WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court turned down an application Friday from Tulsa, Oklahoma, in its bid to retain jurisdiction over a 2018 speeding ticket.
While the ruling from the court’s emergency docket came without explanation, Justice Samuel Alito joined a statement by Justice Brett Kavanaugh that clarifies the court’s decision to deny relief.
“The City of Tulsa’s application for a stay raises an important question: whether the City may enforce its municipal laws against American Indians in Tulsa,” the Trump appointee wrote. “For example, may Indians in Tulsa violate the City’s traffic safety laws without enforcement by the City?”
Kavanaugh said the posture from which the application came about is was what stopped the court from interfering. The 10th Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Kavanaugh said the application did not yet reach the important jurisdiction arguments proposed by amicus curiae like the state of Oklahoma.
“As I understand it, nothing in the decision of the Court of Appeals prohibits the City from continuing to enforce its municipal laws against all persons, including Indians, as the litigation progresses,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Friday’s ruling vacates the temporary stay granted by Justice Neil Gorsuch last week to review the emergency application from the city.
Tulsa police issued the ticket to Justin Hooper while he was driving on the Muscogee Creek Nation reservation in 2018. Hooper, a member of the Choctaw Nation, originally paid the fine, but a subsequent landmark ruling on tribal authority from the Supreme Court made him question if the city of Tulsa could even issue the infraction.
In the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma, the justices said Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction under the federal Major Crimes Act to prosecute Indians or non-Indians for crimes committed in large swaths of eastern Oklahoma, part of the Creek Nation before the Trail of Tears.
Since then, however, the court has already narrowed McGirt. In Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, the justices said the federal government and the state should have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.
Hooper attempted to obtain post-conviction relief from Tulsa’s municipal court after the court ruled in McGirt. The municipal court denied Hooper relief, leading him to turn to the district court, where he asked for a declaratory judgment that the city does not have jurisdiction to prosecute Indians for violations of city ordinances that occur within both city limits and the Muscogee Creek Reservation boundaries.
Using the 1896 Curtis Act, a federal judge rejected Hooper’s claims. The century-old law established a pre-statehood process for cities that could subject all inhabitants — both Indians and non-Indians — to ordinances of the city government.
The 10th Circuit said, although a provision of the Curtis Act submit city inhabitants to its laws, Tulsa incorporated the provision after joining the state of Oklahoma, and gave up this authority by doing so.
Tulsa then turned to the high court, asking the justices to clarify how the Curtis Act should be understood in light of McGirt.
“While the Curtis Act is not new law, the question of application of the act to modern day enforcement of municipal ordinances against Indians was not brought to the forefront until this Court’s decision in McGirt turned over 125 years of jurisdictional suppositions and exposed this long-dormant question,” Kristine Gray, an attorney with the office of the city, wrote in Tulsa’s emergency application.
Hooper said the high court should not put the appeals court ruling on pause because it doesn’t currently conflict with other circuit court rulings or present an important federal question.
“Tulsa’s only argument is that under Rule 10(c), the proper interpretation of Section 14 of the Curtis Act is an important federal question that should be reviewed by the Court,” John Dunn, an attorney with the law offices of John Dunn representing Hooper, wrote in his response brief. “But on the merits, Tulsa’s application makes abundantly clear that its petition will be no more than a request for error correction, which is not a likely basis for a grant of certiorari.”
The case will now return to the district court for further proceedings.
from Courthouse News
