Her lawsuit calls applying Senate Bill 137 to her an unconstitutional bill of attainder and relies on two 1997 Supreme Court rulings to support other claims.
OKLAHOMA CITY — After a grand jury found Sara Polston received political favoritism because of her family’s relationship with Gov. Kevin Stitt, her federal lawsuit turns the controversy in another direction. It argues that lawmakers used the resulting backlash to single her out for punishment.
Her attorneys argue that Senate Bill 137, as applied to her, would be an unconstitutional “bill of attainder.” The rarely used term describes a law that targets a person or an identifiable group for punishment without a judicial trial.
The law never names Polston. But her lawsuit says it made only one additional crime ineligible for GPS monitoring — the offense for which she was convicted — and directs the Department of Corrections to remove inmates who lose eligibility.
The complaint also points to lawmakers’ public comments linking the legislation to Polston’s transfer from prison after 73 days. Her attorneys contend those statements show lawmakers knew exactly whom the law would affect.
That is one of three constitutional claims Polston is making as she tries to remain at home on GPS monitoring. She also argues that applying the law to her would increase her punishment after the fact and deprive her of a protected liberty without due process.
The lawsuit does not challenge Polston’s conviction or the length of her sentence. It challenges whether Oklahoma can use a law passed afterward to move her from GPS monitoring back to prison during the eight years she remains in Corrections Department custody.
Polston pleaded guilty to causing an accident resulting in great bodily injury while driving under the influence. The 2023 Norman crash caused a traumatic brain injury to Micaela Borrego, who requires ongoing care.
Polston received a 15-year sentence in December, with eight years to be served in Corrections Department custody and the remaining seven years suspended.
A multicounty grand jury report later concluded that “rank political favoritism” influenced the decision to place Polston on GPS monitoring.
The report said Corrections Department officials believed helping Polston secure the transfer would please Stitt. It also cited calls Stitt made to Corrections Director Justin Farris on the Polstons’ behalf and significant campaign contributions from Sara and her husband, Rod Polston.
The grand jury found no evidence that a public official committed a crime or engaged in willful misconduct. Stitt denied providing special treatment, saying, “I did zero favors for this inmate.”
Polston sued Farris in his official capacity last week in Oklahoma City federal court. She is asking the court to prevent the department from returning her to prison when SB 137 takes effect Nov. 1.
One of Polston’s attorneys, Mithun Mansinghani, served as Oklahoma solicitor general from 2017 to 2022. He was the state’s chief advocate in appeals and constitutional disputes, represented Oklahoma before the U.S. Supreme Court and advised the attorney general, governor and Legislature.
His role now puts a former top state lawyer on the opposite side of a constitutional fight over an Oklahoma law.
A law aimed at Polston?
Lawmakers passed Senate Bill 137 following the public reaction to Polston’s transfer.
The law makes inmates convicted of causing great bodily injury while driving under the influence ineligible for electronic monitoring. It also says losing eligibility “shall result in removal” from the program.
Polston’s lawsuit points to comments by the bill’s author, Sen. Warren Hamilton, who described her transfer during a Senate hearing and said the case had exposed a hole in state law. Hamilton said GPS monitoring allowed Polston to be, “for lack of a better word,” free.
The complaint also quotes Senate President Pro Tempore Lonnie Paxton praising Hamilton for introducing the bill and saying the issue had “obviously” come to lawmakers’ attention a few days earlier.
Polston’s attorneys argue those statements, combined with the law’s focus on her specific offense, show that the Legislature targeted her for additional punishment without another judicial proceeding.
The law does not identify Polston by name, however. It applies to anyone convicted of the same offense, including future inmates. That gives the state a basis to argue that lawmakers created a general eligibility rule rather than imposing punishment on one person.
The state has not yet filed a response to the lawsuit.
Two 1997 Supreme Court rulings
Polston’s other claims rely heavily on two U.S. Supreme Court decisions issued in 1997.
The first involved Oklahoma inmate Ernest Eugene Harper, who was released from prison through a preparole program that allowed him to live and work in the community under supervision.
Five months later, after the governor denied him parole, Harper was ordered to report to his probation officer and was returned to prison without a hearing.
Oklahoma argued that Harper had never left Corrections Department custody. His return to prison, the state said, was merely a change in the degree or location of his confinement.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected that argument.
The court found that Harper’s community placement was sufficiently similar to parole that he had a protected interest in remaining there. Although he remained under supervision, he lived in his own home, held a job and was generally free from the restrictions of prison.
That freedom could not be taken away without notice and a hearing, the court ruled.
Polston’s attorneys say the same principle applies to her. She lives at home, works in the community, attends church and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and reports to a supervising officer. Her lawsuit says she has followed the GPS program’s rules.
The law in place when Polston entered the program also said an eligible inmate “shall remain” on electronic monitoring until completing the sentence, receiving parole or being removed for violating a program rule. Polston says none of those things has happened.
The Harper ruling has limits. It established that Oklahoma could not return him to prison without appropriate procedures. It did not hold that participation in a community-based program could never be revoked.
Polston’s after-the-fact punishment claim relies partly on a separate case involving a Florida inmate who had been released after receiving credits intended to reduce prison crowding. Florida lawmakers later canceled those credits for certain offenders, and he was rearrested and returned to prison.
The Supreme Court ruled that Florida could not retroactively use the new law to increase the time he spent behind bars.
SB 137 does not add time to Polston’s sentence. The dispute is whether applying it to move her from GPS monitoring back to prison would nevertheless increase her punishment.
Polston is seeking preliminary and permanent orders preventing her return to prison. No ruling has been issued.
