"2 tiers of justice": leaders oppose Tulsa move to cede enforcement power over tribal citizens

Governor Stitt, State and Local Leaders, Push Back on Tulsa’s Move to Cede Enforcement Power

OKLAHOMA CITY (June 23, 2025) - Today, Governor Kevin Stitt, in conjunction with county and local leaders and law enforcement, released the following statements concerning a proposed settlement agreement between the City of Tulsa and the Muscogee Nation which would cede all enforcement authority over tribal citizens to the Muscogee Nation.

“Tulsa is essentially making itself a sanctuary city for tribal members engaged in criminal activity. As elected leaders, it is our job to represent our constituents regardless of race, heritage, or political affiliation,” said Gov. Stitt. “This proposed move by Mayor Nichols sets a concerning precedent and will make it impossible for elected officials and Oklahoma law enforcement to protect their communities. I will take every action to reverse course and ensure the rule of law is the same for everyone.”

This settlement comes after a drawn out legal battle between the City of Tulsa and the Muscogee Nation regarding the authority of state and local police to investigate and prosecute crimes committed by and perpetrated against non-member Indians.

Canadian company backs off planned Lake Eufaula-area 900-turbine wind farm after local opposition

A Canadian green energy company has halted plans for a 900-turbine wind farm in the Lake Eufaula area after extensive community opposition. TransAlta, a woke corporation with an apparent special emphasis on Environmental Social Governance (ESG) and Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI), began developing the 'Canadian River Wind Project' (also known in some government filings as 'Barracuda Wind Project') in 2022, meeting with select landowners and pursuing paperwork with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission and Federal Aviation Administration, to name two agencies.

The first of five phases was for 121 wind turbines in western McIntosh County (Stidham, Raiford, and Lenna). The next four phases were allegedly slated to include "Texanna Road, Checotah, Porum, wrapping all around Lake Eufaula to south of McAlester, with a total of just under 900 turbines." Based on filings, the turbines were estimated to be over 700 feet tall upon construction.

Drug bust in Muskogee County finds 32k illegal marijuana plants, illegal immigrants

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the arrests may have been just around the corner from me the other day...

Drummond announces 32,000 illegal marijuana plants seized in law enforcement operation in Muskogee County

OKLAHOMA CITY (May 1, 2024) – Attorney General Gentner Drummond announced today that a series of busts in Muskogee County last week resulted in the seizure of approximately 32,000 unlawful marijuana plants, 5,000 pounds of untraceable processed pot, and six firearms. The inspections of several marijuana grow operations and dispensaries were a collaborative effort of the Attorney General’s Organized Crime Task Force, the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority, the Muskogee County Sheriff’s Office, the Muskogee Police Department and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Lighthorse.

State Rep. Olsen: Issues with SB26X and two-tiered system of unequal justice

Issues with SB26X

By Rep. Jim Olsen

The Legislature recently voted to overturn the governor's veto of Senate Bill 26X, which effectively gives another year for the tribal compacts to be negotiated.

It would be easy to look at this issue as pretty simple. The tribes just want another year to negotiate the compacts. Just give them another year, right? What's the big deal?

Hasn't the Cherokee Nation been very generous to our area, helping with schools, bridges, roads and numerous other community projects? Absolutely yes, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars!

Doesn't it behoove us to seek collaboration with the various tribal nations for the benefit of us all? Of course it does!

However, I have found this issue to be a little more complicated than I had at first realized, as there are several legal or constitutional issues with voting for this veto override.

There is a good chance that the Oklahoma Supreme Court will declare this bill to be unconstitutional.

First, we passed it during a special session, meaning that any bill heard during the special session must be related to the topic originally referenced in the call, as required by our state constitution. The call of the special session was related to the Fiscal Year 2024 state budget.  The argument for the call being related to the compacts is that the outcome of the vote on the bill could have a fiscal impact. However, almost every bill we vote on has some sort of fiscal impact. Therefore, if fiscal impact means that it is germane, then germaneness as a requirement for a bill to be included in a call for special session loses any meaning whatsoever.  I believe addressing the compacts during a special session for the budget is a stretch at best.

