Court Opinion

ID: 9953408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 04:02:06.152106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:06.227213
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE CHEROKEE NATION et al.,

                Plaintiffs,

        v.                                             Civil Action No. 20-2167 (TJK)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR et al.,

                Defendants.

                              MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

       This case is about the validity of certain tribal-gaming compacts governed by the Indian

Gaming Regulatory Act. But before the parties could get to litigating the merits, a dispute broke

out over who may properly represent the State of Oklahoma. Until now, Governor J. Kevin Stitt—

sued in his official capacity, which makes Oklahoma the real party in interest—has been repre-

sented by retained counsel. Now, Oklahoma’s Attorney General, Gentner F. Drummond, seeks to

assert his authority to “take and assume control” of the defense of the state’s interests, as he argues

an Oklahoma statute permits. He has also moved to certify the question of whether he may do so

to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Regrettably, despite the further delay this will cause in resolving

the case, for the reasons explained below the Court will do so on its own initiative.

I.     Background

       The Court assumes familiarity with the background of this case and summarizes it only

briefly. Plaintiffs are four Native American tribes that each operate casinos in Oklahoma. They

sued in August 2020, seeking to invalidate tribal-gaming compacts entered into by Governor Stitt

with four other Native American tribes, which were then approved by the inaction of the U.S.

Secretary of the Department of the Interior under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. §
2701 et seq. Plaintiffs sued three sets of defendants: (1) the Department of the Interior (and related

federal officials there); (2) Governor Stitt, in his official capacity; and (3) the leaders of the tribes

who entered into the compacts with Governor Stitt. Plaintiffs assert, among other things, that

Governor Stitt violated Oklahoma law when he entered into the compacts. ECF No. 104 ¶¶ 2–3.

Even before the suit was filed, Attorney General Drummond’s predecessor expressed the view in

a legal opinion that Governor Stitt did not have the authority to enter into two of the compacts. Id.

¶ 89.

        In late November 2022, the Court resolved the Department of the Interior’s motion to dis-

miss, granted Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss a counterclaim, and denied various other motions. See

ECF No. 157. The Court set a briefing schedule to govern the production of the administrative

record and summary judgment briefing. See Minute Order of Jan. 3, 2023. In April 2023, Plain-

tiffs moved to compel the Department of the Interior to complete the administrative record by

producing certain documents, which the parties briefed over the course of a few months.

        Not long after, in July 2023, Attorney General Drummond sought to notice his appearance

on behalf of Governor Stitt. Until then, Governor Stitt had been represented by retained private

counsel. But in a five-page notice of appearance, Attorney General Drummond explained that

because the State of Oklahoma is the real party in interest, and because Governor Stitt, through his

retained counsel, has “inexplicably abrogated his constitutional duties in this case,” he was exer-

cising his statutory authority “to take and assume control of the defense of the State’s interests in

this case” as provided by Oklahoma law. See ECF No. 176 at 1, 3; Okla. Stat. tit. 74, § 18b(A)(3).

Attorney General Drummond also represented that the Oklahoma Supreme Court had “clearly and

unambiguously” already ruled that “the Governor had no authority to unilaterally execute the com-

pacts at issue in this case”—citing Treat v. Stitt, 473 P.3d 43 (Okla. 2020) and Treat v. Stitt, 481

                                                   2
P.3d 240 (Okla. 2021)—and so continuing to defend them violated his “constitutional duty to

faithfully execute Oklahoma law.” ECF No. 176 at 3. Attorney General Drummond also attached

to his filing letters from the Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives and the President

Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma Senate, purporting to request on behalf of their bodies that he in-

tervene in this case. See ECF Nos. 176-1, 176-2.

       In response, Governor Stitt, through his private counsel, moved to strike Attorney General

Drummond’s appearance, as well as that of Oklahoma’s Solicitor General, who also sought to

enter his appearance “[a]t the request of the Oklahoma Attorney General.” ECF No. 177. Gover-

nor Stitt accused Attorney General Drummond of trying to “hijack” the case for political purposes.

ECF No. 178 at 3. According to Governor Stitt, Attorney General Drummond lacks the statutory

authority to act as he suggests, and his attempt to do so violates the Oklahoma Constitution as well.

Id. Further, Governor Stitt argued, Attorney General Drummond’s reliance on the Speaker’s and

President Pro Tempore’s letters is misplaced, because those legislative bodies may not authorize

Attorney General Drummond’s actions, and even if they could, letters from individual legislators

would not do the trick. Id. at 4.

