Justin Hooper v. The City of Tulsa

Tulsa, Oklahoma civil rights lawyer represented Appellant who sued Defendant on an Indian Law theory.



Justin Hooper and the City of Tulsa dispute whether the Curtis Act, 30 Stat.

495 (1898), grants Tulsa jurisdiction over municipal violations committed by all

Tulsa's inhabitants, including Indians, in Indian country. Tulsa issued a traffic

citation to Mr. Hooper, an Indian and member of the Choctaw Nation, and he paid a

$150 fine for the ticket in Tulsa's Municipal Criminal Court ("municipal court”



Mr. Hooper filed an application for post-conviction relief, arguing the municipal court lacked

jurisdiction over his offense because it was a crime committed by an Indian in Indian

country. Tulsa countered that it had jurisdiction over municipal violations committed

by its Indian inhabitants stemming from Section 14 of the Curtis Act ("Section 14”),

an 1898 statute granting lawmaking authority and jurisdiction to municipalities in the

Indian Territory that existed prior to the formation of the state of Oklahoma. The

municipal court agreed with Tulsa and denied Mr. Hooper's application.



Mr. Hooper then sought relief in federal court—filing a complaint

(1) appealing the denial of his application for post-conviction relief and (2) seeking a

declaratory judgment that Section 14 is inapplicable to Tulsa today. Tulsa filed a

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, again arguing Tulsa

could exercise jurisdiction over municipal violations by its Indian inhabitants based

on a jurisdictional grant in Section 14 of the Curtis Act. The district court granted the

motion to dismiss Mr. Hooper's declaratory judgment claim, agreeing with Tulsa that

Congress granted the city jurisdiction over municipal violations by all its inhabitants,

including Indians, through Section 14. Based on this determination, the district court

dismissed Mr. Hooper's appeal of the municipal court's denial of his petition for

post-conviction relief as moot.



See: Hooper v. The City of Tulsa

We REVERSE the district court’s grant of Tulsa’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to

dismiss Mr. Hooper’s claim for declaratory judgment, VACATE the district court’s

dismissal of Mr. Hooper’s appeal as moot, DIRECT the district court to dismiss

Mr. Hooper’s appeal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and REMAND for

proceedings consistent with this opinion.



Tulsa municipal court does not have jurisdiction over violations committed by Indians.