Oklahoma Senate Bill SB2035

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/3/26

Caption

Torts; prohibiting the assertion of qualified immunity as a defense to liability. Effective date.

Summary

SB2035 creates a new state-law cause of action against peace officers employed by the state or a political subdivision when, acting under color of law, they deprive a person of rights secured by the Oklahoma Bill of Rights. The bill expressly includes failures to intervene and allows injured parties to seek legal, equitable, or other appropriate relief. It also states that statutory immunities, statutory limits on liability or damages, the Governmental Tort Claims Act, and qualified immunity do not apply to claims brought under the new section. The bill further requires courts to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs, while allowing courts to award costs and fees to defendants for frivolous claims. It also directs the officer’s employer to indemnify the officer for liability, judgments, or settlements arising under the section, but creates exceptions where the employer determines the officer did not act in good faith and with a reasonable belief the conduct was lawful, and where the officer’s conduct constituted a criminal offense and resulted in conviction. The act would take effect November 1, 2026.

Impact

If enacted, SB2035 would significantly alter Oklahoma tort and civil-rights litigation by creating a direct statutory remedy against peace officers for constitutional-rights violations and by removing several common defenses and liability protections. It would override the Governmental Tort Claims Act for these claims, eliminate qualified immunity as a defense, and shift fee exposure toward defendants while also imposing indemnification obligations on employers, subject to specified exceptions. The bill would affect peace officers, their public employers, insurers, and plaintiffs alleging violations of rights secured by the Oklahoma Constitution.

Sentiment

The available legislative record shows limited formal debate, with no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears strongly rights-enforcement oriented and likely intended to expand accountability for law-enforcement misconduct. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the provided history means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from votes, but the bill’s structure suggests a policy choice favoring plaintiffs and limiting officer defenses.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely to be the elimination of qualified immunity, the exclusion of the Governmental Tort Claims Act and other statutory immunities, and the mandatory fee-shifting provisions, all of which increase litigation exposure for officers and public employers. Another likely dispute is the indemnification framework: employers must generally cover judgments and settlements, but officers may be personally liable for a portion if the employer finds they acted without good faith or reasonable belief in legality, and no indemnification is allowed for conduct that was criminal and resulted in conviction. Supporters would likely emphasize accountability and remedies for constitutional violations, while opponents would likely focus on costs, litigation risk, and the effect on policing.