A federal judge has declined to dismiss two high-profile lawsuits challenging whether Oklahoma prosecutors are unlawfully exercising criminal jurisdiction over Native Americans in Indian Country, allowing the cases to move forward and keeping a major jurisdictional dispute alive in eastern Oklahoma.
U.S. District Judge Claire Eagan denied motions filed by northeastern Oklahoma District Attorneys Matthew Ballard and Carol Iski, who sought to end the lawsuits at an early stage. The cases were brought by the U.S. Department of Justice in partnership with several Oklahoma tribes and allege the prosecutors exceeded their authority by prosecuting Native Americans for crimes committed on tribal reservations when the defendants were not citizens of the governing tribe.
Ballard serves as district attorney for Craig, Mayes and Rogers counties, while Iski serves McIntosh and Okmulgee counties. Both prosecutors have pursued criminal cases against Native American defendants in Indian Country, even when those defendants are not enrolled members of the tribe whose reservation on which the alleged crimes occurred.
In seeking dismissal, Ballard and Iski argued their actions were lawful under a recent Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals decision, Tulsa v. O’Brien, which held that the state has criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians accused of crimes in Indian Country.
Judge Eagan rejected that argument, ruling that state court decisions do not override federal law governing tribal jurisdiction. In her order, she found that Oklahoma’s interpretation conflicts with federal statutes and long-standing principles of Indian law, concluding that the prosecutors’ reliance on state precedent was insufficient to block the federal lawsuits.
The plaintiffs in the case against Iski include the U.S. Department of Justice, the Cherokee Nation, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and the Muscogee Nation. The lawsuit against Ballard involves the same parties, along with the Chickasaw Nation.
The cases are part of a broader wave of jurisdictional disputes that followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which reaffirmed the continued existence of several tribal reservations across eastern Oklahoma. Since McGirt, state, federal and tribal authorities have repeatedly clashed over who has the authority to investigate, charge and prosecute crimes involving Native Americans.
Judge Eagan emphasized that her ruling does not decide the merits of the claims themselves. Instead, it determines only that the lawsuits may proceed. Legal observers expect that whichever side ultimately loses will appeal, potentially sending the issue back to higher federal courts.
The outcome of the cases could have far-reaching implications for criminal prosecutions involving Native Americans throughout Oklahoma, particularly whether state prosecutors may continue asserting jurisdiction in Indian Country despite objections from federal and tribal governments.