       About a month after briefing on Governor Stitt’s motion to strike was complete, Attorney

General Drummond moved to certify the question of whether he may “take and assume control”

of the defense of the state’s interests in this case to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, in part, because

there is no controlling state case law on the matter. ECF No. 183. Governor Stitt opposed the

motion, arguing that the Attorney General lacks standing to file it, and even if he had standing,

certification is inappropriate. See ECF No. 186.

II.    Legal Standards

       A federal court may only certify a question to a state court “to the extent authorized by

state law.” In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., No. 99-mc-197 (TFH), 2000 WL 1524912, at *1 (D.D.C.

                                                 3
July 14, 2000). The relevant Oklahoma statute provides: “The Supreme Court and the Court of

Criminal Appeals may answer a question of law certified to it by a court of the United States . . .

if the answer may be determinative of an issue in pending litigation in the certifying court and

there is no controlling decision of the Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals, constitutional

provision, or statute of this state.” Okla. Stat. tit. 20, § 1602. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has

confirmed that it has the power to answer such questions. See White Star Petroleum, LLC v.

MUFG Union Bank, N.A., 480 P.3d 887, 889 (Okla. 2020) (“This Court is vested with discretion-

ary authority to review questions of law certified to it by a court of the United States, so long as

(1) the answer would be dispositive of an issue in pending litigation in the certifying court; and (2)

there is no established and controlling law on the subject matter.”). The certified question need

not be “dispositive of the cause”; rather, “[a]ll that is required for [the Oklahoma Supreme Court]

to answer a certified question is that the response be determinative of a single issue in the cause

and that no controlling state law exist.” Siloam Springs Hotel, LLC v. Century Sur. Co., 392 P.3d

262, 266 (Okla. 2017).

       If certification is authorized by state law, the Court must then determine whether certifica-

tion is proper under federal law. The Supreme Court has recognized that certification “does, of

course, in the long run save time, energy, and resources and helps build a cooperative judicial

federalism.” Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 391 (1974). But the process “is not without

its costs,” including imposition of time and resources on the state court, and additional delay and

expenditure for the parties. In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 2000 WL 1524912, at *1 (quotation

omitted). Ultimately, however, the decision to certify “rests with the sound discretion of the

court.” Tidler v. Eli Lilly & Co., 851 F.2d 418, 426 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (citing Lehman Bros., 416

U.S. at 391). In considering whether certification is appropriate, the D.C. Circuit has identified

                                                  4
the same key threshold question as Oklahoma law, recognizing that “[t]he most important consid-

eration . . . is whether the reviewing court finds itself genuinely uncertain about a question of state

law that is vital to a correct disposition of the case before it.” Id. at 426. A court should also

consider whether the “case is one of extreme public importance in which the [relevant state] has a

substantial interest.” Joy v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 999 F.2d 549, 564 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

(internal quotations omitted). Finally, courts disfavor certification if the party seeking certification

is the party that first chose to litigate in the federal forum. See Metz v. BAE Sys. Tech. Sols. &

Servs. Inc., 774 F.3d 18, 24 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

III.   Analysis

       As explained below, the question of Oklahoma law presented by this dispute between Gov-

ernor Stitt and Attorney General Drummond meets all the criteria for certification to the Oklahoma

Supreme Court. The Court need not consider whether Attorney General Drummond has standing

to move for such certification because the Court has the power to do so on its own initiative, which

it will exercise. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fisher, 609 F.3d 1051, 1058 (10th Cir. 2010).

       A.      Whether the Attorney General Can “Take and Assume Control” of the De-
               fense of Oklahoma’s Interests in this Case is an Unsettled and Genuinely Un-
               certain Question of Oklahoma State Law

       To begin, the question of whether Attorney General Drummond can enter his appearance

and “take and assume control” of the defense of Oklahoma’s interests in this case is a question of

state law. The Supreme Court has explained that “a State must be able to designate agents to

represent it in federal court.” Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, 139 S. Ct. 1945, 1951

(2019) (internal quotation omitted). Although Governor Stitt is the named defendant, he is sued

in his official capacity, making Oklahoma the real party in interest. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of

State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). And Governor Stitt conceded as much in his Answer to the

Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint. ECF No. 110 at 2 (referring to the State of

                                                   5
Oklahoma as “the real party in interest”). Thus, Oklahoma law controls who may properly repre-

sent Oklahoma’s interests in this case.