Secondly, the constitution specifically designates these negotiations with tribal nations to the governor. The Legislature affirmed this in 2014 when we put into statute that the governor is responsible for conducting these negotiations.

In the immediate sense, it is possible for the Legislature to change the statute. However, there is a proper way to change existing laws, rather than simply ignoring it for the sake of another law.

If we want to change statute, we must either amend the existing statute or add the statement "notwithstanding other provisions of law," neither of which was carried out prior to the passage of SB26X.

The issue that overshadows everything else is that the Oklahoma Constitution assigns the responsibility of negotiations with the tribes to the governor, not the Legislature, the Judiciary branch or any other part of our state government.

Every two years since I joined the House in 2018, I have affirmed an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution. If I knowingly defy our state constitution, I have violated my oath of office, and this is something I cannot and will not do.

In addition to the direct constitutional issues, there are other issues with the compact agreements that the tribes are bringing forth.

They argue that the phrase "Indian country" should be used in these compacts. What's the problem with that? The issue is that this brings us closer to a two-tiered system of law in Oklahoma. This has been expressly advocated in some of the legal briefs from the tribes in various court cases and is expressed in the following court cases:

Alicia Stroble, a member of the Muskogee (Creek) Nation who lives in Okmulgee, argues that she is exempt from Oklahoma state taxes because she is a tribal member living in Indian Country.

Justin Hooper, a member of the Choctaw Nation, argues that he is exempt from paying a $150 speeding ticket within the City of Tulsa because he is a tribal member.

We've also seen that under the new "plate pay" system by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, tribal members with unregistered tribal tags are not in the OTA's system and thus cannot be charged for using turnpikes. One vehicle with a Cherokee Nation tag has reportedly failed to pay $670 in tolls since May 15. Should they be exempt because of their tribal affiliation?

If things keep going in this direction, the implications of this two-tiered system would eventually be even more extensive. We must maintain equal justice in Oklahoma.

Rep. Jim Olsen represents District 2 in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, which includes portions of Seqouyah County.

Small: 'Trigger' law needed for income tax repeal

‘Trigger’ law needed

By Jonathan Small

The fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma continues today. A recent federal court decision declaring Indians to be exempt from city police enforcement of municipal laws in local courts in Tulsa is just the latest example.

That issue is being appealed and many other issues are winding their way through the court system.

Small: Reality check for Cherokee leaders may be positive sign

Reality check for Cherokee leaders may be positive sign

By Jonathan Small

The U.S. Supreme Court’s McGirt decision, which effectively declared much of eastern Oklahoma remains tribal reservation land, prompted some tribal officials to embrace separatism.

In 2021, a Muscogee (Creek) Nation official told NonDoc the difference between the Muscogee chief and the governor of Oklahoma is that one is the “head of a nation” while the other is “just the head of the state.”

That’s grandiose, at best. David Hill was elected Muscogee principal chief with 3,399 votes. Kevin Stitt was elected Oklahoma governor with 644,579 votes.

On a similar note, Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin, Jr. recently banned display of the Oklahoma flag on Cherokee property. But Hoskin’s action drew swift rebuke from other Cherokees. [see article here]

When announcing he was reversing course, Hoskin said he had “heard from many Cherokee citizens” and “the vast majority were opposed” to his flag order. Many were concerned it “further divided the state and the tribe.”

Put simply, there was a huge gap between Cherokee leadership and Cherokee citizens, most of whom do not view their home state with hostility.

It’s not shocking that gap exists. Few Cherokees are directly involved in tribal government. The tribe reports over 400,000 individuals are Cherokee citizens, but less than 14,000 voted in the last election for tribal chief. (Similar trends are also notable for the Muscogee Nation, which claims 86,100 citizens.)

Most Cherokees don’t embrace a worldview pitting them against their non-Indian neighbors and family members.

That contrasts with many comments from some tribal leaders. When the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs called for McGirt to be reversed, which would simply ensure all Oklahomans are treated the same under the law as had been the case for the prior century, Muscogee leadership responded with “see you on the battlefield.”

