AUGUST 2026 | 37 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. including the potential impact on state taxation and governance. Additionally, he highlighted the potential economic consequences of divesting the state of its taxing authority over fee land, which he said could undermine the state economy and its ability to fund essential services.16 Justice Darby concurred specially, arguing that the remaining Creek Reservation is not “Indian country” for tax purposes because it is not set aside for use by Native Americans under federal superintendence.17 Justice Kane, joined by Justice Jett, concurred specially, asserting that federal law does not preempt Oklahoma’s authority to tax Ms. Stroble’s income and that no Oklahoma statute or regulation exempts her from paying income tax.18 This concurrence also declares O.A.C. §710:50-15-2(b) void.19 He further argued that the OTC did not adopt the Major Crimes Act’s definition of “Indian country” in its regulation and that the commission’s definition does not include private fee land.20 Justice Combs, joined by Justices Edmondson and Gurich, dissented, arguing that long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedents defining “Indian country” for purposes of state taxation require victory for Ms. Stroble in her income tax protest. The dissent contended that the OTC’s rule adopted the Major Crimes Act’s definition of “Indian country,” and that McGirt’s recognition of the Creek Reservation should apply to civil tax matters.21 THE PATH TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT The Oklahoma Supreme Court opinion appeared to contravene a long line of U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the Major Crimes Act’s definition of “Indian country” and its applicability to civil jurisdiction, in addition to the U.S. Supreme court cases limiting the power of states to tax tribes and their citizens. Thus, Ms. Stroble filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari, citing the following reasons for granting the petition: 1) the Oklahoma Supreme Court “Flouts This [U.S. Supreme Court] Court’s Precedents;” 2) the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision “Creates a Conflict of Authority;” (3) the question presented (“Whether Oklahoma may tax the income of a Muscogee (Creek) Nation citizen who lives and works within the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation that McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. 894 (2020), held remains Indian country.”); and 4) the Stroble case is an “Ideal Vehicle” to resolve the question presented.22 Many tribal governments, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund, Native American Finance Officers Association, and the National Intertribal Tax Alliance, filed amici curiae briefs supporting Ms. Stroble, with arguments ranging from “Tribal nations are sovereign governments responsible for building thriving economies and communities”23 to the Oklahoma decision “Flouts This Court’s Categorical Tax-Preemption Rule.”24 The U.S. Supreme Court relisted her case for conference review nine times, but on April 6, 2026, it ultimately denied certiorari without comment. BROADER LEGAL AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Stroble case was a blockbuster moment for federal Indian tax and civil regulatory law, positioned for the national stage. By narrowing McGirt’s scope to criminal law only, Oklahoma ultimately sought to move the goalpost again on tribal sovereignty. Stroble contended it was a move that risked undermining decades of per se tax law precedent.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==