Native American inmates ask to join tribe in lawsuit against Tulsa

Derrick James, McAlester News-Capital, Okla.
·3 min read

Jun. 27—Several inmates serving time in Oklahoma prisons are asking to join a lawsuit filed by the Muscogee (Creek) Nation against the City of Tulsa regarding the ticketing of Native Americans within its municipal limits.

The eastern Oklahoma tribal nation filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Oklahoma in November 2023 claiming the city of Tulsa "is deliberately and unlawfully prosecuting tribal citizens for conduct occurring within the Nation's Reservation boundaries despite the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma."

"Tulsa's ongoing criminal prosecutions of Indians for conduct within the Creek Reservation are causing irreparable injury to the Nation by interfering with its sovereignty and undermining the authority of its own criminal justice system, including the authority of its Attorney General, Lighthorse Police and courts to prosecute under the Nation's owns laws criminal offenses committed by Indians within its Reservation," the tribe said in its complaint.

Tulsa maintains it has the authority to prosecute municipal violations committed by Native Americans through Section 14 of the Curtis Act, a law from 1898 that predates Oklahoma's statehood despite the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruling in Hooper v. Tulsa the city does not have the authority.

More than a dozen inmates serving prison sentences in the Oklahoma Department of Corrections have filed motions to intervene in the lawsuit, stating that they are members of a Native American tribe who were convicted of a crime in Tulsa that is within the Muscogee (Creek) Nation's reservation.

Every inmate states the outcome of the suit will have an impact on their conviction and or voting rights.

The City of Tulsa argues the motions to intervene are moot due to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' ruling defendants whose convictions were final prior to the 2020 ruling in McGirt were not eligible for post-conviction relief and that the lawsuit is not a "proper mechanism" to challenge OCCA's decision. The city also states the inmates are serving sentences for major crimes, such as murder, which the city does not handle the prosecution of.

The lawsuit began after Justin Hooper, a member of the Choctaw Nation, was fined $150 for a traffic violation in 2018 by the Tulsa Police Department. Hooper filed for post-conviction relief following the decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma recognizing the Muscogee (Creek) Nation was never disestablished and the state of Oklahoma did not have criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by Native Americans.

A Tulsa municipal judge agreed with Tulsa before Hooper appealed the ruling to the Northern District of Oklahoma where a federal judge also ruled in Tulsa's favor. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision, with the U.S. Supreme Court declining to hear the case.

The city asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed or stayed because the case interferes with "pending Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals proceedings where a decision is imminent" and gave three examples of cases currently pending with OCCA.

One such case involves Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt's brother, Marvin Stitt, who was ticketed for aggravated speeding in 2021 by the Tulsa Police Department. Similar to Hooper, a municipal judge denied the motion to dismiss the speeding ticket with attorneys filing an appeal with OCCA that is now awaiting a decision.

"This Court should dismiss the claims and requested relief against all parties under the abstention and Colorado River doctrines because there are presently numerous other lawsuits pending on this same question that could render this case moot once decided," Tulsa argues. "In the alternative, this case should be stayed pending the OCCA's decision in Stitt which would be instructive, if not decisive on this case."

The U.S. Department of the Justice also filed a motion to intervene on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Interior, stating Tulsa "continued assertion of such jurisdiction" violates federal law.

No rulings on the motions to intervene have been filed in the case as of Tuesday.