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation now argues all Muscogee citizens living on the tribe’s reservation—including most of Tulsa—are exempt from state taxes. Hoskin has also indicated support for that position. If that view prevails, it could reduce state funding for things like roads and schools by more than $200 million, if not more.

As state Sen. John Michael Montgomery has noted, if tribal citizens don’t pay Oklahoma taxes “there’s a pretty compelling argument to be said: ‘Why are we still funding things in areas if they’re not going to be paying taxes on services for those areas?’”

The challenges created by McGirt extend well beyond flag displays. Rather than equal treatment, what is occurring under McGirt is different treatment based on heritage and physical location—and that disparate treatment is harming people, including tribal citizens.

Most Cherokees understand we are all Oklahomans, even if some of their leaders do not. If those Cherokee citizens’ view prevails, the challenge of working out state-tribal differences will become much easier.

Jonathan Small serves as president of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. 

Small: McGirt ruling’s harm spreads in Oklahoma

Court ruling’s harm spreads in Oklahoma

By Jonathan Small

All Oklahomans drive on the same roads and can access the same public-school system. But thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s McGirt ruling, some Oklahomans may no longer pay to fund those systems, creating increased financial burdens for everyone else.

AG O'Connor celebrates Supreme Court limitation of 'McGirt'

State of Oklahoma Celebrates Supreme Court Limitation of McGirt

OKLAHOMA CITY - “McGirt is not retroactive. This is a major victory for the State of Oklahoma,” said Attorney General John O’Connor. 

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously made that decision in Parish v. Oklahoma. Today, the United States Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal of that decision by Parish. 

Clifton Parish was convicted of second-degree murder in the 2010 beating and shooting death of Robert Strickland in Hugo, Oklahoma. Parish sought to have the United States Supreme Court throw out his conviction, arguing that McGirt is retroactive.

His conviction is one of many convictions that will now stand, with the Supreme Court’s decision announced today.

“This is an important victory for the safety of victims, families of victims, and the people of Oklahoma,” said Attorney General O’Connor. “Victims and their families will not be required to relive their tragic experiences by testifying in new trials, or worse, seeing the perpetrators out in society."

“We are hopeful that this is the first step in having the McGirt decision overturned or clarified and limited. Even without retroactive application, McGirt has opened prison doors and let violent criminals go free," said General O'Connor. 

OCPA column: McGirt harming Oklahoma nationally

McGirt harming Oklahoma nationally

By Jonathan Small

Some tribal leaders argue the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which found a reservation was never disestablished in Oklahoma and that state officials therefore cannot prosecute many crimes involving American Indian victims or criminals, is a boon to the state.

But any ruling that leads a national publication to publish an editorial titled, “How to Get Away With Manslaughter,” as recently occurred in The Wall Street Journal, cannot be viewed as a windfall. Just the opposite in fact, since it means many national companies now have good reason to cross Oklahoma off any expansion list.

But, as I have noted before, the problems with McGirt are much worse than mere reputational harm for Oklahoma. The problems are seen in the denial of justice for families in areas impacted by McGirt, which now comprise nearly half of Oklahoma.

The cases highlighted by the Journal include Shaynna Sims, who in 2015 mutilated the body of a woman who had an affair with Sims’ husband—attacking the corpse in the funeral home. Because the deceased woman was 1/64 Muscogee (the equivalent of having a great-great-great-great grandparent who was full blood) and Sims was not, the state cannot re-prosecute Sims. Neither can the tribe. And the statute of limitations has run out for federal prosecution.

The Journal also noted the case of Richard Ray Roth, who while driving drunk in 2013 struck a 12-year-old boy, Billy Lord, who was riding a bicycle. Roth didn’t stop to tend to the boy as he lay dying, and instead drove home first before returning to the scene.

The child victim in that case was Cherokee. Roth was non-Indian. In state court, Roth was given 20 years, but that sentence has been overturned thanks to McGirt. Again, tribal officials can’t prosecute Roth and the crime cannot be retried in federal court.

At a hearing last year, Billy Lord’s mother noted the insanity of the situation: “My son was tribal, but he was also a citizen of the United States. He was a citizen of Oklahoma.”

