Top court nixes bid to oust board

TSET members serve staggered 7-year terms

Dale Denwalt

The Oklahoman USA TODAY NETWORK

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has shut down an attempt to gain more control over nearly $2 billion worth of funds from a 1998 settlement with tobacco companies.

In 2025, Oklahoma lawmakers passed legislation allowing the state’s political leaders to fire Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET) board members at will and replace them with their own picks.

Lawmakers were reportedly upset at TSET for not agreeing to send $50 million to pay for a new University of Oklahoma hospital.

Before House Bill 2783 went into effect, TSET sued the state to try to stop it. It claimed the new law was unconstitutional because when the trust was first created, voters approved a constitutional amendment that created a board with staggered, seven-year terms.

“Whether anything ‘needs fixing’ is ultimately a question of constitutional design, not legislative preference,” an 8-1 majority of the Oklahoma Supreme Court said in the decision handed

down Jan. 13.

The seven TSET board members are appointed by the governor, House and Senate leadership, the attorney general, state treasurer, state auditor and state superintendent. They can make appointments if there is a vacancy, but the new law would have let them fire board members before the end of their term.

The board decides how money from the trust is spent. TSET funds are meant to be spent on research and treatment to prevent tobacco-related disease, support prevention and cessation programs and improve Oklahomans’ health and health care services. It’s also used for substance abuse prevention and treatment, improve children’s quality of life and other healthrelated programs. From July 2023 to June 2024, TSET’s board allocated $77.7 million to these kinds of programs.

When Edmond Republican Rep. Erick Harris presented the bill in 2025, he told other House lawmakers that he believed it to be good policy.

“TSET is a government agency that never goes before voters whatsoever. They have a large amount of taxpayer dollars that they have in their possession and again, they’re not going before the voters,” Harris said. “The folks that are appointing them, though, are ones that regularly go before voters. And so I think this bill is a good policy for us to enact to ensure that TSET and its board of directors is essentially in a good position when it comes to good policy.”

Writing for the court majority, Vice Chief Justice Dana Kuehn noted that creating a new way to remove TSET board members is a fundamental change to the trust’s governance model that is established in the Oklahoma Constitution. The trust and its board has operated for more than two decades without impediment, she added.

“And if such a change is truly warranted, it is the people – not the Legislature – who must make it,” Kuehn wrote.

Attorney Bob Burke, who represented TSET, said he is pleased that the Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed that the Legislature cannot override the Oklahoma Constitution.

“Even though the Supreme Court has made it clear that TSET is an independent entity, I am encouraging the TSET board to annually meet with the governor and leaders of the Legislature to listen to their priorities,” Burke wrote in an email to The Oklahoman. “We are all Oklahomans, and I believe that we all want what is best for Oklahoma.”

Leslie Berger, a spokesperson for the attorney general, said the office respects the court’s ruling.

Senate Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, who supported the legislation, said he was disappointed but respects the court’s decision. He said lawmakers were trying to ensure greater accountability.

“While today’s ruling limits legislative authority in this instance, it does not end the conversation,” said Paxton, a Republican from Tuttle. “As legislators, we want to ensure greater input and oversight of these funds continue to be used in the best interests of Oklahomans.”

Spokespeople for the governor and House speaker did not immediately return messages left for comment on the court’s ruling.

“While today’s ruling limits legislative authority in this instance, it does not end the conversation.” Lonnie Paxton

Senate pro tem