Top Takeaways:

• Oklahoma’s Supreme Court struck down HB 2783, blocking elected officials from removing TSET directors “at will.”
• The court said the law conflicted with the constitution’s seven-year board term structure and would undermine TSET independence.
• Public health groups backed TSET in the case through an amicus brief supporting voter-approved insulation of settlement funds.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has struck down a 2025 state law that would have allowed elected officials to replace members of the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET) board at will, ruling that the measure violates the Oklahoma Constitution and conflicts with the voter-approved structure that created the trust.

In an 8–1 decision issued Jan. 13, 2026, the court held House Bill 2783 unconstitutional for attempting to replace the board’s fixed-term governance model with “service at the will of the appointing authorities,” thereby undermining the trust’s constitutionally mandated independence.

“The actual effect of HB 2783 is to remove the fixed-term structure mandated by [the Constitution] and replace it with service at the will of the appointing authorities,” Vice Chief Justice Dana Kuehn wrote for the majority. “This creates an unavoidable conflict.”

TSET was established by voters through State Question 692 in 2000, following Oklahoma’s participation in the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with major tobacco companies. The constitutional amendment created TSET as a separate entity to manage and invest settlement proceeds and to fund health-related programs and grants.

The case was brought directly to the Supreme Court by the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund, naming Gov. Kevin Stitt and other state officials, including the Senate president pro tempore and the House speaker, as respondents. The court assumed original jurisdiction and granted declaratory relief.

HB 2783, enacted in 2025, allowed each appointing authority to remove its TSET board appointee “at the pleasure” of that authority, thereby permitting immediate replacement. The Supreme Court ruled that the statute conflicted with the constitutional framework setting directors’ terms at seven years.