Court Opinion

ID: 9456746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:01:20.548256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:58.989104
License: Public Domain

Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023)             1

                   Statement of KAVANAUGH, J.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
                          _________________

                           No. 23A73
                          _________________

  CITY OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA v. JUSTIN HOOPER
                 ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
                        [August 4, 2023]

   The application for stay of the mandate presented to
JUSTICE GORSUCH and by him referred to the Court is de-
nied. The order heretofore entered by JUSTICE GORSUCH is
vacated.
   Statement of JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, with whom JUSTICE
ALITO joins, respecting the denial of the application for stay.
   The City of Tulsa’s application for a stay raises an im-
portant question: whether the City may enforce its munici-
pal laws against American Indians in Tulsa. For example,
may Indians in Tulsa violate the City’s traffic safety laws
without enforcement by the City?
   The application, however, arises in an interlocutory pos-
ture. The District Court granted the City’s motion to dis-
miss on the ground that the Curtis Act of 1898, see ch. 517,
30 Stat. 495, gives the City jurisdiction over municipal vio-
lations committed by all persons, including Indians. But
the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding
that the Curtis Act confers no such jurisdiction. The Court
of Appeals then remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.
   Importantly, the Court of Appeals declined for now to
reach an additional argument raised by the State of Okla-
homa as amicus curiae: that the City may exercise jurisdic-
tion under the reasoning in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta,
597 U. S. ___ (2022). On remand in the District Court, the
City may presumably raise that argument. Moreover, as I
2                CITY OF TULSA v. HOOPER

                 Statement of KAVANAUGH, J.

understand it, nothing in the decision of the Court of Ap-
peals prohibits the City from continuing to enforce its mu-
nicipal laws against all persons, including Indians, as the
litigation progresses.