McBride & McBride - Lawyers of Oklahoma

10/23/2026

Six Consecutive Years Rated by Super Lawyers!

McBride & McBride – Lawyers of Oklahoma is proud to announce that attorney Chase McBride has once again been recognized by Super Lawyers as a 2026 Rising Stars honoree, marking his sixth consecutive year receiving this prestigious distinction.

Chase has built his career handling complex litigation, representing individuals and businesses, defending public officials, and advising municipalities throughout Oklahoma. His dedication to his clients and willingness to take on challenging cases continue to distinguish his legal practice.

We are proud of this continued recognition and, more importantly, grateful for the trust our clients place in our firm every day.

10/13/2026

Today, our firm filed an application with the Oklahoma Supreme Court on behalf of former State Representative Gary W. Banz seeking permission to appear as amicus curiae in the pending litigation regarding Governor Stitt’s effort to place the question of an Oklahoma constitutional convention before voters.

Article XXIV, Section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution says that question “shall be submitted to the people at least once in every twenty years.” The case raises an important constitutional issue: who has the authority to carry out that mandate when the Legislature has not done so?

Representative Banz, who previously sponsored multiple legislative efforts addressing this requirement, seeks to provide the Court with his unique perspective on the issue.

The application does not advocate for or against a constitutional convention. It concerns the constitutional process, and ensuring that mandatory provisions of our Constitution are given effect.

10/08/2026

10/06/2026

Thank you to News On 6 for having our attorney, Chase McBride, provide legal insight for its story regarding a recent federal court ruling addressing the use of automated license plate readers and long-term vehicle tracking under the Fourth Amendment.

This is an important issue because technology is giving law enforcement increasingly powerful tools to investigate crime, while courts must continue to define where legitimate investigative practices end and unconstitutional government surveillance begins. Decisions like this can have significant implications for law enforcement agencies, municipalities, and the privacy rights of citizens.

The full story can be viewed here:

A federal judge in Oklahoma has ruled that using automated license plate readers to track vehicles over long periods violates the Fourth Amendment, calling it "indiscriminate mass surveillance."

10/06/2026

The Oklahoma Supreme Court issued an important arbitration decision today in Merit Holdings LLC v. International Bank of Commerce, 2026 OK 70.

The Court held that a party did not waive its right to arbitration by actively participating in litigation where the parties’ contract specifically contained an anti-waiver provision allowing that conduct.

IBC had filed motions to dismiss, participated in discovery, defended against requests for injunctive relief, sought attorney fees, and did not obtain a stay of the litigation. Ordinarily, those are the kinds of actions a court may consider when deciding whether a party has abandoned its right to arbitrate.

But the parties’ agreement expressly provided that active participation in litigation would not waive arbitration, and IBC asserted its arbitration rights with its first substantive filing.

The Supreme Court held that*conduct expressly permitted by an arbitration-specific anti-waiver provision cannot itself establish waiver of the right to arbitrate.

The Court also reaffirmed an important distinction involving fraudulent inducement: if the alleged fraud goes to the contract as a whole, that issue is generally for the arbitrator. To keep the issue in court, the challenge must be directed specifically at the arbitration agreement itself. Here, the agreement also contained a delegation clause assigning arbitrability questions to the arbitrator.

The Court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals’ decision and affirmed the trial court’s order compelling arbitration.

For Oklahoma lawyers drafting or litigating arbitration provisions, this is a significant decision. The language of the arbitration clause, and particularly its anti-waiver and delegation provisions, can materially determine what happens after litigation begins.

*Merit Holdings LLC v. International Bank of Commerce*, 2026 OK 70.

10/03/2026

Flock Camera Legal Update

A federal judge in the Northern District of Oklahoma has issued an important Fourth Amendment ruling addressing the use of historical data collected through Flock and other automated license plate reader systems.

In United States v. Kyle, the court held that law enforcement violated the Fourth Amendment by searching approximately one month of historical ALPR data without a warrant and using that information to reconstruct a person’s movements over time.

The court did not hold that Flock cameras themselves, or their use generally, are unconstitutional. Rather, the decision focuses on the constitutional limits surrounding the collection, retention, and use of historical location data for government surveillance.

