TULSA – On Thursday, May 27, the Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction and issued its opinion in State of Oklahoma v City of Tulsa. The case was originally filed on August 20, 2025, by Governor Kevin Stitt in response to the settlement agreement between the City of Tulsa and the Muscogee Creek Nation.
The court issued a writ of mandamus compelling Tulsa to obtain statutory approval in order to proceed with the agreement. A writ of mandamus is an order from a court to a government official to perform public duties.
At issue in the case is whether the settlement agreement is an extension of the pre-existing cross-deputization agreement between MCN and Tulsa.
According to the order:
The Settlement Agreement, while reaffirming some principles found in the Cross-Deputization Agreement, serves a distinct and independent purpose. It does not merely extend existing terms; rather, it establishes a new legal framework with different obligations that the parties are required to fulfill. Therefore, the Settlement Agreement is an independent cooperative agreement, separate and distinct from the Cross-Deputization Agreement.
To be legally enforceable, intergovernmental cooperative agreements made on behalf of a political subdivision must comply with statutory requirements. Under § 1221(D)(1), such agreements become effective only upon approval by both the Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations and the Governor. Here, neither the Joint Committee nor the Governor approved the Settlement Agreement. The Court holds that the Settlement Agreement is invalid as a matter of law until such time as Tulsa secures the mandatory statutory approvals.
This opinion and the order do not affect the cross-deputization agreement between MCN and the City of Tulsa.
