Law on Native Land: Hooper v. City of Tulsa

While most of the big jurisdictional battles have involved the state of Oklahoma and the federal government, cities have also tried to assert criminal authority in Indian Country. Tulsa, the state’s second-largest city, has been at the center of this controversy.

In Hooper v. City of Tulsa, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Tulsa’s claim that it could prosecute tribal citizens for municipal offenses committed inside reservation boundaries. The decision struck down Tulsa’s reliance on a long-repealed statute and reaffirmed that municipalities do not gain independent criminal authority in Indian Country.

The case background

Justin Hooper, a citizen of the Choctaw Nation, received a municipal ticket in Tulsa for a traffic violation in 2018. After McGirt v. Oklahoma, Hooper challenged the ticket, arguing that the City of Tulsa had no jurisdiction because the offense occurred within the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation and he was a tribal citizen.

Tulsa countered that the Curtis Act of 1898, a law passed before Oklahoma statehood, gave the city criminal jurisdiction over Indians. The city argued that the law remained in effect even after Oklahoma became a state.

What the court decided

The Tenth Circuit ruled in Hooper’s favor. The court explained that:

• The Curtis Act was repealed when Oklahoma became a state and Congress granted jurisdiction to state and federal courts

• Nothing in federal law authorized municipalities to prosecute Indians for offenses in Indian Country

• Because Hooper was a tribal citizen and the offense occurred within reservation boundaries, Tulsa lacked jurisdiction

The court vacated the municipal conviction.

Why this ruling matters

The Hooper decision was a major rebuke to municipal overreach. Its consequences include:

✔️ Municipal courts in Tulsa and other Oklahoma cities cannot prosecute tribal citizens for crimes in Indian Country
✔️ Authority over such offenses rests with tribal or federal courts, depending on the crime
✔️ Cities must now work with tribes through agreements rather than trying to claim unilateral authority

For Tulsa, this meant a significant change in how it handles cases involving tribal citizens.

Broader developments

The Hooper ruling also set the stage for further litigation. Even after the decision, Tulsa and other municipalities continued to test the boundaries of their power, sometimes invoking Castro-Huerta to argue for concurrent jurisdiction.

In response, tribes such as the Muscogee (Creek) Nation filed lawsuits against cities like Henryetta, challenging local attempts to assert criminal jurisdiction over their citizens. These cases highlight the ongoing friction not only between the state and tribes but also between tribes and municipal governments.

Key takeaway

Hooper v. City of Tulsa clarified that cities, like states, must have clear congressional authorization to prosecute tribal citizens in Indian Country. Without it, they have no criminal jurisdiction. This ruling strengthened tribal sovereignty at the municipal level and underscored the continuing importance of treaties and congressional action in defining jurisdiction.

The next post in Law on Native Land will look more closely at the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s lawsuit against the City of Henryetta, where tribal leaders directly challenged municipal prosecutions as unlawful exercises of power in Indian Country.