FORD v. THE OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

── FORD v. THE OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ── Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General OSCN Found Document:FORD, et al. v. THE OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al. FORD, et al. v. THE OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al.2026 OK 35Case Number: 123278Decided: 05/12/2026THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Cite as: 2026 OK 35, __ P.3d __ NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. DIANE FORD, AINSLEY HOOVER, LILLIAN LANG, JACK RAMEY, JENNIE SCOTT, JAMES WELCH, IV, and ALANA WESTFALL, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. THE OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THE OKLAHOMA STATE BOARD Of EDUCATION, and LINDEL FIELDS, in his official capacity as the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and Chair of the Oklahoma State Board of Education, Defendants/Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY ¶0 Plaintiffs filed suit in the District Court and sought an injunction and declaratory relief based upon the Social Studies Standards of 2025 adopted by the Oklahoma State Board of Education. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Oklahoma State Department of Education, and Oklahoma State Board of Education filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' petition. The Honorable C. Brent Dishman, District Judge, denied the request for an injunction and granted the motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs appealed and the appeal was retained for disposition by this Court. We hold: (1) Plaintiffs' appeal is moot and no exception to mootness applies; (2) The appeal is dismissed; (3) The judgment dismissing plaintiffs' petition is reversed with directions to enter judgment dismissing plaintiffs' petition without prejudice due to mootness. APPEAL DISMISSED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS Michael J. Hunter, Michael J. Hunter PLLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs/Appellants. Lindsey N. Kistler, Kistler Legal Group, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs/Appellants. Ryan Leonard, Elaine DeGiusti, Heidi Long, and Heather Hendricks, Leonard, Long & Cassil, PLLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellee, Oklahoma State Board of Education. EDMONDSON, J. ¶1 We conclude plaintiffs' action challenging the Social Studies Standards of 2025 and requesting injunctive and declaratory relief is moot because the 2025 Social Studies Standards no longer exist. The appeal must be dismissed as moot. The two exceptions to mootness do not apply. We conclude the judgment against plaintiffs must be reversed, and a new judgment entered that dismisses plaintiffs' petition without prejudice due to mootness. ¶2 The Oklahoma State Board of Education (OSBE) approved the Social Studies Standards of 2025 on February 27, 2025. Plaintiffs filed a petition in the District Court and sought a declaratory judgment that the 2025 Social Studies Standards (2025 Standards) were "invalid, null, and void as a matter of law, and for any such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper." ¶3 A motion to dismiss was filed by Ryan Walters and the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE). 12 O.S. §2012Randall v. Fields, 2025 OK 91581 P.3d 109 ¶4 Plaintiffs appealed and their petition in error challenged the orders denying an injunction and dismissing their petition. 75 O.S. §§ 250.470 O.S. §§11-103.6a ¶5 This Court addressed the validity of the Social Studies Standards of 2025 in Randall v. Fields, supra, where the Court concluded: "The 2025 Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies shall not be enforced." Id. 2025 OK 91Randall raised various constitutional and statutory claims challenging the 2025 Standards that the Court did not adjudicate. Randall, at ¶22, 581 P.3d at 118. The Court's holding in Randall was based solely upon application of the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S.2021 §§301Id. 2025 OK 91Randall v. Fields, supra, upon the present appeal. ¶6 Plaintiffs argue