OKLAHOMA CITY — A recent Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling invalidating a jurisdictional agreement between the City of Tulsa and the Muscogee Nation has handed Gov. Kevin Stitt a significant victory in one of the state’s most consequential post-McGirt legal battles while setting the stage for a renewed fight at the Capitol in 2027.
In an 8-1 decision issued Thursday, the state’s highest court ruled that Tulsa lacked authority to enter into the agreement without approval from both the governor and the Legislature’s Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations, effectively nullifying a settlement negotiated last year by Tulsa Mayor Monroe Nichols and Muscogee Nation Principal Chief David Hill.
The agreement was designed to resolve disputes over criminal jurisdiction within Tulsa city limits following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which affirmed that much of eastern Oklahoma remains reservation land for purposes of federal criminal law.
At issue was a 2025 settlement between Tulsa and the Muscogee Nation stemming from federal litigation over the city’s prosecution of tribal citizens on reservation land. Under the agreement, Tulsa agreed to stop prosecuting municipal criminal cases involving Native American defendants on reservation land and instead refer those matters to tribal courts.
Stitt challenged the agreement, arguing city officials exceeded their authority by entering into what amounted to a new state-tribal compact without obtaining required state approval.
Writing for the majority, Justice James Winchester agreed.
“The Settlement Agreement serves a distinct and independent purpose” from an existing cross-deputization agreement between the parties, Winchester wrote. The court concluded the agreement addressed prosecutorial authority rather than law enforcement cooperation and therefore constituted a separate compact under Oklahoma law.
Because the agreement created a new governmental arrangement between a municipality and a tribal nation, the court held it required approval from both the governor and the Legislature’s Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations before taking effect.
The ruling did not address the broader legal questions surrounding criminal jurisdiction in eastern Oklahoma after McGirt. Instead, the court focused narrowly on whether Tulsa followed the procedures required by state law when entering into the agreement.
Stitt celebrated the decision as a victory for his administration’s position on tribal-state relations.
“The Supreme Court ruled in favor of local law enforcement,” Stitt said in a statement. He argued the agreement would have allowed laws to be enforced differently based on tribal status, a characterization tribal leaders have consistently disputed.
Nichols and Hill, however, indicated they intend to continue pursuing legislative approval for the agreement after Stitt leaves office in January.
Nichols said Tulsa will continue working with the Muscogee Nation and other tribal governments on public safety issues, noting crime has declined since the city adjusted its prosecution policies in 2025.
“Political posturing” surrounding the agreement will not disrupt cooperation between Tulsa and its tribal partners, Nichols said, adding that city leaders look forward to working with lawmakers to find a path forward.
Hill likewise signaled the tribe is not abandoning the effort.
“We have carefully reviewed the ruling and are considering next steps,” Hill said in a statement, adding that discussions with legislative leaders will continue.
Justice Douglas Combs was the lone dissenter. He argued the Oklahoma Supreme Court should have waited until related federal litigation is fully resolved before deciding the case.
While the ruling represents a significant legal and political win for Stitt, it does not end the dispute. Instead, the decision shifts the battle from the courtroom to the Legislature, where supporters of the Tulsa-Muscogee agreement are expected to seek formal approval during the 2027 session under the process outlined by the court.
