Oklahoma Court Rules Some Tribal Members Can Be Prosecuted In State Court

A Cherokee man is facing state charges for allegedly driving under the influence on Creek land, sparking debate over tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction.

What is the case about?

The Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office is charging Cherokee citizen Dallas Stites with driving drunk on the Creek Turnpike with a small child in the car. This case comes after a recent Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals decision granting the state concurrent jurisdiction over certain crimes involving tribal members.

“I’m trying to get back and restore justice for victims, and restore order within my state and my county,” said Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler.

What does the Appeals Court decision mean?

The decision stems from the case of City of Tulsa v. O’Brien. In this case, Nicholas O’Brien, an Osage citizen, argued he could not be prosecuted by the state after being arrested for a DUI on Creek land. However, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled otherwise, allowing the state to proceed.

“In what the court of criminal appeals is saying is what I have always maintained—the state of Oklahoma should have concurrent jurisdiction over all crimes,” said Kunzweiler.

What are the arguments for and against the ruling?

Kunzweiler believes the ruling addresses jurisdictional gaps caused by the Supreme Court’s 2020 McGirt v. Oklahoma decision.

“Those people who are non-tribal members—they are Indians but non-tribal members—were getting the benefit, at least in my opinion, from exclusion of state court prosecution, and that’s what in my opinion has caused a lot of havoc,” said Kunzweiler.

Brett Chapman, a tribal law expert and attorney for Nicholas O’Brien, strongly opposes the ruling.

“They completely disregarded that in their bid to just create this revolt on Indian law to go overturn McGirt, essentially,” said Chapman.

What is the federal government’s role?

The Department of Justice has already intervened, filing lawsuits against two Oklahoma district attorneys for prosecuting tribal citizens in certain cases. Chapman supports the DOJ’s actions, stating that Oklahoma’s actions violate federal law.

“The Justice Department has now gotten involved, rightfully in my opinion, to try to rectify this, because what the state of Oklahoma is doing is in complete violation of federal law,” said Chapman.

What’s next for tribal jurisdiction cases?

As cases like this continue to unfold, Kunzweiler acknowledges the possibility of being sued by the federal government. However, he remains committed to his stance.

Both Kunzweiler and Chapman agree that these cases are likely to make their way to the Supreme Court for clarification, where the McGirt decision may either be reinforced or redefined by what the court rules