       The next question is whether there is “established and controlling law on the subject mat-

ter,” White Star Petroleum, LLC., 480 P.3d at 889, and whether the Court is “genuinely uncertain”

about the right answer, Tidler, 851 F.2d at 426. By statute, Attorney General Drummond is “the

chief law officer of the state.” Okla. Stat. tit. 74, § 18b(A). He asserts that the statute so designat-

ing him also gives him the authority to assume control of the defense of the state’s interests in this

litigation. Under that law, the Attorney General has the power “[t]o initiate or appear in any action

in which the interests of the state or the people of the state are at issue . . . and when so appearing

in any such cause or proceeding, the Attorney General may, if the Attorney General deems it ad-

visable and to the best interest of the state, take and assume control of the prosecution or defense

of the state’s interest therein.” Id. § 18b(A)(3). Thus, a plain reading of this statute appears to

support Attorney General Drummond’s position. On the other hand, Governor Stitt offers some

statutory support for his contrary view. He points to a nearby provision that prohibits state officers

from retaining their own attorneys to represent them—and vests all “legal duties” of those officers

in the Attorney General—while also providing the Governor with the “authority to employ special

counsel to protect the rights or interest of the state” as set forth elsewhere.1 Id. § 18c(A)(1), (4).

According to Governor Stitt, this provision excludes his appointed counsel from being subject to

the Attorney General’s otherwise sweeping “legal duties,” including his statutory power to assume

control of litigation involving the state’s interests. Attorney General Drummond responds, in part,

by arguing that the statutory language on which he relies is broader because it permits him to “take

       1
         Oklahoma Statute Title 74 § 6 provides that the Governor “shall have power to employ
counsel to protect the rights or interests of the state in any action or proceeding, civil or criminal,
which has been, or is about to be commenced . . . .”

                                                   6
and assume control” of litigation involving the state’s interests, while that relied on by Governor

Stitt only allows him to hire counsel. All in all, in the Court’s view, the statutory scheme alone

provides no established and controlling law that resolves the dispute.

       Nor is there any established and controlling case law interpreting these statutes that clears

things up. Attorney General Drummond cites State ex rel. Pruitt v. Steidley, a case in which the

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals—the highest court in the State of Oklahoma with appellate

jurisdiction in criminal cases—interpreted § 18b(A)(3) to allow the Attorney General to take and

assume control over a local criminal prosecution. 349 P.3d 554, 558 (Okla. Crim. App., 2015).

But as Governor Stitt points out, there, the Attorney General sought to displace a state official

whose role that court called “subservient” to the Attorney General’s—a district attorney—rather

than the Governor. Id. And while Attorney General Drummond also cites seemingly helpful lan-

guage from an Oklahoma Supreme Court case that he “possesses complete dominion over every

litigation in which he properly appears in the interest of the State,” State ex rel. Derryberry v.

Kerr-McGee Corp., 516 P.2d 813, 818 (Okla. 1973), that line bypasses the key issue here: whether

he may properly appear here in the first place.

       The parties’ dispute also presents an issue of how to construe the Oklahoma Constitution,

and the uncertainty on this aspect of the dispute underscores the Court’s conclusion that there is

no established and controlling law resolving it. Governor Stitt argues that, even if the statutory

scheme does authorize the Attorney General to appear and assume control of this litigation, any

such authority would violate the Oklahoma Constitution, which grants him “Supreme Executive

power.” Okla. Const. art. VI, § 2. According to Governor Stitt, the Oklahoma Constitution does

not permit inferior executive officers, such as the Attorney General, to overrule him on decisions

that exercise that executive power. ECF No. 186 at 2. Attorney General Drummond counters that

                                                  7
while the Oklahoma Constitution vests the Governor with “Supreme Executive power,” it does not

vest in him exclusive executive authority; instead, it provides that “Executive authority of the state

shall be vested” in several different state offices, including the Attorney General. Okla. Const. art.

VI, § 1(A). And it requires these officers to “perform such duties as may be designated in this

Constitution or prescribed by law.” Id.

