OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — The Supreme Court has denied taking a case involving Keith Stitt, the brother of Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt.

Stitt, who is a Cherokee Nation citizen, requested that the U.S. Supreme Court take up his traffic ticket case.

In February 2021, a Tulsa Police officer wrote Stitt a speeding ticket, which he argued, claiming TPD didn’t have jurisdiction over tribal citizens. In March, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) upheld the City of Tulsa’s arrest.

In July, on the fifth anniversary of the McGirt ruling, Keith Stitt’s lawyer filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court claiming the State of Oklahoma has been systematically undermining the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 McGirt Ruling.

Stitt’s counsel is asking that the justices use this case to answer the question of criminal jurisdiction over native citizens in Indian Country.

On September 29, the Supreme Court took it under consideration, and on Monday, the Supreme Court denied the case.

Stitt’s counsel confirmed released this statement:

“Today’s denial of certiorari in Stitt v. City of Tulsa is a profound disappointment for every American Indian in Oklahoma who now faces the threat of unlawful state prosecutions in Indian Country. The Supreme Court’s decision leaves in place an Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals precedent that authorizes state prosecutors across Oklahoma to exercise criminal jurisdiction over Indians in Indian Country without congressional authorization, in direct contravention of foundational principles established by the high court and federal Indian law,” read part of the statement.

Stitt’s counsel argued that this decision by the Supreme Court is a “missed opportunity” for the City of Tulsa to “challenge the precedent.”

“When Tulsa dismissed Mr. O’Brien’s prosecution after winning the appeal, it helped the Indian defendant. When Tulsa settled with the Muscogee Nation, it resolved a single dispute with one of dozens of Oklahoma tribes. But when Tulsa declined to challenge the precedent before the Supreme Court in Mr. Stitt’s case, it left every other district attorney and city attorney in Eastern Oklahoma with legal cover to continue prosecutions that violate the constitutional allocation of authority over Indian country,” read the statement.

Stitt’s counsel said that while he doesn’t Tulsa Mayor Monroe Nichols’ “commitment to improving relations with tribal nations,” he feels like it isn’t enough as there are “dozens of state district attorneys and hundreds of other city prosecutors [who] choose not to prosecute under the authority of the OCCA established in the two City of Tulsa cases: Stitt and O’Brien.”

“The fight continues. Tribal nations will continue to defend their sovereignty. The Department of Justice will continue to enforce federal law. Indian defendants will continue to challenge unlawful assertions of state jurisdiction,” continued the statement. “But today is a setback, one that could have been avoided if Tulsa had been willing to do more than change its own policies. We needed them to help change the law. They had the power to do so. They chose not to. That harms the Indian country, regardless of how it may be characterized.”