-matter expertise in business law. Still, it may be a worthwhile pursuit.

Takeaways for businesses

The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling on SB 632 has closed the door on the business courts for now. However, the Oklahoma Legislature appears committed to trying again, and the legal community will be watching closely to see whether future efforts can overcome the constitutional and structural flaws that doomed the first attempt.

Until structural reforms are enacted, businesses operating in Oklahoma must continue to resolve disputes through the existing district court system. In-house and outside legal counsel should carefully consider the strengths and weaknesses of Oklahoma’s district courts when stipulating the choice of law, negotiating or deciding whether to enforce forum-selection or arbitration clauses, deciding whether to remove a case to federal court, and formulating case strategy.

When it comes to strategy, counsel should be aware that tactics that work well in federal court may be ill-suited in state court (and vice versa). By way of example, motions to dismiss in Oklahoma’s district courts often have lower rates of success than in federal court but are also resolved more quickly – even with the more crowded dockets in state court. Counsel should also take into consideration judicial resources in deciding whether to file particular motions and in drafting briefs.

Experienced counsel familiar with local practice can offer sound advice on these and other related matters. Businesses and counsel would also be well-advised to keep tabs on legislative efforts to cure the constitutional defects that prevented SB 632 from taking effect. While the exact contours of a future business court are unknown, change is on the horizon.