        Governor Stitt’s argument has some commonsense appeal, given the Oklahoma Constitu-

tion’s use of the word “Supreme” to describe his executive power. On the other hand, that same

document permits the state legislature to “prescribe by law” the duties of the Attorney General,

which it has by allowing him to “take and assume control” of the defense of the state’s interests in

litigation. And taken to its logical conclusion, Governor Stitt’s position would mean that there is

no sphere in which the Attorney General—an independently elected constitutional officer—may

act to prosecute or defend the interests of the state against the wishes of the Governor. Whatever

“Supreme Executive power” means under the Oklahoma Constitution, the Court is skeptical that

it sweeps that broadly. In any event, the parties have brought to the Court’s attention no case in

which any Oklahoma court has addressed whether, under the Oklahoma Constitution, the Attorney

General has a sphere of responsibility in which he may act independently from the Governor, and

if so, the contours of that sphere.

        For these reasons, the Court finds that there is no established and controlling law about

whether, under these Oklahoma statutes and the Oklahoma Constitution, Attorney General Drum-

mond may take and assume control of the defense of the state’s interests in this case over the

objection of Governor Stitt, and the Court is genuinely uncertain about whether he may do so.2

        2
          Attorney General Drummond makes another argument he claims relates to this legal ques-
tion, but in the Court’s view, the argument does not contribute to whether the question is unsettled

                                                  8
       B.      Whether the Attorney General Can “Take and Assume Control” of the De-
               fense of Oklahoma’s Interests is Dispositive of a Vital Issue in this Case

       Not every question of state law is a candidate for certification—it must also resolve a vital

issue in the case. The question of who properly represents Oklahoma in this case is such a ques-

tion. Governor Stitt argues that the question over his representation is not “vital to the disposition

of the case” because—however that issue comes out—it will not “resolve this litigation.” ECF

No. 186 at 4. That may be true, but it gets the standard wrong. Although earlier D.C. Circuit

opinions used the “vital to the disposition of the case” language, Tidler, 851 F.2d at 426, later

opinions clarified that the standard only requires that the state law issue be “a dispositive question”

in the case,3 Dial A Car, Inc. v. Transportation, Inc., 132 F.3d 743, 746 (D.C. Cir. 1998). That

aligns with Oklahoma law, which unambiguously allows certification for any question that “may

be determinative of an issue in pending litigation in the certifying court.” Okla. Stat. tit. 20, §

1602 (emphasis added); Siloam Springs Hotel, LLC, 392 P.3d at 266 (“All that is required for us

or whether the Court is uncertain about it. Attorney General Drummond also purports to proceed
at the request of the “Legislature, or either branch thereof,” as authorized under § 18b(A)(3). And
he points to the letters on behalf of the Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives and the
President Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma Senate requesting that he assume the defense of Okla-
homa’s interests in this case. But he cites no persuasive authority that these individual legislators
have the power to make such a request on behalf of their bodies. Generally, letters from individual
legislators do not constitute a request of the legislature itself. Cf. Kucinich v. Bush, 236 F. Supp.
2d 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2002) (“The Supreme Court has observed that individual members of Congress
cannot represent the interests of an entire House or all of Congress.”) (citing United States v.
Ballin, 144 U.S. 1, 7 (1892)). And even if Attorney General Drummond is right that an Oklahoma
House rule that authorizes the Speaker to “engage legal counsel” reflects an action taken by the
House itself, that rule allows the Speaker to do just that—engage counsel—and nothing more on
behalf of that body. See ECF No. 179 at 7.
       3
          Even under the “vital to the disposition of the case” standard, the certified question need
not definitively resolve the litigation, as Governor Stitt suggests. A question may be vital to the
disposition of a case if, for example, the litigation cannot proceed with that issue pending, even if
the resolution of the question would not end the litigation. Governor Stitt is right that, no matter
how the motion to strike is resolved, the case will proceed. But the case can hardly proceed if it
is unclear who properly represents Oklahoma. Resolving the motion to strike, therefore, is “vital
to the disposition of the case,” even if it will not itself resolve the entire litigation.

                                                  9
to answer a certified question is that the response be determinative of a single issue in the cause

and that no controlling state law exist.”) (emphasis added). Whether Attorney General Drummond

has the power to assume control of the defense of Oklahoma’s interests resolves a pending issue

in this case—i.e., whether the Court should strike his appearance. And that issue, it appears, will

materially affect how Oklahoma litigates the merits, given the differing views of Governor Stitt

and Attorney General Drummond about the validity of the tribal-gaming compacts at issue.

