The quo warranto action will remain in federal court. The federal court has denied our motion to remand, stating that the quo warranto petition raises a federal question regarding Section 1926(b). The federal court also denied our request to refer the question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. As a result, it will be the federal court that determines whether the Oklahoma Constitution bars rural water districts in Oklahoma from borrowing money from the USDA.
In another interesting development, the federal court has ruled that the USDA should be a party to the litigation. What position will the USDA take on the issue of whether Oklahoma rural water districts have the authority to borrow funds?
We know that the rural water district's lawyers are asking for help. Indeed, their newsletter states: "The outcome of the Beckham-3 suit is of vital importance to every district in the state since it affects districts which already have a federal loan and those that may want one in the future."
For a brief description of the reasoning behind this challenge, please review the quo warranto action. Plus, watch this site for a more in-depth analysis of the issue.
