Law on Native Land: Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. City of Henryetta
After McGirt v. Oklahoma confirmed that the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation still exists, cities within the reservation boundaries faced new questions about their authority over tribal citizens. One of those cities was Henryetta.
In 2025, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation filed suit against the City of Henryetta for asserting criminal jurisdiction over Creek citizens in Indian Country. The case highlighted how municipal governments, like the state, continue to test the limits of their authority even after clear guidance from federal courts.
The case background
The dispute began when Henryetta municipal courts pursued prosecutions against Muscogee citizens for misdemeanor offenses. The Nation argued that the city had no jurisdiction over these cases because they occurred within the reservation and involved tribal members.
Henryetta relied on old statutory arguments and municipal authority, claiming that it retained jurisdiction under historical state laws and practices. Tribal leaders rejected this view, pointing to McGirt and later decisions like Hooper v. City of Tulsa, which held that municipal courts cannot prosecute tribal citizens without explicit congressional authorization.
What the Nation argued
The Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s lawsuit asked the court to:
Declare that Henryetta lacks criminal jurisdiction over tribal citizens in Indian Country
Enjoin the city from prosecuting Creek members for offenses committed within reservation boundaries
Affirm that such cases belong in tribal or federal courts, depending on the offense
The Nation emphasized that municipal prosecutions violated tribal sovereignty and undermined treaty rights that the Supreme Court had reaffirmed in McGirt.
Why this matters
This case matters because it shows how jurisdictional disputes are not limited to the state level. Municipal governments also play a role in the day-to-day enforcement of laws, and their authority over Native citizens has direct consequences for families and communities.
✔️ If cities could prosecute tribal members, it would weaken the sovereignty affirmed in McGirt
✔️ Tribal courts would lose the ability to exercise their rightful authority over their own citizens
✔️ Confusion would increase for law enforcement, defendants, and victims
The lawsuit sought to clarify, once and for all, that cities cannot sidestep federal law and treaties to maintain control over prosecutions involving tribal citizens.
The bigger picture
The Henryetta lawsuit is part of a broader pattern. Cities like Tulsa and Henryetta have attempted to continue asserting power after McGirt, even when courts like the Tenth Circuit have already rejected similar claims.
By taking the issue to court, the Muscogee Nation signaled its commitment to defending its sovereignty not just against the state, but against municipal governments as well.
Key takeaway
Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. City of Henryetta underscores that jurisdictional battles extend beyond the statehouse and the Supreme Court. Tribal nations must sometimes challenge cities directly to preserve their authority. The case is a reminder that sovereignty is tested on many levels, from the highest court in the country to small-town municipal courts in Oklahoma.
The next post in Law on Native Land will turn to the federal government’s role in these disputes, focusing on the lawsuits United States v. Ballard and United States v. Iski, where the Department of Justice stepped in to challenge state and county prosecutions of tribal citizens.