District Judge John Russell announced today he will enter an order denying Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt’s intervention request aimed at preventing the enforcement of a settlement agreement in the Muscogee Nation’s lawsuit against the City of Tulsa. The order portends a conclusion to the federal case, but it does allow the Stitt administration to continue making some of its arguments against the agreement in state court.
Stitt has clashed with Tulsa’s Democratic Mayor Monroe Nichols over the settlement agreement since before its official announcement. Under the agreement, the Tulsa city attorney will forward municipal criminal cases involving Indians within the Muscogee Reservation to the Muscogee Nation District Court for adjudication.
At several points throughout Friday’s hearing, attorneys for all parties referenced stayed litigation over the settlement agreement filed by Stitt with the Oklahoma Supreme Court, noting issues of state law will ultimately be settled before those justices instead of in federal court. With Russell set to dismiss Stitt’s motion to intervene — and likely the federal case as a whole — the Oklahoma Supreme Court may lift its stay and hear Stitt’s objections to the settlement agreement under state law.
Among his objections, Stitt has argued the current settlement agreement signed by Nichols has violated state law by not seeking the governor’s approval and ceding jurisdiction to the Muscogee Nation.
While state litigation over the settlement agreement remains ongoing, both the City of Tulsa and the Muscogee Nation’s attorneys indicated the settlement agreement is currently being honored by both parties.
Muscogee Nation press secretary Jason Salsman declined to comment on Russell’s announcement Friday. A City of Tulsa spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment before the publication of this article. Neither did a spokeswoman for the governor.
Hearing arguments hint at more litigation
Friday’s hearing lasted about 45 minutes, and Russell told the parties he had set the hearing to “get an idea of where we are in the case.” He indicated he did not think the settlement agreement had precluded Stitt’s objections.
“I don’t think it is moot,” Russell said. “The distinction lies in the way the governor, on behalf of the state, has indicated it is a mandatory intervention.”
Attorney Phillip Tinker, representing the Muscogee Nation, argued there is no longer a live “controversy” between the nation and the city, which would prevent the court from ruling on Stitt’s motion.
“If there is no longer a controversy, there is no case to be intervened into,” Tinker argued.
Audrey Weaver, who represented Stitt at the hearing, argued the existence of the settlement agreement implicated the state’s interests and required intervention from the governor.
“The settlement agreement and stipulation does prejudice the state government because the settlement agreement says the city will not exercise criminal jurisdiction derived from the state,” Weaver argued.
Hayes Martin, representing Tulsa, argued the settlement agreement represented the city exercising its prosecutorial discretion and did not give the governor a reason to intervene.
“I don’t see a way the state can [challenge] the prosecutorial discretion of the city,” Martin told the court.
After hearing the arguments, Russell verbally denied the motion to intervene and said he would release a written order shortly.
“I appreciate hearing the parties’ arguments,” Russell said.
The written order was not released before the publication of this article.
