Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction and granted mandamus and declaratory relief in a dispute over a settlement agreement between the City of Tulsa and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. The Court held that the settlement agreement was an independent intergovernmental cooperative agreement under 74 O.S. § 1221 and was invalid without approval from the Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations and the Governor. Separate opinions addressed the constitutionality of the Joint Committee, the propriety of original jurisdiction, and the absence of the Nation as a party.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court should assume original jurisdiction under the publici juris doctrine.
- Whether Tulsa's Joint Settlement Agreement with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation was an intergovernmental cooperative agreement governed by 74 O.S. 2021, section 1221.
- Whether the Settlement Agreement was merely an extension of the existing Cross-Deputization Agreement or a new independent agreement requiring approval by the Governor and the Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations.
- Whether the Settlement Agreement was legally enforceable absent the mandatory statutory approvals.
Holdings
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction because the petition presented a matter of public interest in urgent need of judicial determination.
- The Settlement Agreement was an intergovernmental cooperative agreement because it was between a political subdivision and an Indian tribe and addressed issues of mutual interest.
- The Settlement Agreement was an independent cooperative agreement, separate and distinct from the Cross-Deputization Agreement.
- The Settlement Agreement was invalid as a matter of law until Tulsa obtained approval from both the Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations and the Governor.
Key quotations
“The Court holds that the Settlement Agreement is invalid as a matter of law until such time as Tulsa secures the mandatory statutory approvals.” (¶ 17)
“For these reasons, the Court issues a writ of mandamus compelling Tulsa to secure the appropriate statutory approvals if Tulsa wishes to proceed with the Agreement and grants the declaratory relief sought by Petitioner.” (¶ 18)
Factual background
Tulsa and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation entered a Joint Settlement Agreement under which Tulsa agreed not to exercise criminal jurisdiction over Indian defendants on the Nation's Reservation, dismiss pending Tulsa municipal prosecutions, and refrain from initiating future prosecutions against Indian defendants on the Reservation. Tulsa contended that the agreement merely extended an existing 2006 Cross-Deputization Agreement. The Oklahoma Supreme Court found that the settlement imposed distinct obligations, fundamentally altered prosecutorial authority, and was a separate cooperative agreement requiring statutory approvals that neither the Governor nor the Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations provided.
Procedural history
The Oklahoma Supreme Court had previously stayed the proceeding because related federal litigation was pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. The federal court denied the Governor's intervention request, concluded that the validity of Tulsa's settlement agreement presented a state-law issue, declined to approve the agreement, and the federal litigation was then dismissed under the settlement terms. The Oklahoma Supreme Court lifted its stay, assumed original jurisdiction under article VII, section 4 of the Oklahoma Constitution, and granted mandamus and declaratory relief.
Remand instructions
Tulsa was compelled to secure the required statutory approvals if it wished to proceed with the Settlement Agreement. No remand to a lower court was ordered.