Late Wednesday, Gov. Kevin Stitt filed an application for original jurisdiction and a petition asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to prevent the City of Tulsa from implementing Mayor Monroe Nichols’ settlement agreement with the Muscogee Nation over criminal jurisdiction within the tribe’s reservation boundaries. Arguing that Tulsa’s settlement agreement violates state law and jeopardizes public safety, Stitt’s filings ask justices to prevent the enforcement of any agreement that cedes criminal jurisdiction over Indian defendants.
“The state is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring enforcement of any such policy, practice, or agreement,” Stitt’s attorneys wrote. “The harm and injury faced by the state far outweighs any counter harm that would be sustained by Tulsa if injunctive relief were granted. The state therefore requests a preliminary and permanent injunction barring Tulsa from enforcing any agreement not to exercise criminal jurisdiction.”
After the McGirt v. Oklahoma decision, the City of Tulsa under the administration of then-Mayor G.T. Bynum continued to prosecute tribal citizens in municipal court for traffic violations. In different legal cases, federal courts have determined the city does not have criminal jurisdiction over Indians under the Curtis Act, while state courts have found the city does have criminal jurisdiction within reservations over Indians who are not members of that tribe.
After Nichols took office, the city switched legal strategies and began negotiating a settlement agreement in a 2023 lawsuit filed by the Muscogee Nation against the city in federal court. As a result of the negotiations, Nichols and Muscogee Nation Principal David Hill signed a settlement agreement under which the city promised to not exercise criminal jurisdiction over Indians who commit crimes within the Muscogee Nation. Instead, Indian defendants accused of violating Tulsa’s laws within the Muscogee Reservation’s boundaries would be subject to prosecution only in Muscogee Nation District Court.
Stitt’s office is now asking Oklahoma’s highest court to prevent the enforcement of that agreement, which is still pending the approval of District Judge John D. Russell. A motion to intervene in the federal case filed by Stitt has also been pending before Russell for months.
While that means the agreement has yet to receive formal approval, Stitt’s office argued both the Muscogee Nation and the City of Tulsa have indicated the agreement is already being enforced by both parties.
Stitt’s attorneys raised four main arguments in their brief to the court:
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ Tulsa v. O’Brien decision and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Castro-Huerta v. Oklahoma decision make it “a settled question of law in Oklahoma that the state retains criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country over non-major crimes committed by Indians”;
- The City of Tulsa could not agree to abdicate criminal jurisdiction because “the state’s authority to enforce its criminal laws is not subject to local nullification or political discretion”;
- The settlement agreement is incompatible with the City of Tulsa Municipal Charter and requires it to be amended — which has not been done — with the governor’s approval; and
- The settlement agreement violates Oklahoma statutes Title 74, Section 1221(D), which requires the governor and the Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations to approve “intergovernmental cooperative agreements” between “the governing board of a political subdivision” of Oklahoma and a federally recognized tribe before they become effective.
Stitt argued in a press release distributed Wednesday night that the settlement agreement made Tulsa a “sanctuary city” for tribal citizens — a term he previously deployed that received criticism from Nichols and tribal leaders.
“More than anything, this is a public safety issue,” Stitt said. “No mayor has the authority to pick and choose which Oklahomans are subject to the laws of our state. By entering into this agreement, Mayor Nichols has essentially made Tulsa a sanctuary city with two systems of justice. One for those with tribal membership and one for everyone else. This makes our state less safe.”
Later Wednesday night, Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. criticized Stitt for holding “backwards views on tribal sovereignty.” Hoskin said:
It is no surprise that Gov. Kevin Stitt believes that tribal and non-tribal government cooperation is a bad idea. He has always viewed the exercise of tribal sovereignty as coming at the expense other governments and the public interest. The historic agreement between Muscogee Nation and the City of Tulsa strengthens the blanket of public safety across Tulsa while respecting Muscogee Nation’s treaty rights of self governance over its reservation. Gov. Stitt’s hostility to tribal sovereignty and his remarkable uninformed views on the subject are, fortunately, outliers in a state full of civic, business, faith leaders and government leaders — like Tulsa Mayor Monroe Nichols — who see tribes as partners, not enemies. Gov. Stitt’s backwards views on tribal sovereignty are destined for the dustbin of history.