Cherokee Chief says no Oklahoma income tax for tribal citizens

CHEROKEE CHIEF SAYS NO OKLAHOMA INCOME TAX FOR INDIANS

by Ray Carter - Director, Center for Independent Journalism

Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin, Jr., said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma significantly increases the number of American Indian citizens who may now be exempt from paying Oklahoma state income tax.

“There’s nothing new about the law out there on the ability of a state to tax a member of a federally recognized tribe on a reservation,” Hoskin said. “What’s new of course is the scope of the reservation (because) of the McGirt case. So, we can look to existing law and we can see that taxation doesn’t attach to individual Native Americans who live on reservations.”

Hoskin made those comments as part of a panel on state tax-and-budget issues hosted by the Oklahoma Policy Institute.

The McGirt ruling found that the Muscogee Nation’s reservation was never disestablished. The ruling has since been expanded to include the reservations of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Seminole, and Quapaw, a combined area that covers nearly half of Oklahoma. The affected area is home to roughly 2 million people of which 21 percent are estimated to be American Indian.

Members of federally recognized tribes have long been exempted from various forms of state taxation—if they live and work on tribal land. Prior to McGirt, that exemption covered only a small share of individuals working on much more geographically confined areas directly owned by Oklahoma tribal governments.

But under McGirt most of eastern Oklahoma is now considered reservation land, regardless of current ownership, potentially expanding the tax exemption to many more individuals. Hoskin conceded that may result in “revenue gaps” for state government.

Because of potential exemptions for tribal members on reservation land, the Oklahoma Tax Commission previously estimated that the McGirt decision could slash Oklahoma state tax collections by $72.7 million per year from reduced income tax collections and $132.2 million annually from reduced sales/use tax collections.

However, that estimate was based on McGirt applying only to the Muscogee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, and Seminole tribes. The Quapaw reservation has since been declared to have never been disestablished, and similar rulings could occur for other tribes now litigating reservation status.

Small: Tribes go AWOL on McGirt response

Tribes go AWOL on McGirt response

By Jonathan Small

Tribal-government officials say they can handle the new responsibilities placed on them as the result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which effectively declared most of eastern Oklahoma to be the reservation land of the Muscogee, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole nations.

Yet, when given the opportunity to publicly discuss how they will preserve public safety on reservation land at a recent Tulsa forum, the leaders of all five tribes went AWOL. They didn’t respond to invitations. They didn’t show up.

That (in)action sent a loud message about the seriousness of tribal leaders and provides no comfort to the 1.8 million Oklahomans living in eastern Oklahoma.

Because of McGirt, state officials cannot arrest or prosecute criminals with any degree of tribal heritage in eastern Oklahoma, while tribal courts have little authority over non-Indians. That leaves the federal government to prosecute most crimes involving a tribal-member victim or perpetrator. Unfortunately, the federal government isn’t doing so.

Although federal law-enforcement officials are investigating major crimes (murder, rape, etc.), lower-level crimes such as theft are not being prosecuted. Rogers County District Attorney Matt Ballard said federal officials are declining to prosecute 95 percent of crimes reported to them. Seminole County District Attorney Paul Smith similarly said many crimes in eastern Oklahoma now “go unaddressed.”

The victims are citizens of all backgrounds—including tribal citizens. Who is going to protect those Oklahomans?

In convening and attending the forum, Gov. Kevin Stitt and district attorneys from areas affected by McGirt showed they are prepared to lead. Stitt also showed leadership in challenging the Biden administration’s effort to federalize mining regulation in eastern Oklahoma because of McGirt.

That’s in sharp contrast to tribal officials. While tribal leaders were invited to the Tulsa forum, the governor’s office received no response, despite numerous follow-up efforts.

Instead, Muscogee Nation Principal Chief David Hill issued a statement decrying the forum as a “one-sided” political campaign that is “intended only to spread misinformation.” What information presented at the forum does the Muscogee Nation dispute? Hill didn’t say.

There has been an abundance of political rhetoric from tribal leaders like Hill, but an almost complete absence of meaningful conversation on how they will preserve public safety when both state and tribal governments have little ability to prosecute crimes on reservation land and the federal government isn’t prosecuting most crimes.

Oklahomans of all backgrounds deserve answers.

