Justices Reject Tulsa Claim City Can’t Police Tribal Members (1)

The US Supreme Court denied Tulsa’s appeal to stay a lower court order that the city says will prevent it from policing tribal members.

Friday’s order is the latest fallout from the court’s 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which said state officials couldn’t prosecute crimes that occurred on tribal lands.

Choctaw Nation member Justin Hooper got a speeding ticket in 2018 while on the Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation in Tulsa and was fined $150.

Hooper argues city officials didn’t have the authority to enforce municipal rules on tribal members in “Indian country,” following McGirt.

Tulsa argued otherwise, but the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit disagreed. It found that the 1898 Curtis Act no longer provided municipalities with jurisdiction on tribal lands.

Tulsa told the justices that the Tenth Circuit decision “creates a potentially dangerous situation” for itself and other municipalities. For instance, the city said tribal residents have confronted police at traffic stops over their jurisdiction.

But Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito said an order allowing the city to enforce its laws wasn’t necessary at this point.

Nothing in the lower court’s ruling prohibits Tulsa from “continuing to enforce its municipal laws against all persons, including Indians, as the litigation progresses,” they said.

Tulsa said in a statement that it will enforce ordinances against all citizens regardless of tribal status while it continues to seek legal clarification on its policing authority.

The city and the Cherokee Nation, another tribe partially within Tulsa, emphasized the need for cooperation.

“Today’s news from the U.S. Supreme Court affirms what we have said all along—the best way forward is through collaboration, not wasteful legal fights,” Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin said in a statement.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the nation and other tribes rebuffed the city’s concerns over public safety, citing “cross-deputization agreements” with respect to criminal laws. Tulsa “offers no reason why they cannot work with respect to traffic enforcement too,” the brief said.

The case is Tulsa v. Hooper, U.S., No. 23A73.

To contact the reporter on this story: Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson in Washington at [email protected]

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Seth Stern at [email protected]; John Crawley at [email protected]

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.