       C.      Oklahoma Has a Substantial Interest in Resolving the Question of Whether
               the Attorney General Can “Take and Assume Control” of the Defense of its
               Interests in this Case

       In the D.C. Circuit, courts must also weigh another consideration in deciding whether to

certify a question. The Circuit has explained that certification is especially prudent if a “case is

one of extreme public importance in which the [state] has a substantial interest.” Joy, 999 F.2d at

564 (internal quotations omitted). Later decisions suggest that this may operate as an either/or—

either the case is one of extreme public importance or the state has a substantial interest. See Metz,

774 F.3d at 24 (“We have also certified where we found the question to be on a matter of public

importance, in which the [state] has a substantial interest, without insisting that the importance be

extreme.”) (internal quotations omitted). In any event, the key principle is that the state’s “interest

be something more than that the question is one of [state] law, else every diversity case would

come within its compass.” Id. The Court has little difficulty concluding that Oklahoma has a

substantial interest in resolving the question here.

       The question of whether Attorney General Drummond can take and assume control of the

defense of Oklahoma’s interests in this case over Governor Stitt’s objection is one that involves a

fundamental interpretive question of Oklahoma Constitutional law affecting the very structure of

Oklahoma’s government. As the Supreme Court has explained, “[t]hrough the structure of its

government, and the character of those who exercise government authority, a State defines itself

                                                  10
as a sovereign.” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 469 (1991). In Joy, the D.C. Circuit observed

that “one can hardly imagine a more significant issue for [a state] than the conditions under which

its police officers will be held liable in tort for actions taken in the course of performing their

public functions.” 999 F.2d at 564. No need to imagine—in the Court’s view, this case presents

a more significant issue. The decision over who has the ultimate authority to represent Oklahoma’s

interests in this case goes to the very core of its sovereignty.4 Moreover, that interest is heightened

given the differing views of Governor Stitt and Attorney General Drummond on the merits.

       D.      Oklahoma’s Certification Process

       Having determined that certification of a question is appropriate, the Court must comply

with Oklahoma’s certification process, which requires a certifying court to issue a certification

order and forward it to the Supreme Court. Okla. Stat. tit. 20, § 1603.1. That certification order

must include: (1) the question of law to be answered; (2) the facts relevant to the question, showing

fully the nature of the controversy out of which the question arose; (3) a statement acknowledging

that the Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals of the state, acting as the receiving court,

may reformulate the question; and (4) the names and addresses of counsel of record and parties

appearing without counsel. Id. § 1604.

       A proposed certification order is attached to this Memorandum Opinion and Order. The

Court will provide Governor Stitt and Attorney General Drummond 14 days to file any objections

or proposed edits to that proposed order and to designate any docket entries in this matter that they

propose should be sent to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

       4
          The final consideration in evaluating certification is whether the party seeking certifica-
tion first chose to litigate in a federal forum. Metz, 774 F.3d at 24. Neither Attorney General
Drummond nor Governor Stitt did so, so that consideration is not implicated here.

                                                  11
IV.    Conclusion and Order

       For all the above reasons, it is hereby

       ORDERED that by April 4, 2024, Governor Stitt and Attorney General Drummond shall

file any objections or proposed edits to the Court’s proposed certification order and designate any

docket entries that they propose should be sent to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and it is further

       ORDERED that, because the Court will certify the question identified to the Oklahoma

Supreme Court on its own initiative, the Attorney General’s Motion to Certify Question to the

Oklahoma Supreme Court, ECF No. 183, is DENIED AS MOOT.

       SO ORDERED.

                                                            /s/ Timothy J. Kelly
                                                            TIMOTHY J. KELLY
                                                            United States District Judge
Date: March 21, 2024

                                                 12
             ATTACHMENT 1: COURT’S PROPOSED CERTIFICATION ORDER

                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE CHEROKEE NATION et al.,

                Plaintiffs,

        v.                                              Civil Action No. 20-2167 (TJK)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR et al.,

                Defendants.

     [PROPOSED] ORDER CERTIFYING QUESTION OF LAW TO THE SUPREME
                         COURT OF OKLAHOMA

        The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, pursuant to the Revised Uni-

form Certification of Questions of Law Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 20, § 1601 et seq., hereby certifies to

the Oklahoma Supreme Court the following question of law which is determinative of an issue in

the above-entitled case now pending before this Court, and which appears to be unanswered by

controlling precedent of the Supreme Court or the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

I.      Question of Law

        May the Attorney General of Oklahoma, under Title 74, Section 18 of the Oklahoma Stat-

utes, “take and assume control” of the “defense of the state’s interests,” Okla. Stat. tit 74 §

