Tulsa–Muscogee Nation Settlement Agreement Struck Down

The Tulsa–Muscogee Nation settlement agreement was a June 2025 deal in which the City of Tulsa agreed to stop prosecuting Native American defendants in its municipal court and refer those cases to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation instead. It resolved a federal lawsuit the Nation had filed against the city in late 2023. On May 28, 2026, an eight-justice majority of the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled the agreement invalid because Tulsa never obtained the state-level approvals that Oklahoma law requires for cooperative agreements between a municipality and a tribe.¹

What the Agreement Did

Mayor Monroe Nichols and Principal Chief David Hill signed the settlement, and it was publicly announced on June 25, 2025 after the Muscogee Nation National Council unanimously adopted Resolution TR 25-052 authorizing the chief to execute it.²³

Under its terms, Tulsa committed to three things: dismiss all pending municipal prosecutions of Native American defendants, stop initiating future municipal prosecutions against any Native American defendant, and refer traffic tickets and criminal charges involving Native American defendants to the Muscogee Nation for the tribe to consider for prosecution.⁴ It applied to municipal cases arising within Tulsa city limits that also fell within the Muscogee reservation boundaries. Violent crimes would continue to be referred to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and state and federal cases were not affected.³

Notably, the city did not concede it lacked jurisdiction. It agreed to defer to the Nation’s courts by choosing not to prosecute.⁵

Policing on the ground was designed to stay the same. Tulsa officers retained full authority to enforce laws, conduct traffic stops, investigate crimes, and make arrests regardless of a suspect’s tribal status. What changed was where the case went afterward: instead of being filed in Tulsa’s municipal court, cases involving Native defendants would be referred to the Muscogee Nation’s attorney general or to federal prosecutors.⁵⁴

Officers were expected to make a “good faith effort” to determine whether a suspect was a citizen of a federally recognized tribe by, for example, checking for tribal license plates or tribal identification. The city acknowledged officers would not be conducting “evidentiary hearings on the side of the road”; if tribal status could not be established in the field, a defendant could raise it as a defense in municipal court.⁵

The agreement also created a joint working group of Tulsa police and Muscogee Lighthorse Police representatives, which was to produce a comprehensive plan within eight months covering booking, detention, videoconferencing, mental health and diversion programs, lab testing and property storage, extradition, and inter-agency communication. All eight required collaborative sessions had been completed by February 2026.³⁶

Why the Deal Existed in the First Place

The agreement grew out of the fallout from McGirt v. Oklahoma, the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s reservation was never disestablished by Congress and remains “Indian country” under federal law.⁷ Under long-standing federal Indian law, states generally cannot prosecute crimes committed by Native Americans within reservation boundaries; those cases belong in federal or tribal courts.⁸

The Muscogee reservation covers roughly the southern half of Tulsa, which put every municipal prosecution of a Native defendant in that area on shaky legal ground. Tulsa initially argued it retained authority under Section 14 of the Curtis Act of 1898. The Tenth Circuit rejected that theory in Hooper v. City of Tulsa, decided June 28, 2023, finding that the city’s Curtis Act authority did not survive Oklahoma statehood and its 1908 charter.⁹

When Tulsa kept prosecuting anyway, the Muscogee Nation sued. On November 15, 2023, the Nation filed Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. City of Tulsa in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, naming the city, then-Mayor G.T. Bynum, the police chief, and the city attorney. The complaint argued that Tulsa’s continued prosecutions interfered with the Nation’s federally protected right of self-government and that the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta did not save the city, because that case addressed state jurisdiction over non-Indians and expressly declined to address jurisdiction over Indian defendants.¹⁰ After Nichols took office as mayor, the two sides negotiated the settlement rather than fight the case to judgment.

Why the Oklahoma Supreme Court Struck It Down

Governor Kevin Stitt opposed the deal from the start, denouncing it at a June 23, 2025 press conference and pledging to reverse it.¹¹ After the federal court declined to let him intervene in the underlying lawsuit, he filed his own case directly in the Oklahoma Supreme Court in August 2025 (Case No. 123368) against the city, Mayor Nichols, and the police chief, seeking a ruling that the agreement was illegal.¹²

The court ruled for the governor on May 28, 2026, holding the agreement “invalid as a matter of law.” The decision turned on statutes, not on the underlying constitutional questions about tribal jurisdiction.¹

Justice James Winchester, writing for the eight-justice majority, found that the settlement qualified as an “intergovernmental cooperative agreement” between a political subdivision and a federally recognized tribe under Title 74, Section 1221(D)(1) of the Oklahoma Statutes. That provision requires such agreements to be approved by both the Legislature’s Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations and the governor or his designee. Tulsa had neither approval.¹

