Law on Native Land: Gov. Stitt’s Petition and the O’Brien Case

Since the Supreme Court decided McGirt v. Oklahoma in 2020, state officials have sought ways to limit or undo its impact. No one has been more outspoken than Governor Kevin Stitt. He has repeatedly argued that McGirt created confusion and weakened public safety in eastern Oklahoma.

In 2025, the governor’s position gained new attention when his brother, Keith Stitt, filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review how Oklahoma’s courts have applied McGirt. That petition followed a separate case, City of Tulsa v. O’Brien, which allowed the state and its subdivisions to retain more authority than many tribal citizens expected after McGirt. Together, these efforts show how the fight over jurisdiction has reached the nation’s highest court once again.

The O’Brien case

Nicholas O’Brien, a citizen of the Osage Nation, was convicted in Tulsa for driving under the influence. He challenged his conviction after McGirt, arguing that because he is Native and the offense occurred within the Muscogee Reservation, the state and city lacked jurisdiction.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected his challenge. Relying on its earlier decision in Deo v. Parish, the court held that jurisdictional objections must be raised properly and on time. It also reasoned that cities like Tulsa could continue prosecuting certain offenses by invoking concurrent jurisdiction principles.

For tribal nations, the decision represented another step in the erosion of McGirt’s promise. For state officials, it was confirmation that Oklahoma retained more criminal authority than many had feared.

Stitt’s petition to the Supreme Court

Governor Stitt and his allies seized on the O’Brien ruling as evidence that Oklahoma’s courts were reshaping McGirt in practice. Keith Stitt’s petition to the Supreme Court asked the justices to step in and review whether Oklahoma retains subject matter jurisdiction over crimes involving tribal citizens in Indian Country.

The petition argued that the state cannot function if tribal citizens are exempt from prosecution in municipal and state courts. Tribal governments, by contrast, emphasized that the petition was another attempt to undermine treaty rights and expand state power at the expense of sovereignty.

Why this matters

These developments are important for several reasons:

✔️ They show how state officials continue pressing the Supreme Court to narrow McGirt
✔️ They highlight the role of municipal prosecutions as a new battleground for sovereignty
✔️ They raise the possibility that the Court could revisit the balance it struck between state power and tribal rights

For defendants and their families, these cases create uncertainty about where charges will be filed and which laws apply. For tribes, they represent a continuing struggle to protect the sovereignty affirmed in McGirt.

The bigger picture

The O’Brien decision and Stitt’s petition illustrate how the legal landscape in Oklahoma remains unsettled five years after McGirt. Even as federal and tribal courts expand to meet their responsibilities, state and city officials continue to test the boundaries of their authority.

Whether the Supreme Court will take up these petitions remains to be seen. But the stakes are clear. Every decision will shape the future of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and justice in Indian Country.

Key takeaway

The fight over jurisdiction in Oklahoma has not ended with McGirt or Castro-Huerta. Through cases like O’Brien and petitions led by Governor Stitt’s allies, the state continues to push for a larger role in prosecuting crimes involving tribal citizens. The question now is whether the Supreme Court will intervene again or allow the post-McGirt balance to stand.

The next post in Law on Native Land will step back from the courts and examine the Tulsa–Muscogee Nation settlement agreement, where city and tribal leaders chose cooperation rather than litigation to resolve jurisdictional disputes.