18b(A)(3), in the instant case before this Court—in which the Governor of Oklahoma is named as

a defendant in his official capacity for his role in entering into certain tribal-gaming contracts on

behalf of the State of Oklahoma—over the objection of the Governor, who is vested with “Supreme

executive power” under Article VI, Section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution, and when the Gover-

nor has already exercised his authority under Title 74, Section 6 of the Oklahoma Statutes to “em-

ploy counsel to protect the rights or interests of the state,” Okla. Stat. tit 74 § 6?
            ATTACHMENT 1: COURT’S PROPOSED CERTIFICATION ORDER

II.    Factual Background

       The instant case before this Court was brought in August 2020 by four Native American

tribes who each operate casinos in Oklahoma under a tribal-gaming compact with Oklahoma under

the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. In their operative com-

plaint, they seek to have set aside four tribal-gaming compacts for casino operations that four other

Native American tribes entered into with Oklahoma that were submitted to the U.S. Secretary of

the Department of the Interior for approval and that were approved through the Secretary’s inaction

by operation of law. Plaintiffs allege that the Governor of Oklahoma played a role in violating

their rights under the IGRA because these compacts were not lawfully entered into by the Governor

and violated Oklahoma law in other ways. Since the suit began, the Governor has been represented

by retained counsel, whom he represents he hired under Title 74, Section 6 of the Oklahoma Stat-

utes, which allows him to “employ counsel to protect the rights or interests of the state.” Okla.

Stat. tit 74 § 6. And in October 2021, the Governor filed an answer, in which he disputes that any

of the compacts at issue are invalid or violate Oklahoma law.

       In July 2023, the Attorney General of Oklahoma entered an appearance in the case, claim-

ing authority under Oklahoma law to “take and assume control” of the “defense of the state’s

interests,” Okla. Stat. tit 74 § 18b(A)(3), because in his view, the compacts at issue were invalid.

In addition, he represented, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has “clearly and unambiguously” held

that the Governor had no authority to unilaterally enter into them, citing Treat v. Stitt, 473 P.3d 43

(Okla. 2020); and Treat v. Stitt, 481 P.3d 240 (Okla. 2021). Thus, he argued, the Governor had

abrogated his constitutional duty to “cause the laws of the State to be faithfully executed.” Okla.

Const. art. VI, § 8. The Governor objected, arguing that the Attorney General does not have the

statutory authority to replace the counsel he had already hired, and even if the Attorney General

                                                  2
                ATTACHMENT 1: COURT’S PROPOSED CERTIFICATION ORDER

    did have this statutory authority, doing so would violate the Oklahoma Constitution, which vests

    the Governor with “Supreme executive power.” Okla. Const. art. VI, § 2.

    III.   Acknowledgment of Authority to Reformulate Question

           Pursuant to Oklahoma Statute Title 20, Section 1604(A)(3), the Court acknowledges that

    the Oklahoma Supreme Court may reformulate this question presented.

    IV.    Names and Addresses of Counsel of Record

Plaintiff
CHEROKEE NATION                                represented by Chad C Harsha
a federally recognized Indian Tribe                           CHEROKEE NATION-ATTORNEY GEN-
                                                              ERAL OFFICE
                                                              P.O. Box 1533
                                                              Tahlequah, OK 74465-1533
                                                              918-453-5369
                                                              Fax: 918-458-6142
                                                              Email: chad-harsha@cherokee.org

                                                               Colin Cloud Hampson
                                                               SONOSKY, CHAMBERS, SACHSE, EN-
                                                               DRESON & PERRY, LLP
                                                               145 Willow Street
                                                               Suite 200
                                                               Bonita, CA 91902-1349
                                                               619-267-1306
                                                               Fax: 619-267-1388
                                                               Email: champson@sonoskysd.com

                                                               Sara Hill
                                                               CHEROKEE NATION ATTORNEY GEN-
                                                               ERAL OFFICE
                                                               P.O. Box 1533
                                                               Tahlequah, OK 74465-1533
                                                               918-207-3836
                                                               Fax: 918-458-6142
                                                               Email: sara-hill@cherokee.org

                                                               Frank Sharp Holleman , IV
                                                               SONOSKY, CHAMBERS, SACHSE, EN-
                                                               DRESON & PERRY, LLP

                                                   3
         ATTACHMENT 1: COURT’S PROPOSED CERTIFICATION ORDER

                                                    145 Willow Street
                                                    Suite 200
                                                    Bonita, CA 91902
                                                    619-267-1306
                                                    Email: fholleman@sonosky.com