Some tribal officials describe McGirt as an opportunity. But the reality is that economic opportunity is going to be very limited and dwindle quickly in eastern Oklahoma if basic public safety cannot be maintained.

There is no path forward for Oklahoma that does not involve consistent enforcement of the law for all Oklahomans of all backgrounds. Those who duck this discussion forfeit their right to call themselves leaders.

Jonathan Small serves as president of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.

OCPA column: McGirt decision is nightmare for crime victims, upheaval for state

McGirt replaced shared destiny with mass upheaval

By Jonathan Small

In 2016, Chickasaw Nation Gov. Bill Anoatubby stressed to members of Congress that there “are no reservations in Oklahoma. People from many backgrounds are neighbors who live, work, play and worship together.” Anoatubby said this created “a sense that we all share in a common destiny in our communities.”

Today, “common destiny” has been shattered by the U.S. Supreme Court’s McGirt decision, which held the Creek Nation’s reservation was never disestablished. Instead, crime victims of all races are seeing claims of tribal sovereignty translate into justice denied.

The McGirt decision dealt directly with crimes committee on Creek land, but is expected to also apply to Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee and Seminole land. As a result, numerous criminals are having convictions tossed, including murders, rapists, and child abusers.

OK Commission on Cooperative Sovereignty presents reports to Gov. Stitt

OKLAHOMA COMMISSION ON COOPERATIVE SOVEREIGNTY PRESENTS REPORT TO GOVERNOR STITT

OKLAHOMA CITY (Oct. 22, 2020)— The Oklahoma Commission on Cooperative Sovereignty today presented its recommendations for the State and the U.S. Congress in response to the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma.
 
“The questions caused by the McGirt decision have put our state at a crossroads,” said Gov. Stitt. “But where some see a major challenge for our state, I see an opportunity. We can work together and secure our future as One Oklahoma, maintaining our diversity and sharing the vision of becoming a Top Ten state.”

Formed by Governor Kevin Stitt under Executive Order 2020-24 to explore the effects of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling, the advisory Commission recommended five principles to ensure consistency and stability for both the State of Oklahoma and Oklahoma’s Tribal Nations.

OCPA column: Different rules for different Oklahomans?

Different rules for different Oklahomans?

By Jonathan Small

The repercussions of the U.S. Supreme Court’s McGirt v. Oklahoma decision, which effectively re-established the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s reservation, suggest Oklahomans have reason to fear we will live under two different sets of rules based on a citizen’s heritage.

The McGirt decision dealt only with criminal prosecutions and Creek land, but it is expected impact a far broader range of issues also involving the territories of the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole nations, or nearly half the state of Oklahoma—and perhaps more.

Those who suggest McGirt will affect only criminal prosecutions ignore the fact that tribal leaders clearly think otherwise. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Principal Chief David Hill recently confirmed to OETA that his tribe is looking at how the decision may expand tribal authority in taxation and regulation. Choctaw Nation Chief Gary Batton has similarly said his tribe has “identified five broad categories of questions we see arising from McGirt: law enforcement, judicial, taxation, regulatory, and Indian child welfare.”

Those aren’t minor issues.

AG Hunter files brief seeking guidance on cases affected by McGirt decision

Attorney General Hunter Prepares Brief with Court of Criminal Appeals Seeking Guidance on Cases Affected by the McGirt Decision

OKLAHOMA CITY (August 3, 2020) – In response to the flood of inmates challenging their state convictions on historic tribal lands, including those lands not associated with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Attorney General Mike Hunter today plans to file a brief with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals that seeks guidance on these many cases affected by the U.S. Supreme Court’s McGirt ruling.

In the filing, the attorney general writes that the U.S. Supreme Court created numerous issues that could result in the release of inmates convicted of violent crimes, like Shaun Bosse, a non-Indian who is on death row for murdering a Chickasaw family—a mother and her two children—in 2010.

Bosse is challenging his conviction on the basis that his crimes took place on the undiminished boundaries of the original Chickasaw Reservation.

