Oklahoma Treasurer Lawsuit Seeks Block on Questions Over Private Emails
- mike33692
- 7 days ago
- 2 min read
State Treasurer Seeks Court Block on Questions Over Private Emails and Signal Use
Oklahoma State Treasurer Todd Russ is asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to block attorneys from questioning him under oath about the use of private email accounts and the encrypted messaging app Signal to conduct state business.
The request comes amid an ongoing Oklahoma Treasurer lawsuit that centers on alleged communications between lobbyists and treasury staff regarding investment decisions tied to energy policy.
Oklahoma Treasurer Lawsuit Focuses on Private Messaging
In court filings, Russ argues that his employees — not the treasurer himself — would be better suited to answer questions about how private emails and Signal were used within the office. Attorneys challenging the request say the issue raises serious transparency concerns involving public records and open government laws.
The lawsuit alleges that treasury staff discussed blacklisting investment firms accused of favoring renewable energy over fossil fuels, potentially violating state investment rules. Plaintiffs argue those discussions may have occurred outside official communication channels.
Transparency Questions Surround Treasurer’s Office
The Oklahoma Treasurer lawsuit highlights broader questions about how public officials communicate while conducting government business. Oklahoma’s Open Records Act generally requires that records tied to official actions be preserved and accessible to the public.
Legal experts say the Supreme Court’s decision could set a precedent on whether high-ranking officials can avoid testimony by shifting responsibility to staff members. The case also draws attention to the growing use of encrypted messaging apps by government officials nationwide.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether Russ must answer questions directly. Until then, the lawsuit continues to raise debate over transparency, accountability, and the boundaries of executive authority.
Comments