Supreme Court Tells Tulsa No

WASHINGTON - On Friday, the Supreme Court denied Tulsa’s appeal to overturn a lower court verdict that has raised questions about the Oklahoma city’s capacity to implement municipal regulations, such as traffic laws, against Native Americans.

The justices, for the time being, upheld the appeals court verdict which stated that following a 2020 Supreme Court decision that broadened tribal power in Oklahoma, Tulsa no longer had the exclusive authority to impose traffic penalties on tribal members.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh made a succinct comment noting that the litigation will proceed in lower courts and that the city might present other arguments that could potentially win. He further clarified that nothing hinders the city from “continuing to enforce its municipal laws against all persons, including Indians.”

In the wake of the 2020 decision in a case known as McGirt v. Oklahoma, significant areas of eastern Oklahoma, including Tulsa, were recognized as Native American land.

The decision signaled a significant triumph for tribes, who have historically found it challenging to establish their sovereignty.

The city and its periphery come under the authority of what are referred to as the “five tribes” of Oklahoma, even though there are various other tribes in the state. These five tribes — the Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw — were coerced into relocating westward in the 19th century in the distressing event recognized as the Trail of Tears. Muscogee and Cherokee lands are where Tulsa currently stands.

The case under review by the court pertains to Justin Hooper, an affiliate of the Choctaw Nation, who disputed a $150 fine levied upon him in Tulsa’s municipal court for speeding. His argument was that the court had no jurisdiction over him, given his Native American status, using the 2020 Supreme Court ruling as his supporting evidence.

In response, the city argued it did indeed possess such authority, basing its claim on an 1898 legislation named the Curtis Act, which endowed cities incorporated in Indian Country with lawmaking power. This law was established prior to Oklahoma gaining statehood in 1907.

After the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Hooper’s favor in June, Tulsa sought the intervention of the Supreme Court.

“The effect of this decision is that the City of Tulsa, and other similar cities throughout eastern and southern Oklahoma, cannot enforce municipal ordinances against Indian inhabitants who violate them within City limits,” Tulsa’s lawyers said in court papers.

Tribes suggested that the city could address the issue by broadening the application of cross-deputization agreements with tribal police, which are already widely employed in the state.

In court documents, the tribes indicated that other eastern Oklahoma municipalities have collaborated on traffic citations. Under this system, tickets issued against tribal members by city law enforcement are forwarded to the tribe, which subsequently enforces them and returns a majority of the generated revenue to the concerned city.

While the tribes greeted the McGirt ruling with approval, it encountered resistance from some Oklahoma officials, particularly the state’s Republican governor, Kevin Stitt. After the appeals court ruling, he cautioned that “there will be no rule of law in eastern Oklahoma” if it were permitted to stand.

In a 2022 verdict, the Supreme Court diluted the effect of the McGirt ruling with a decision that bolstered state authority over tribes.

Earlier in the year, the court unexpectedly granted a victory to the tribes by dismissing a challenge to the Indian Child Welfare Act, a federal statute designed to keep Native American families intact throughout the foster care and adoption process.

Nevertheless, the court later ruled against the Navajo Nation in a separate case related to water rights.