Stitt’s order for state employees to return to work will move forward.
The governor praised the judge’s ruling in a press release following the dismissal.
"My order was just common sense—taxpayers are better served when the state employees who work for them are in the office, ready to work," he said in a press release hours after the decision. "This lawsuit was a political stunt to grab headlines and try to get the court to legislate from the bench. I'm glad that Judge Dishman dismissed the case quickly before it cost the taxpayers any more time and money to defend.”
Fugate’s attorney has vowed to challenge the ruling at the state supreme court, according to The Oklahoman.
On Feb. 21, the day Fugate filed his lawsuit against the governor, he said the governor's powers must be checked. The Oklahoma Constitution demands it, he said.
”Simply put, the governor doesn't have that authority. State employees work for the people of Oklahoma,” Fugate said at a press conference that day. “They don't work for the governor making decisions about new employment conditions and authorizing expenditures for facilities and office equipment is the job of the legislature, not the governor.”
The lawsuit contended Stitt violated the separation of powers clause in the state constitution when he demanded all state employees return to working in their offices with few exceptions.
”By purporting to dictate a new statewide policy for state employment conditions — namely, banning remote or hybrid work unless narrowly excepted — without legislative enactment or appropriation, the Governor effectively creates a new law,” the petition reads.
When asked about the case against him at a press conference the next week, Stitt scoffed at Fugate and his intentions with the lawsuit, pinning the whole thing on a political stunt advancing Democrats’ big-spending agenda.
He said that Oklahomans voted for him to run the state and want him to save money and cut taxes. That includes increasing employee efficiency by demanding in-person work.
Legislative leaders saw this dismissal coming
Top legislative leaders in both chambers said they backed Stitt’s return-to-office order. And neither had a problem with what Fugate called a stretch of the governor’s power.
House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, anticipated the case dismissal during his weekly press conference last week.
”I don't even know if the representative from Del City has standing to sue, in this case, as a member of the legislature,” Hilbert said.
As the head of the executive branch, Hilbert said, the governor has “a lot of authority” in running his office and various state agencies.
”Now, certainly different agencies have different structures,” he said. “So, you got to work through those where he does and doesn't have the direct authority over them. But I believe that the governor has the authority to take the action that he did, and I suspect the courts would dispose of that lawsuit judiciously.”
Senate Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, R-Tuttle, shared Hilbert’s sentiment about Stitt’s authority.
”I do think the governor has the governor puts a lot of these department heads in place through appointments,” Paxton said. “And so the governor, I believe, has the authority to do what he did, and I support what he did.”
When it comes to the issue of remote vs. in-office work, he said he believes people are just more effective when they work together in person.
”Covid’s over,” Paxton said. “There’s not a lot of reason to not be work. People need that collaboration. People need to get together and have those conversations at the office.”
As far as the lawsuit itself, he said, he thinks it’s “frivolous.”
”But that’s what the courts are for and they’ll figure it out,” Paxton said.
Copyright 2025 KOSU