Plaintiff                                 represented by Colin Cloud Hampson
CHICKASAW NATION                                         (See above for address)
a federally recognized Indian Tribe
                                                         Meredith Presley Turpin
                                                         THE CHICKASAW NATION
                                                         Office of Executive Counsel
                                                         2021 Arlington Street
                                                         Ada, OK 74820
                                                         580-272-5748
                                                         Email: meredith.turpin@chickasaw.net

                                                         Stephen Greetham
                                                         GREETHAM LAW, P.L.L.C.
                                                         Office of Senior Counsel
                                                         512 N. Broadway
                                                         Suite 205
                                                         Oklahoma City, OK 73102
                                                         580-399-6989
                                                         Email: sgreetham@greethamlaw.net

                                                         Frank Sharp Holleman , IV
                                                         (See above for address)

Plaintiff                                 represented by Colin Cloud Hampson
CHOCTAW NATION                                           (See above for address)
a federally recognized Indian Tribe
                                                         Bradley Harold Mallett
                                                         CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
                                                         Legal & Compliance
                                                         1802 Chukka Hina
                                                         Durant, OK 74701
                                                         580-380-3024

                                                         Brian Danker
                                                         CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
                                                         1802 Chukka Hina
                                                         Durant, OK 74701
                                                         580-380-7410

                                      4
          ATTACHMENT 1: COURT’S PROPOSED CERTIFICATION ORDER

                                                                 Email: bdanker@choctawnation.com

                                                                 Frank Sharp Holleman , IV
                                                                 (See above for address)

Plaintiff                                         represented by Colin Cloud Hampson
CITIZEN POTAWATOMI NATION                                        (See above for address)
a federally recognized Indian Tribe
                                                                 Frank Sharp Holleman , IV
                                                                 (See above for address)

Defendant                                         represented by Kristofor R. Swanson
UNITED STATES                                                    DOJ-ENRD
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR                                           Natural Resources Section
                                                                 PO Box 7611
                                                                 Washington, DC 20044-7611
                                                                 202-305-0248
                                                                 Fax: 202-305-0275
                                                                 Email: kristofor.swanson@usdoj.gov

                                                                 Matthew M. Marinelli
                                                                 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
                                                                 Natural Resources Section
                                                                 4 Constitution Square
                                                                 150 M Street, NE
                                                                 Suite 3.206
                                                                 Washington, DC 20002
                                                                 202-305-0293
                                                                 Email: Matthew.Marinelli@usdoj.gov

Defendant                                         represented by Daniel Webber , Jr
J. KEVIN STITT                                                   RYAN WHALEY COLDIRON
in his official capacity as the Governor of                      JANTZEN PETERS & WEBBER
the State of Oklahoma                                            PLLC
                                                                 400 North Walnut Avenue
                                                                 Oklahoma City, OK 73104
                                                                 405-239-6040
                                                                 Fax: 405-239-6766
                                                                 Email: dwebber@ryanwhaley.com

                                                                 Gentner F Drummond
                                                                 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
                                                                 GENERAL/OK

                                              5
ATTACHMENT 1: COURT’S PROPOSED CERTIFICATION ORDER

                                     313 NE 21st Street
                                     Oklahoma City, OK 73105
                                     405-521-3921
                                     Email: gentner.drummond@oag.ok.gov

                                     Jason Reese
                                     GOODWIN LEWIS, PLLC
                                     Office of the Governor
                                     420 NW 6th Street
                                     Second Floor
                                     Oklahoma City, OK 73102
                                     405-900-5700
                                     Email: jreese@goodwinlewis.com

                                     Jeffrey B. Wall
                                     SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
                                     1700 New York Avenue, NW
                                     Suite 700
                                     Washington, DC 20006-5215
                                     202-956-7500
                                     Fax: 202-956-7676
                                     Email: wallj@sullcrom.com

                                     Mary Catherine Zinsner
                                     TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON
                                     SANDERS LLP
                                     401 9th Street, N.W.
                                     Suite 1000
                                     Washington, DC 20004
                                     202-274-1932
                                     Email: mary.zinsner@troutman-
                                     sanders.com

                                     Matthew Kane
                                     RYAN WHALEY COLDIRON
                                     JANTZEN PETERS & WEBBER
                                     PLLC
                                     400 North Walnut Avenue
                                     Oklahoma City, OK 73104
                                     405-239-6040
                                     Fax: 405-239-6766
                                     Email: mkane@ryanwhaley.com

