Oklahoma Court Upholds State Riot Law in Years-Long Legal Battle

Civil rights lawyers argue the law is too broad and could suppress protests, but state officials defend it

Published on Mar. 9, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Oklahoma's top criminal appeals court has ruled that the state's century-old riot law does not need to meet the "true threats" standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court, marking the latest chapter in a years-long legal dispute over the law's constitutionality. Civil rights lawyers argue the law is too broad and could be used to suppress protests, while state officials defend it as a necessary tool.

Why it matters

The court battle over Oklahoma's riot law stems from charges filed against activists in 2020 following protests over the murder of George Floyd. Civil rights groups argue the law could have a "chilling effect" on free speech and the ability to protest, while the state maintains the law is a valid tool to address criminal activity during riots.

The details

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Counterman v. Colorado, which addressed the distinction between true threats and protected free speech, does not apply to the state's riot law. The court found the riot law covers speech "integral to the criminal activity of riot" and not protected by the First Amendment. Civil rights lawyers say they will continue to argue the law is unconstitutional when the case returns to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

  • In 2020, several Oklahoma City activists were charged with riot offenses after protesting the murder of George Floyd.
  • On March 5, 2026, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals issued its ruling on the constitutionality of the state's riot law.

The players

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

The state's top criminal appeals court that issued the ruling upholding the constitutionality of Oklahoma's riot law.

Rebecca Barrett

An attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma who is representing the plaintiffs in the case challenging the riot law.

Gentner Drummond

The Oklahoma Attorney General whose office defended the riot law and praised the court's ruling.

Vicki Behenna

The Oklahoma County District Attorney named in the lawsuit challenging the riot law.

House Bill 3581

A proposed law backed by Republican lawmakers in Oklahoma that would amend the state's riot statute to criminalize wearing masks during a riot.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We are pleased with the court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion and remain confident the statute will withstand scrutiny when this case returns to the 10th Circuit.”

— Office of Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond (The Oklahoman)

“Only the 10th Circuit can decide whether or not the statute is ultimately unconstitutional under the First Amendment. We are confident that they are going to make the right decision.”

— Rebecca Barrett, Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma (The Oklahoman)

“This has been part of a pattern both locally and nationally of governments trying to target and silence protestors who are expressing messages that the government doesn't like.”

— Rebecca Barrett, Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma (The Oklahoman)

What’s next

The case will now return to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had asked the Oklahoma court to weigh in on how the state's riot law addresses mental state and reckless intent in light of the Counterman v. Colorado Supreme Court decision.

The takeaway

The battle over Oklahoma's riot law highlights the ongoing tension between protecting public safety and preserving free speech rights during protests. Civil rights groups argue the law is overly broad and could be used to suppress dissent, while state officials maintain it is a necessary tool to address criminal activity during riots.