“My team and I plan to challenge every single appeal that attempts to overturn longstanding convictions on historic tribal land,” Attorney General Hunter said. “We are not questioning the Supreme Court’s ruling in McGirt, but instead seeking to promote public safety by saying these convicted criminals waited too long to bring their claims. Also, we are asking the court to make clear that the state still has jurisdiction to punish non-Indians who victimize tribal citizens, which would provide the maximum possible protection to tribal members. In the meantime, we are asking the Court of Criminal Appeals to provide guidance on these cases and deny any requests by inmates attempting to get released from prison.”

One question the attorney general points to in the Bosse case is whether the state has jurisdiction, concurrently with the federal government over non-Indians, like Bosse, who victimized tribal citizens.

“We take the position that the state has a right and duty to protect our Indian citizens from those who murder them like Bosse,” Attorney General Hunter said. “There can be no good that comes from tying the state’s hands when we are trying to protect Native Americans by exercising jurisdiction over non-Indians. This is no way undermines tribal sovereignty, but instead is a way for the state to work with the federal government in making sure tribal members receive police protection and justice when they are victimized.”

The attorney general is also asking the court to clarify how Indian status is to be proven, and to put the burden of proving Indian status on the defendant and that the location of the crime fell within the boundaries of a legal reservation.

Watch the attorney general’s press conference, here: https://bit.ly/31j4M1a. Read the filed document here: https://bit.ly/30rc6c6. 

Stitt forms commission to advise State following McGirt v. Oklahoma ruling

GOVERNOR STITT FORMS COMMISSION TO ADVISE STATE OF OKLAHOMA FOLLOWING U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING

OKLAHOMA CITY (July 20, 2020) – Governor Kevin Stitt today issued Executive Order 2020-24, announcing the formation of The Oklahoma Commission on Cooperative Sovereignty to address concerns and make recommendations to the State and the U.S. Congress in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in McGirt v. Oklahoma and Sharp v. Murphy.

“We know that there is a lot of unpredictability right now,” said Gov. Stitt. “We are committed to working with all Oklahomans, Tribal and non-Tribal, to create a practical and sustainable path forward. This commission is the first step.”

OCPA column: Responding to "Indian country" ruling

Responding to “Indian country” ruling

By Jonathan Small

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma has created much legal uncertainty throughout Oklahoma. Rather than have a conglomerate of state and tribal officials hash out various agreements—potentially numerous agreements—it would be far better if Congress resolved this problem.

The court’s actual ruling was narrow: Creek tribal members, on territory once set aside for the Creek tribe, can only be prosecuted by federal, not state, authorities for serious crimes. But the ruling is expected to apply to several other tribes and territory throughout eastern Oklahoma, including Tulsa. Determining if an offender should be prosecuted in federal or state court will depend on the heritage of the offender, the heritage of the victim, and the location of the crime. In situations where an offender is an enrolled member of one tribe and the victim is a member of another, things could become even more complicated.

Oklahoma, state's largest tribes release joint statement on landmark SCOTUS decision

State, Muscogee (Creek), Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole Nations Release Joint Statement in Response to SCOTUS Decision in McGirt Case

OKLAHOMA CITY – The State of Oklahoma, Muscogee (Creek), Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole Nations released the following joint statement today following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the McGirt v. Oklahoma case. 

The State, the Muscogee (Creek), Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole Nations have made substantial progress toward an agreement to present to Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice addressing and resolving any significant jurisdictional issues raised by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma.

Cherokee, Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations file Federal Lawsuit to end Compact Renewal Dispute

Cherokee, Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations file Federal Lawsuit to end Compact Renewal Dispute

OKLAHOMA CITY (Dec. 31, 2019) – The Cherokee, Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations filed a Federal lawsuit today to bring an end to the uncertainty Oklahoma Governor J. Kevin Stitt has attempted to cast over Tribal gaming operations. The suit names Governor Stitt in his official capacity and seeks a judicial declaration that the gaming compacts renew in accord with their express terms, effective January 1, 2020. The Nations provided a copy of the Federal complaint to Governor Stitt, along with a letter explaining their reasons for filing it. Counsel for the Nations, former United States Circuit Judge Robert Henry, provided a companion letter and copy of the complaint to Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter.

