Musgrove Mill, LLC v. Capitol-Medical Center Improvement & Zoning Commission
2009 OK 19, 2009 Okla. LEXIS 19, 210 P.3d 835 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a state commission, even one established with a state-wide purpose, exercises delegated law-making power by promulgating a comprehensive plan and zoning regulations, its actions constitute "rulemaking" and "rules" under the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act and are therefore subject to legislative review and approval to be valid.
Facts:
- The Oklahoma Capitol-Medical Center Improvement and Zoning Commission (the Commission) was established by the Legislature to provide a comprehensive plan for the orderly development of the district surrounding the State Capitol and the Medical Center of the University of Oklahoma.
- The Legislature authorized the Commission to establish a plan and zoning regulations that have the force of law.
- All members of the Commission are appointed, not elected.
- The statutes creating and governing the Commission did not expressly require legislative approval for its plan and zoning regulations.
- The purpose of the Commission's zoning function is explicitly stated as serving the will of the people of the State of Oklahoma, not merely local policy.
- Musgrove Mill, LLC challenged the validity of the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations promulgated by the Commission.
- The record before the Oklahoma Supreme Court was silent on whether the Commission had submitted its comprehensive plan and zoning regulations for Legislative review and approval.
Procedural Posture:
- Musgrove Mill, LLC filed a complaint seeking declaratory judgment in district court, challenging the validity of the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations.
- The district court issued a decision.
- Musgrove Mill appealed the district court's decision.
- The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reviewed the district court's decision and rendered an opinion.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the challenge by Musgrove Mill, LLC to the validity of the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations promulgated by the Oklahoma Capitol-Medical Center Improvement and Zoning Commission valid, and specifically, must these regulations comply with the legislative review and approval requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act to be effective, despite the Commission being an appointed body?
Opinions:
Majority - PER CURIAM.
Yes, the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations promulgated by the Oklahoma Capitol-Medical Center Improvement and Zoning Commission must comply with the rule and rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, including submission to the Governor and Legislature for review and approval, to be valid. The Court held that the Legislature's authorization for the Commission to establish a plan and zoning regulations that have the force of law is not an unconstitutional delegation of Legislative power if undertaken in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The Court reasoned that Article I of the APA governs "rulemaking" and "rules" by state agencies pursuant to their delegated power, and the Commission, being a statutorily created commission with a state-wide function, is subject to the APA and none of its exceptions. The Commission's process of making and adopting a comprehensive plan and regulations constitutes "rule-making" and the plan/regulations are "rules" under the APA. Article I of the APA specifically requires agencies to file new rules with the Governor, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate for review. The Governor has 45 days to approve or disapprove, and if disapproved, a rule cannot become effective unless approved by the Legislature. Crucially, the Legislature has expressly reserved the right to approve, delay, suspend, veto, or amend any proposed rule, making legislative review a substantive requirement for validity, not just a procedural one. Given this robust legislative oversight, the Court concluded that agency lawmaking in compliance with Article I of the APA is constitutional. However, the validity of the Commission's specific plan and zoning regulations depends entirely on whether the Commission actually complied with these APA requirements, particularly the legislative review and approval process. The Court emphasized that "No agency rule is valid or effective against any person or party... until it has been promulgated as required in the Administrative Procedures Act."
Analysis:
This case is highly significant for clarifying the scope and application of the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act (APA) to state agencies, even those with broadly defined state-level functions and appointed members. It establishes that comprehensive plans and zoning regulations issued by such agencies are considered "rules" and subject to the APA's legislative review and approval process, thereby reinforcing legislative oversight and the separation of powers. The ruling prevents appointed bodies from exercising quasi-legislative power without accountability to the elected legislature, ensuring that administrative actions affecting public policy are subject to democratic checks. This case provides a crucial framework for evaluating the validity of agency-promulgated rules in Oklahoma and serves as a reminder that the constitutionality of delegated power often hinges on adherence to statutory procedural safeguards.