                                     Patrick Pearce , Jr
                                     RYAN WHALEY COLDIRON
                                     JANTZEN PETERS & WEBBER

                        6
ATTACHMENT 1: COURT’S PROPOSED CERTIFICATION ORDER

                                     PLLC
                                     400 North Walnut Avenue
                                     Oklahoma City, OK 73104
                                     405-239-6040
                                     Fax: 405-239-6766
                                     Email: rpearce@ryanwhaley.com

                                     Phillip Whaley
                                     RYAN WHALEY COLDIRON
                                     JANTZEN PETERS & WEBBER
                                     PLLC
                                     400 North Walnut Avenue
                                     Oklahoma City, OK 73104
                                     405-239-6040
                                     Fax: 405-239-6766
                                     Email: pwhaley@ryanwhaley.com

                                     Austin Philip Mayron
                                     SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
                                     125 Broad Street
                                     New York, NY 10004-2498
                                     212-558-3733
                                     Email: mayrona@sullcrom.com

                                     Garry M. Gaskins , II
                                     OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
                                     GENERAL
                                     313 NE 21st Street
                                     Oklahoma City, OK 73105
                                     405-521-3921
                                     Email: garry.gaskins@oag.ok.gov

                                     Judson Owen Littleton
                                     SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
                                     1700 New York Avenue NW
                                     Suite 700
                                     Washington, DC 20006
                                     (202) 956-7085
                                     Fax: (202) 239-6330
                                     Email: littletonj@sullcrom.com

                                     Zoe A. Jacoby
                                     SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
                                     1700 New York Avenue NW
                                     Suite 700
                                     Washington, DC 20006

                        7
          ATTACHMENT 1: COURT’S PROPOSED CERTIFICATION ORDER

                                                                   202-956-7507
                                                                   Email: jacobyz@sullcrom.com

Defendant                                            represented by Wyatt M. Rosette
JOHN R. SHOTTON                                                     ROSETTE, LLP
in his official capacity as Chairman of Tribal                      1100 H Street, NW
Council-Otoe-Missouria Tribe of                                     Suite 820
Indians                                                             Washington, DC 20005
                                                                    Email: wrosette@rosettelaw.com

                                                                   Brett Stavin
                                                                   ROSETTE, LLP
                                                                   4111 Perimeter Center Pl
                                                                   Oklahoma City, OK 73112
                                                                   405-256-1910
                                                                   Email: bstavin@rosettelaw.com

Defendant                                            represented by Ben Kappelman
MARK WOOMMAVOVAH                                                    DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
in his official capacity as Chairman of the                         50 South Sixth Street
Business Committee-Comanche Nation                                  Suite 1500
                                                                    Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
                                                                    612-492-6744
                                                                    Email: kappelman.ben@dorsey.com

                                                                   D. Michael McBride , III
                                                                   CROWE & DUNLEVY
                                                                   222 N. Detroit Ave.
                                                                   Suite 600
                                                                   Tulsa, OK 74120
                                                                   918-592-9800
                                                                   Email: mike.mcbride@crowedunlevy.com

                                                                   Vernle Charles Durocher , Jr.
                                                                   DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
                                                                   50 South Sixth Street
                                                                   Suite 1500
                                                                   Minneapolis, MN 55402
                                                                   (612) 340-7855
                                                                   Fax: 612-340-2807
                                                                   Email: durocher.skip@dorsey.com

                                                 8
           ATTACHMENT 1: COURT’S PROPOSED CERTIFICATION ORDER

 Defendant                                        represented by Kristofor R. Swanson
 DEB HAALAND                                                     (See above for address)

                                                                 Matthew M. Marinelli
                                                                 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
                                                                 Environment and Natural Resources Divi-
                                                                 sion
                                                                 4 Constitution Square
                                                                 150 M Street, NE
                                                                 Suite 3.206
                                                                 Washington, DC 20002
                                                                 202-305-0293
                                                                 Email: Matthew.Marinelli@usdoj.gov

 Defendant                                        represented by Kristofor R. Swanson
 BRYAN NEWLAND                                                   (See above for address)
 in her official capacity as the Assistant
                                                                 Matthew M. Marinelli
 Secretary of the Interior - Indian Affairs
                                                                 (See above for address)

                                                                                  __________
                                                           TIMOTHY J. KELLY
                                                           United States District Judge
Date:

                                              9