OKLAHOMA CITY –
In an 8-1 decision issued Tuesday, the state’s high court sided with Stitt, who signed Executive Order 2024-29 in December 2024. The order requires all full-time state employees to perform their duties in person starting Feb. 1, 2025.
The legal challenge was filed by Rep. Andy Fugate, a Democrat, who argued that the order unnecessarily rolled back flexible work arrangements. The court’s decision clears the way for Stitt’s order to remain in effect.
Read the full press release below:
Oklahoma Supreme Court Backs Governor Stitt’s Return to Office Order
OKLAHOMA CITY (September 10, 2025) – Yesterday, in an 8-1 decision, the Oklahoma Supreme Court backed Governor Kevin Stitt’s executive order requiring state employees return to the office. Democrat State Rep. Andy Fugate’s lawsuit attempted to preserve COVID-era remote work policies, keeping taxpayer-funded employees working from home instead of serving Oklahomans in the office.
Governor Stitt issued the order in December 2024 to restore accountability and productivity in state government. The order allows some exceptions for part-time state employees, employees with irregular hours, and agencies facing physical office constraints that would require additional spending to accommodate employees.
“Rep. Fugate spent months trying to stand in the way of common sense,” said Governor Stitt. “Taxpayers deserve to know their public servants are back at work, delivering the services they pay for and not hiding behind Zoom calls. Today’s ruling makes it clear that a partisan lawsuit will not stop us from holding state government accountable to Oklahomans.”
Background of Gov. Stitt’s Return to Office order
Stitt announced the policy shift earlier last year, calling it a move to restore accountability and productivity in state government. Stitt’s order included limited exceptions for part-time employees, those with irregular hours, and agencies with physical space limitations that would require extra costs to accommodate workers.
Agencies that grant exceptions are required to report them to the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES), including job descriptions and anticipated return dates. Quarterly reports on remote or hybrid employees must also be submitted beginning in March 2025.
What the Oklahoma Supreme Court said
The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Rep. Andy Fugate’s lawsuit, holding that he lacked standing to challenge the governor’s return-to-office order. The appeal was decided on standing alone, not on the merits of the executive order.
The Court said Rep. Fugate did not show an actual, concrete injury. The order applies to executive branch employees, not to legislators or their staff, so he could not claim direct harm. Without standing, the Court did not reach the separation of powers arguments.
The justices provided the three elements of standing in Oklahoma courts: an injury in fact, a causal connection to the challenged conduct, and a likelihood that the injury can be redressed by a favorable decision. Chief Justice Rowe said lawmakers do not receive special status in meeting these requirements.
“Standing may be considered as a jurisdictional element of judicial power constitutionally vested in courts, or an issue of constitutional justiciability of jurisdictional scope,” Rowe wrote in the discussion of the case.
The Court noted the order directs the executive branch employees to work in-person with limited exceptions and does not impose new conditions on the Legislature. The opinion also said that the governor issued and later adjusted remote-work directives under authority cited in the Oklahoma Emergency Management Act.
In Justice Edmondson’s concurring opinion, he notes that no statute was identified to be violated and that the order does not prevent the Legislature from enacting future laws on employee work location.
Justice Combs wrote in his dissent that he would have reversed the dismissal of the case, saying that the allegations should have been taken as true and were sufficient to claim an override of legislative power and potential appropriation impacts at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Combs wrote that they would have sent the case back for a ruling on the merits.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s full opinion may be read here.
