Oklahoma
Fatihah v. Neal
The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma, the national ACLU, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations Oklahoma Chapter filed a lawsuit against a "Muslim free" business on behalf of a U.S. Army Reserve member denied service. The lawsuit seeks equal access to public accommodations for Oklahomans of all faiths.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Visit ACLU of Oklahoma Stay informed about our latest work in the courts.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
All Cases
12 Oklahoma Cases
Oklahoma
May 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Bridge v. Oklahoma State Department of Education
Thousands of school districts across the country operate with nondiscrimination policies inclusive of their transgender students, including the legal right for these students to access facilities (bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.) consistent with their gender identity. These policies help protect transgender students from harassment, being isolated from their peers, and thrive in a learning environment that believes in their fundamental rights.
Explore case
Oklahoma
May 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Bridge v. Oklahoma State Department of Education
Thousands of school districts across the country operate with nondiscrimination policies inclusive of their transgender students, including the legal right for these students to access facilities (bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.) consistent with their gender identity. These policies help protect transgender students from harassment, being isolated from their peers, and thrive in a learning environment that believes in their fundamental rights.
Oklahoma
May 2025
Free Speech
Oklahoma State Department of Education v. Freedom From Religion Foundation
Explore case
Oklahoma
May 2025
Free Speech
Oklahoma State Department of Education v. Freedom From Religion Foundation
Oklahoma
Apr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Poe v. Drummond
Families, transgender adolescents, and their medical providers are challenging a new law, signed by Governor Kevin Stitt in May 2023, that imposes criminal penalties on healthcare providers who provide age-appropriate medical care for transgender adolescents. Such restrictions are opposed by leading medical experts and organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. According to the Williams Institute of UCLA, there are an estimated 2,600 transgender youth ages 13-17 in Oklahoma.
Explore case
Oklahoma
Apr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Poe v. Drummond
Families, transgender adolescents, and their medical providers are challenging a new law, signed by Governor Kevin Stitt in May 2023, that imposes criminal penalties on healthcare providers who provide age-appropriate medical care for transgender adolescents. Such restrictions are opposed by leading medical experts and organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. According to the Williams Institute of UCLA, there are an estimated 2,600 transgender youth ages 13-17 in Oklahoma.
Oklahoma
Jun 2024
Immigrants' Rights
Padres Unidos de Tulsa v. Drummond
Explore case
Oklahoma
Jun 2024
Immigrants' Rights
Padres Unidos de Tulsa v. Drummond
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2024
Capital Punishment
Glossip v. Oklahoma
This long-running Oklahoma death-penalty case raises two issues:
1) Will the State of Oklahoma be permitted to execute Glossip, despite overwhelming evidence that he is innocent, and despite a confession by the State’s Attorney General that the state obtained his conviction by hiding crucial evidence impeaching its star witness?; and
2) Will the Court reaffirm its longstanding commitment to Due-Process-Clause precedent requiring the government to disclose favorable evidence in its possession to the accused and to correct false testimony introduced against the accused?
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2024
Capital Punishment
Glossip v. Oklahoma
This long-running Oklahoma death-penalty case raises two issues:
1) Will the State of Oklahoma be permitted to execute Glossip, despite overwhelming evidence that he is innocent, and despite a confession by the State’s Attorney General that the state obtained his conviction by hiding crucial evidence impeaching its star witness?; and
2) Will the Court reaffirm its longstanding commitment to Due-Process-Clause precedent requiring the government to disclose favorable evidence in its possession to the accused and to correct false testimony introduced against the accused?