The Clinic, along with co-counsel ACLU of Oklahoma, represents several racial justice activists who were issued arrest warrants after yelling “Fuck the police” at a police officer who drove onto the street block where the activists were painting a “Black Lives Matter” mural.  These individuals were charged with, and pleaded guilty to, riot-related offenses in connection with this speech.  The Clinic and ACLU of Oklahoma filed a lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction on behalf of these activists in federal court challenging Oklahoma’s riot statute on First Amendment grounds. The suit alleges that the State’s definition of “riot” is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in violation of the First Amendment.

In February 2024, the federal district court denied Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, construing the statute narrowly to comply with the First Amendment. Plaintiffs appealed to the 10th Circuit on the issue of this narrowed construction.

In March 2025, the 10th Circuit certified a question of law to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals: Does Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, sec. 1311 require the State to prove the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence toward another to convict for threats constituting riot?

In July 2025 the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals answered the certified question in the negative.

In July 2026, the 10th Circuit affirmed that the Oklahoma Riot Statute’s definition of a “riot” is neither vague nor overbroad in violation of the United States Constitution, due in large part to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ recognition of an intent element of “willfulness."

Information on this page is provided for archival purposes. All newly created PDFs on this website are accessible. For an accommodation for PDFs on this page, please contact law-web-ada@cornell.edu.