Stitt Sues His Own AG In Tribal Hunting License Showdown

Governor Kevin Stitt is taking his own attorney general to court, asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to block Attorney General Gentner Drummond’s December opinion that says tribal citizens can hunt and fish on their reservations without state licenses. The governor and the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation want the state’s high court to step in, take original jurisdiction, and issue writs of mandamus or prohibition that would shut down enforcement of Drummond’s opinion.

The move turns a months-long legal dispute into a full-on institutional showdown over a basic question with big consequences: can Oklahoma enforce its wildlife code on reservation fee land, or not?

Stitt and ODWC laid out their case in an Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and Petition for a Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition, naming Drummond as the respondent and asking the court to declare the attorney general’s opinion not binding and advisory only. The Oklahoma State Courts Network docket shows the petition, filed Tuesday last week as case No. MA-123759, and a separate motion to pause enforcement of the opinion while the justices consider the matter, according to OSCN.

Drummond’s December opinion concluded that federal law preempts state prosecution of tribal members who hunt or fish on their reservation lands and instructed state officials to stop ticketing tribal citizens there. His office has said the opinion rests on U.S. Supreme Court precedent and warned that continuing prosecutions could expose individual officers and the state to legal and financial risk, according to the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office.

The state court petition lands on top of a separate federal lawsuit the Cherokee, Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations filed in November, asking a federal judge to declare that tribal members may hunt and fish on reservation land without state licenses. That case is still pending and has fueled legal back-and-forth between tribal leaders, the governor’s office and the attorney general’s office, according to Justia.

“For more than a century, Oklahoma has had one clear, fair rule for everyone: if you hunt or fish in this state, you follow Oklahoma’s laws,” Stitt said in a press release, casting the Supreme Court filing as an effort to return enforcement decisions to the judiciary. As reported by The Journal Record, the petition also asks the high court to relieve state officials of “any duty to comply” with Drummond’s opinion while the case plays out.

Legal questions at the center

The petitioners are asking for emergency supervisory relief that would stop the attorney general from directing state wildlife enforcement and press the Supreme Court to give a binding answer on whether state wildlife law applies on reservation fee lands. The state court docket sets Feb. 17 as Drummond’s deadline to respond to the application, signaling an expedited fight over procedure and authority.

Stitt and ODWC argue that only the Supreme Court can sort out the split in state-level direction, with trial courts and agencies currently caught between conflicting guidance. Their filings are available on the appellate docket, according to OSCN.

What this means on the ground

While the lawyers wage war on paper, the confusion has already hit the woods and waterways. State wildlife managers, tribal conservation officers and private landowners have all been dealing with mixed messages. ODWC moved to cite some tribal hunters on fee lands for lacking state licenses, even as the attorney general publicly warned the department to reverse that approach.

Local reporting and letters from the AG show the dispute has created uncertainty for game wardens and tribal citizens who are trying to figure out what rules actually apply while the courts sort it out, according to KGOU.

For now, Oklahoma’s legal map for hunting and fishing on tribal lands remains unsettled. Drummond has until Feb. 17 to answer the state petition. The Supreme Court must first decide whether to take the case at all and, if it does, it could issue an immediate stay that would reshape how hunting and fishing laws are enforced statewide, as reported by The Journal Record.