AL: The big issues today can be summed up in one word: federalism. It’s counterintuitive, because people often don’t think about the relationship between the federal government and the states as being a matter of individual rights.

Yet the framers of the American Constitution considered the separation of powers as the great protection of liberty, and federalism is simply a vertical separation of powers.”

Perhaps the most well-known case right now involving federalism is the one challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.

Oklahoma joined several states in challenging that law. The U.S. Supreme Court will have to decide whether the federal government has the power to require its citizens to purchase health insurance and force the states to help implement the plan.

But that’s not the only case involving federalism.

The Supreme Court also will be reviewing how far states can go to regulate immigration. And while that case does not directly involve Oklahoma (the statute in question was adopted in Arizona), Oklahoma still has one of the toughest immigration laws on the books.

In yet another lawsuit,

Oklahomans are challenging the voters’ recent adoption of an amendment to Oklahoma’s constitution that would bar the use of Sharia and international law in state courts.

Thus far, the courts have enjoined the state Election Board from certifying the results of the 2010 statewide vote to approve that provision.

Are there recurring constitutional issues individuals and businesses need to watch out for?

AL: Perhaps the most common constitutional issue businesses see involves the government regulation of land use. Zoning laws and other local ordinances affecting property can implicate constitutional rights.

Oklahoma has seen an increase in land-use litigation over the past several years, as businesses and individuals become increasingly concerned about restrictions on their use of their own property.

The most common constitutional rights claims of individuals arise under the First Amendment. That clause implicates several rights, although the most common are freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion.

Last year, the Supreme Court wiped out an Oklahoma law when it ruled that violent video games constitute protected speech. Another common area of First Amendment litigation involves government employees who claim their employer has deprived them of their freespeech rights.

Occasionally, land-use cases also involve the First Amendment. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit (the appeals court for Oklahoma federal cases) ruled that a city violates the First Amendment when it retaliates against a landowner by imposing unreasonable delays or impositions in issuing a building permit.

You’ve mentioned the federal Constitution a lot, but hardly mentioned Oklahoma’s constitution. Is there much litigation under that document?

AL: Claims arising under the state constitution are less common, primarily for one reason: Under federal law, successful individual constitutional claims generally result in the payment of attorney fees to the prevailing plaintiff.

That generally is not true under state law. However, that does not mean claims under Oklahoma’s constitution are unheard of.

One interesting case working its way through the Oklahoma courts right now involves a challenge filed by the Union and Jenks school districts to the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program Act.

That law, passed by the Oklahoma Legislature in 2010, allows parents of students with disabilities for whom an individualized education

program, or IEP, has been established to enroll the student in a private school with the funds that would otherwise be sent to a public school.

The school districts claim the law violates Oklahoma’s so-called Blaine Amendment, which says that public funds cannot be used to support a sectarian institution. Many of the private schools accepting such funds are church-related.

Those defending the law assert the law serves a public purpose and that the state receives adequate consideration for the scholarships.

Other high-profile claims under the Oklahoma constitution have included claims that the law reapportioning the state Senate is unconstitutional and assertions that state legislators are immune from prosecution under the state’s “Speech or Debate Clause.”

Do you see any other trends in Oklahoma regarding constitutional law?

AL: Citizens of all political persuasions seem to be increasingly aware of their rights under the federal and state constitutions.

Some claimed a First Amendment right to camp out in Downtown Oklahoma City. Others have asserted they have a constitutional right to carry weapons.

One intriguing development in Oklahoma is that state Attorney General Scott Pruitt has established in his office a special federalism unit, designed to enforce “the plain meaning of the founders’ directive that the federal government be one of specific and enumerated powers.”

The point is that the government in Washington is one of limited powers, and that Oklahoma must protect itself and its citizens from an overreaching federal bureaucracy. It will be interesting to watch how active the attorney general’s federalism unit becomes in challenging federal encroachments on the constitutional distribution of power.

What should an individual or business look for when determining whether to pursue a constitutional claim?

AL: Constitutional law is a highly technical area. All lawyers take a class in constitutional law. Few actually practice in the field.

Moreover, fighting the government can be daunting. Anyone seeking to assert a constitutional claim should ascertain that the lawyer has the requisite experience in the field and will “zealously assert the client’s position,” as the Rules of Professional Conduct provide.

Meet with the lawyer. Ask questions. Make sure you are comfortable with and have confidence in the lawyer.