At a press conference Thursday morning, Nichols called Stitt’s legal filing “inaccurate” and “riddled with lies.”
“The notion that there has been any time where we did not enforce the law in this city is false, is incorrect, it is an outright lie. The governor knows that, and the governor does not care about that,” Nichols said. “Additionally, from a fact-based standpoint, crime is down this year in our mid-year report from last year when the policy of the city was a little bit different. So it would be hard for anyone to argue that this community is less safe.”
Nichols also criticized Stitt as the one not enforcing the laws in Tulsa, referencing the Oklahoma Highway Patrol’s controversial decision to relinquish primary call responsibility on the interstate through Tulsa.
“Since we’re talking about not enforcing the state’s laws in an area, you may have remembered the governor pulling the Oklahoma Highway Patrol out of the City of Tulsa. So what I think is interesting is that if he were to maybe more accurately file documentation or a lawsuit based on who is not enforcing the law in Tulsa, he should probably replace ‘Mayor Monroe Nichols’ with ‘Gov. Kevin Stitt,'” Nichols said. “So not only are we doing the job of the city, we are also now doing the job of the state, and we’re doing it with partners around the table to help us make it happen.”
Referencing the fact that Stitt’s brother, Marvin Keith Stitt, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his challenge to Tulsa’s criminal jurisdiction over a speeding ticket he received within the Muscogee Reservation, Nichols argued the governor should know the arguments he is making are false.
“He is not an example to follow when it comes to public safety or when it comes to relationships with Indian Country, and in fact probably relationships with anybody who might disagree with him,” Nichols said. “It is so dangerous to listen to someone who will say anything to try and win a political battle. The law gets enforced, and if he doesn’t think that, he can ask his brother. His brother is at the center of one of these cases, his brother has been the one trying to matriculate this all the way to the (U.S.) Supreme Court. His brother got a ticket after that, and his brother’s last ticket has been processed (in tribal court), and he’s been held accountable. The governor knows we enforce the law here, and if he’s unaware of that, maybe a family reunion or Thanksgiving dinner can remind him that Tulsa, Oklahoma, enforces the law, even if your last name is Stitt.”
‘Pressure them into submission’: Stitt’s office criticizes Muscogee Nation’s litigiousness
Stitt’s petition also argued the Oklahoma Supreme Court taking action is necessary because of the litigiousness of “at least one tribal nation,” a fairly clear reference to the Muscogee Nation’s several lawsuits against different jurisdictions. While the City of Tulsa negotiated the proposed settlement agreement to their lawsuit, the Muscogee Nation also has pending lawsuits against Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler and the City of Henryetta.
“Absent (this) court’s intervention, the [Muscogee Nation] and other tribes may be further emboldened to pressure municipalities through litigation and coerce their submission,” the petition argued. “There exists a strong likelihood that other municipalities will adopt similar patterns or practices as a matter of supposed municipal policy, whether sua sponte or as a result of pressure through coercive litigation on behalf of the MCN or other tribes, absent this court’s intervention.”
Both of the references to coercion cite the Muscogee Nation’s lawsuit against the City of Henryetta.
While the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has been sympathetic to the idea state courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians in Indian Country, no federal court has issued a ruling to that effect. The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against District Attorneys Matt Ballard and Carol Iski for prosecuting tribal citizens in Indian Country. The parties in that suit are currently engaged in settlement negotiations. Stitt’s office has not motioned to intervene in that case.
However, the intermediate court between Oklahoma’s federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, did not appear sympathetic to the notion of state jurisdiction over Indians in Indian Country in its last major Indian law decision, explicitly acknowledging an area of “exclusive tribal jurisdiction.”
Read Stitt’s application to the Oklahoma Supreme Court
Read Stitt’s brief in the case