The court rejected the city’s argument that the deal was simply an extension of the existing cross-deputization arrangement between Tulsa police and Lighthorse Police, finding it introduced “distinct terms and novel responsibilities.” A second, narrower defect ran alongside that holding: even treated as an amendment to an existing agreement, the settlement was signed only by the mayor, city clerk, and city attorney, when proper execution also required the city council chairman and the chief of police.¹³

Chief Justice Dustin Rowe concurred in the result but wrote separately to argue that the Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations is itself an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, suggesting the full Legislature should be doing the approving.¹ Justice Douglas Combs was the lone dissenter. He argued the court should have waited for the Tenth Circuit to rule in a related case, Muscogee Nation v. Kunzweiler, because a decision there could have triggered a termination clause in the settlement and mooted the dispute.¹³

Where Things Stand Now

The settlement is legally void. Tulsa cannot follow its terms unless and until it secures approval from the Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations and the governor.¹³ Getting Stitt’s approval is not a realistic option; he brought the lawsuit and framed the ruling as an affirmation that a city cannot “unilaterally enter into an agreement without the governor’s consent.”¹

The ruling does not, however, require the city to resume prosecuting tribal citizens. Prosecutorial discretion gives Tulsa room to simply choose not to bring cases it believes it would lose on jurisdictional grounds. Whether the city will do that is not yet clear.¹

Mayor Nichols said the city plans to work with the Legislature next session “to ensure alignment between the city, state, and tribal nations.” The Muscogee Nation said it is “considering next steps,” including continuing conversations with legislators.¹⁴

Two developments are likely to shape whatever comes next. The first is the Tenth Circuit’s pending decision in Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Kunzweiler, in which the Nation is challenging Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler’s prosecution of nonmember tribal citizens on the reservation. U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell denied the Nation’s request for a preliminary injunction in November 2025, finding it had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, and the Nation appealed.¹⁵ Briefing at the Tenth Circuit was ongoing as of May 2026, with amicus support from the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw Nations and the United South and Eastern Tribes.¹⁶ That case could resolve the underlying question of whether county and municipal prosecutors have any authority over tribal citizens on reservation land.

The second is the 2026 governor’s race. Stitt is term-limited, and at a May 28, 2026 Republican gubernatorial debate, all four leading candidates said they would pursue compacts or cooperative agreements with tribal nations, differing on the specifics but none echoing Stitt’s combative posture.¹⁷¹⁸ A new governor willing to sign off on the kind of state-level approval the Oklahoma Supreme Court says the law requires is the most direct route to putting an agreement like this one back in place.

1
NonDoc. OK Supreme Court Tosses Jurisdiction Agreement Between Muscogee Nation, City of Tulsa
2
Mvskoke Media. Council Authorizes Execution of City of Tulsa Lawsuit Settlement Agreement
3
City of Tulsa. City, Muscogee Nation Reach Agreement to Prioritize Safety, Tribal Sovereignty in Tulsa
4
NonDoc. Tulsa-Muscogee Prosecution Agreement Transfers Cases and Charging Decisions
5
City of Tulsa. Muscogee Nation Agreement FAQs
6
Tulsa Flyer. Muscogee Creek Nation Tribal Jurisdiction Settlement
7
Congress.gov. McGirt v. Oklahoma: The Supreme Court Rules That Much of Eastern Oklahoma Is Indian Country for Purposes of Federal Criminal Law
8
Oklahoma Bar Association. McGirt and Its Aftermath: Criminal Jurisdiction in Eastern Oklahoma
9
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Hooper v. City of Tulsa, No. 22-5034
10
Muscogee (Creek) Nation. Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. City of Tulsa, Complaint
11
Oklahoma Governor’s Office. Governor Stitt, State and Local Leaders Push Back on Tulsa’s Move
12
KOSU. Gov. Stitt Files Lawsuit Against Tulsa Over Criminal Jurisdiction Agreement With Muscogee Nation
13
Journal Record. Oklahoma Supreme Court Invalidates Tulsa-Muscogee Nation Agreement
14
KTUL. Oklahoma Supreme Court Halts Criminal Justice Agreement Between Tulsa and Muscogee Nation
15
Native American Rights Fund. Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Kunzweiler, Order
16
Turtle Talk. Tenth Circuit Briefs in Muscogee Creek Nation v. Kunzweiler
17
NonDoc. Oklahoma GOP Gubernatorial Candidates Talk Tribes, Schools, Health Care, and Corruption in Debate
18
ICT News. A Top Issue in Maine and Oklahoma Governors Races: Tribal Sovereignty