Technology can provide law enforcement with valuable investigative tools, but those tools must still be used within constitutional boundaries.

As automated surveillance technology becomes more widespread, municipalities and law-enforcement agencies should continue evaluating their policies concerning data retention, access, permissible searches, and warrant requirements.

United States v. Kyle, Case No. 26-CR-00189-SEH (N.D. Okla. Oct. 1, 2026).

10/03/2026

Following the vote of the people on August 25, 2026, Oklahoma’s voter identification requirement has now been formally added to the Oklahoma Constitution as Article III, § 6.

The amendment requires voters to present proof of identity when voting and directs the Legislature to establish the requirements by law.

10/02/2026

We are proud to announce that Chase McBride’s article, “Public Construction Under the Oklahoma Public Competitive Bidding Act: Municipal Compliance from Bid to Completion,” was published in the October 2026 edition of the Oklahoma Bar Journal.

The article provides a practical overview of Oklahoma’s Public Competitive Bidding Act and the requirements municipalities face throughout the public construction process, from determining when competitive bidding is required, through bid solicitation and award, to contract administration and project completion.

Chase regularly represents municipalities, public entities, and governmental officials throughout Oklahoma, and we are proud to see his experience in this area recognized through publication by the Oklahoma Bar Journal.

We appreciate the Oklahoma Bar Association and the Oklahoma Bar Journal for the opportunity to contribute to an important area of municipal law.

By Chase McBride

09/29/2026

Significant ruling from the Oklahoma Supreme Court today on a closely watched issue involving Oklahoma birth certificates.

The Court held that, under Oklahoma law, the s*x designation on an Oklahoma birth certificate cannot be changed, including to reflect gender identity. The Court also held that Oklahoma law has never authorized such a change.

The case began after three transgender individuals sought amended Oklahoma birth certificates reflecting their gender identities. After the State refused, they filed a federal lawsuit alleging violations of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. The federal district court dismissed the case, but the Tenth Circuit later allowed the Equal Protection claim to proceed.

The United States Supreme Court then vacated that Tenth Circuit ruling and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of United States v. Skrmetti. As part of that reconsideration, the Tenth Circuit asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court to answer a threshold question: did Oklahoma law ever actually authorize the State to change the s*x designation on a birth certificate?

Today, the Oklahoma Supreme Court answered that question: No.

The ruling is important not only for the birth certificate issue, but also for administrative law. The Court concluded that years of agency practice cannot create legal authority that the Legislature never granted.

The federal case will now return to the Tenth Circuit, which will determine how today’s ruling affects the remaining federal constitutional issues.

09/29/2026

Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules State Agencies Cannot Create Their Own Authority and S*x Designation on Birth Certificates Cannot Be Changed

For years, Oklahoma courts entered orders allowing people to change the s*x designation on their birth certificates, and the Oklahoma State Department of Health sometimes followed those orders.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has now said that practice was never actually authorized by Oklahoma law.

In a new decision answering questions from the Tenth Circuit, the Court held that:

• Oklahoma law prohibits changing the s*x designation on a birth certificate.
• The governing statute has never authorized that type of change.
• Oklahoma law does not now, and has never, authorized changing a birth certificate’s s*x designation based on gender identity.

What makes this case especially important is the broader legal principle behind it.

Beginning around 2007, Oklahoma courts had entered orders directing OSDH to make these changes, and the agency had complied with some of them for years. But the Supreme Court held that a longstanding government practice does not create legal authority where the Legislature never granted it.

The Court focused on 63 O.S. § 1 321, which says birth certificates may be amended only as authorized by Oklahoma law and the applicable regulations. Because neither expressly authorized changing the s*x designation, the Court concluded the agency did not have that power.

That part of the decision reaches far beyond birth certificates.

Government agencies cannot expand their own authority simply because something has been done a certain way for years. Their authority has to come from the law.

The decision does not end the federal lawsuit. The Oklahoma Supreme Court was answering questions of Oklahoma law for the Tenth Circuit. The federal court will now use those answers as it continues considering the remaining federal constitutional issues.