Law on Native Land: United States v. Ballard and United States v. Iski
The federal government has not stood on the sidelines during Oklahoma’s jurisdictional battles. In two recent cases, United States v. Ballard and United States v. Iski, the U.S. Department of Justice took the unusual step of suing state and county prosecutors to stop them from asserting criminal jurisdiction over tribal citizens in Indian Country.
These lawsuits marked one of the clearest confrontations yet between federal and state authority in the wake of McGirt v. Oklahoma.
The background
After McGirt, federal and tribal courts were recognized as the proper forums for prosecuting tribal citizens in Indian Country. But some Oklahoma district attorneys continued to file and pursue charges against Native defendants, arguing that state courts retained broad criminal jurisdiction despite the Supreme Court’s ruling.
In response, the Department of Justice filed civil complaints against state prosecutors in multiple counties. The most prominent were United States v. Ballard, targeting the District Attorney for District 27, and United States v. Iski, targeting the District Attorney for District 14, which includes Tulsa County.
What the federal government argued
The DOJ’s lawsuits asked the courts to:
Declare that Oklahoma has no jurisdiction to prosecute tribal citizens for crimes committed in Indian Country
Enjoin state and county prosecutors from pursuing such cases
Reinforce the exclusive jurisdiction of federal and tribal governments in accordance with McGirt and federal statutes like the Major Crimes Act
The federal government emphasized that allowing Oklahoma to continue prosecuting these cases undermined both tribal sovereignty and federal authority.
The state’s position
State prosecutors resisted the injunctions, arguing that Oklahoma courts retained concurrent jurisdiction in light of Castro-Huerta and state appellate rulings like Deo v. Parish. They claimed that limiting state prosecutions would create public safety gaps and strain federal resources.
Why these cases matter
The Ballard and Iski lawsuits are significant for several reasons:
✔️ They represent a direct clash between the United States and Oklahoma over who has the power to prosecute in Indian Country
✔️ They highlight the Department of Justice’s willingness to defend tribal sovereignty in federal court
✔️ They test the limits of Castro-Huerta, clarifying whether the ruling applies only to non-Indian defendants or more broadly
For tribal governments, these cases are important because they reaffirm the federal government’s role as a treaty partner and enforcer of tribal rights.
The bigger picture
Together, Ballard and Iski demonstrate that the jurisdictional fight is not just about defendants challenging convictions but about governments themselves going to court to settle the boundaries of authority. They also show how fragile the balance of power remains in Oklahoma, where state, federal, and tribal systems often overlap.
Key takeaway
United States v. Ballard and United States v. Iski highlight the stakes of the post-McGirt era. When state prosecutors push beyond their authority, the federal government has shown it is willing to step in and defend tribal sovereignty. These cases are reminders that the fight over jurisdiction in Indian Country is not just academic but a live conflict shaping the justice system in Oklahoma today.
The next post in Law on Native Land will turn to Governor Stitt’s efforts to bring these issues back before the Supreme Court, focusing on petitions like the O’Brien case that seek to narrow or overturn McGirt.