U.S. Attorneys side with Gov. Stitt’s brother in traffic ticket jurisdiction dispute

In response to the ongoing case challenging the State of Oklahoma’s jurisdiction to prosecute Keith Stitt for a traffic ticket he received on tribal land, U.S. attorneys have backed Keith Stitt’s argument. They asserted that Oklahoma lacks the jurisdiction to prosecute the case, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s McGirt ruling and the decision in Hooper v. City of Tulsa as precedents that only tribal authorities could prosecute tribal citizens for crimes committed on the lands of several eastern Oklahoma tribes.

On the other hand, Governor Kevin Stitt expressed a contrasting view, emphasizing the importance of public safety and the enforcement of laws by Tulsa Police to maintain community safety. He articulated the need for a singular set of rules, irrespective of race or heritage, suggesting that the City of Tulsa was in the right and implying that Keith Stitt should not have exceeded the speed limit.

This situation has garnered attention, with observers such as Tim Gilpin, a Tulsa-based attorney and former Assistant Oklahoma Attorney General, expressing the belief that there may be more complexities at play than initially apparent. It’s important to note that this case highlights the complexity of jurisdictional issues in areas where tribal lands intersect with state and local laws, and the differing perspectives within the Stitt family further exemplify this complexity.