While revenue-share rates have generated significant public interest, the Nations’ lawsuit does not address those matters. It instead calls for the court to declare the legal effect of the compact’s Part 15.B., which states—

This Compact shall have a term which will expire on January 1, 2020, and at that time, if organization licensees or others are authorized to conduct electronic gaming in any form other than pari-mutuel wagering on live horse racing pursuant to any governmental action of the state or court order following the effective date of this Compact, the Compact shall automatically renew for successive additional fifteen-year terms.

(Emphasis added.) As the Nations emphasized in their letter to Governor Stitt, “the dispute—like the lawsuit—is about renewal, not rates.”

The Nations have publicly offered statements and analyses that support their position on renewal, including a legal opinion from former Solicitor General of the United States Seth Waxman that concluded: 

The renewal provision in the Tribes’ gaming compacts with Oklahoma is not ambiguous. Under that provision’s plain language, the compacts will renew automatically when they expire on January 1, because the provision’s sole condition precedent for automatic renewal is unquestionably satisfied. Each of the contrary arguments I have seen to date simply cannot be squared with fundamental principles of contract interpretation.

Without offering support or analysis for his position, Governor Stitt has repeatedly and publicly rejected renewal, instead choosing to criticize Tribes for not working on a new compact with him and insisting the current compacts terminate and falsely declaring Tribal gaming unlawful in 2020.

Regarding the Nations’ lawsuit, Chickasaw Nation Governor Bill Anoatubby said, “We have a solemn duty to protect the sovereign rights of our Tribal Nations as well as the interests of our citizens. While we prefer negotiation to litigation, the Federal court is now the only reasonable alternative to bring legal certainty to this issue. We remain hopeful we will continue to have a productive and mutually beneficial relationship with the State of Oklahoma once we have resolved this issue.”

Choctaw Nation Chief Batton made the following statement.

“The Governor’s stance on the gaming compact has created uncertainty and has been seen as a threat to our employees and our business partners. We see this legal action as the most viable option to restore the clarity and stability the Tribes and Oklahoma both deserve by obtaining a resolution that our compact does automatically renew. As elected leaders, it is our responsibility to uphold the compact, honor the will of the Oklahomans who approved State Question 712 and the Federal law that defines our relationship with the State on these matters.”

Cherokee Nation Chief Chuck Hoskin, Jr. made the following statement.

"The Cherokee Nation is committed to being a good partner in our community and with the State of Oklahoma as we have done across two centuries and will continue to do as a peaceful, sovereign nation. Governor Stitt has made comments about “uncertainty that exists” regarding Class III gaming after January 1, threats to our casino vendors and their livelihoods and demands for redundant audits. We have little choice but to ask a Federal judge to confirm the compact’s automatic renewal on Jan. 1.”

While the Seminole Nation was not a party to the lawsuit on filing, Chief Greg Chilcoat said Governor Stitt’s public position had triggered concerns among vendors and others who work with Oklahoma Tribal governments, causing some to worry about instability in the State’s economy. “Rather than respectfully engage with the Tribes and seek an amicable resolution, Governor Stitt has continued to insist on our compact’s termination,” Chief Chilcoat said. “While his position is completely at odds with our compact’s language, he has succeeded in causing uncertainty that has an economic consequence. His inconsistent approach has been unfortunate and unnecessary.”

Muscogee (Creek) Nation Chief James Floyd made the following statement. “The Muscogee (Creek) Nation stands united with our fellow Nations and supports the legal action taken by these three Tribes today. These efforts are necessary to bring about a swift resolution to the question posed by Governor Stitt.”

Matthew L. Morgan, chairman of the Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association, made the following statement:

“The Tribes remain firmly united on the automatic renewal of the compacts. We have communicated our position to Governor Stitt on numerous occasions in hopes of finding a practical path forward benefitting both the State and Tribes. That said, as leaders of sovereign nations, the Tribal leaders must honor the compacts and will continue to do so on January 1, 2020, as they’ve done the past 15 years. Tribal leaders have the right as well as the responsibility to protect their citizens. Tribal leaders applaud the action taken today by the Cherokee, Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations to seek certainty on the matter of automatic renew through the Federal court.”