Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Muscogee Citizen Must Pay State Income Taxes Despite Living on Reservation

In a landmark decision with wide-reaching implications for tribal sovereignty and state taxation authority, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled on July 1, 2025, that Alicia Stroble, a citizen of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, must pay Oklahoma state income taxes for income earned between 2017 and 2019, despite residing within the historical boundaries of the Muscogee reservation.

This controversial decision, reached by a 6–3 majority, places limits on the application of the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma—a case that had significantly reaffirmed the existence of Native American reservations in eastern Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Supreme Court, however, made clear that McGirt’s scope is limited to criminal jurisdiction, rejecting arguments that its logic should apply to state taxation and other civil matters.

Background: The Legacy of McGirt

The roots of this case trace back to McGirt v. Oklahoma, the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled the Muscogee Nation’s reservation had never been disestablished by Congress. That ruling upended a century of assumptions about jurisdiction in eastern Oklahoma, especially in criminal law. In the wake of McGirt, tribal citizens and advocates argued that if the Muscogee reservation still exists, then civil matters—such as taxation—should fall under federal and tribal authority, not the state’s.

Alicia Stroble, a Muscogee citizen, leaned on this precedent when she filed for a refund of Oklahoma income taxes she had paid. She lived in Okmulgee, within the Muscogee Nation’s reservation, and worked for a tribal entity. Her attorneys argued that, under federal law, the state lacks authority to tax Native Americans who live and earn income within their own reservation.

The case soon became a test of whether Oklahoma would accept McGirt’s logic in civil law—or fight to preserve its taxation authority over tribal citizens.

The Court’s Reasoning

In its majority opinion, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that Stroble’s home, while located within the historical boundaries of the Muscogee reservation, was not on “Indian Country” as defined by federal law. The land in question was privately owned fee simple land, not tribal trust or allotted land. Therefore, the court ruled that the Oklahoma Tax Commission (OTC) retained jurisdiction to levy taxes on her income.

Additionally, the court concluded that McGirt’s jurisdictional limits were specific to criminal cases under the federal Major Crimes Act, and did not extend to civil tax disputes.

“The petitioner’s reliance on McGirt is misplaced,” the Court stated. “That decision affirmed the existence of the reservation for criminal jurisdiction only and does not remove the state’s authority to impose a generally applicable income tax.”

The Court also raised concerns that a broad interpretation of McGirt into civil law would “introduce chaos” into regulatory systems across Oklahoma, undermining taxation, commerce, property law, and infrastructure maintenance.

The Dissenting Justices

The ruling was far from unanimous. In a strongly worded dissent, Justices Combs, Gurich, and Edmondson accused the majority of sidestepping binding federal precedent and rewriting Indian law to serve state interests.

Citing McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission (1973), the dissenting justices argued that the U.S. Supreme Court has long barred state taxation of Native Americans who live and work on their own reservations. They also referenced Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac & Fox Nation (1993), which reaffirmed the limits on state taxation powers in Indian Country.

“The majority decision distorts both the facts and the law,” Justice Combs wrote. “Federal law is clear: the state has no right to impose income taxes on tribal members who earn their income on a reservation. That should not change based on the land’s title status.”

The dissent suggested the ruling could be used to systematically erode tribal sovereignty, encouraging the state to tax, regulate, and enforce civil authority deep into reservation territory.

Reaction from the Muscogee Nation

The Muscogee Nation responded with deep frustration and alarm. Principal Chief David W. Hill condemned the ruling as a blatant misreading of federal Indian law and a threat to tribal self-determination.

“This is a sad example of judicial activism that deliberately ignores the facts and the law,” Chief Hill said in a statement. “The Oklahoma Supreme Court has chosen to diminish the meaning of our reservation and the rights of our citizens.”

The Nation indicated it would explore federal appeals and legislative remedies, potentially escalating the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

Broader Implications for Indian Country

The Stroble decision is poised to have a major impact on tribal citizens across Oklahoma and beyond. With more than 40% of eastern Oklahoma now legally recognized as reservation land under McGirt, thousands of tribal citizens could be affected by the outcome of this case.

If the ruling stands, it could:

1. Permit the state to tax thousands of tribal members, even those living on reservation land.

2. Undermine other civil protections and self-governance mechanisms that tribes expected to follow from the McGirt precedent.

3. Encourage other states to pursue similar cases limiting tribal civil rights and tax exemptions.

Legal experts say that the decision sets the stage for a federal-state showdown on how far tribal sovereignty extends in modern America.

What’s Next?

The legal fight is far from over. Stroble and the Muscogee Nation are likely to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will have to decide whether McGirt’s reaffirmation of reservation boundaries carries civil implications.

Meanwhile, other tribal nations—such as the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw—are watching closely, knowing that the precedent could impact similar legal challenges in their own jurisdictions.

On the federal level, lawmakers sympathetic to tribal sovereignty may push for legislative clarification that explicitly bars state taxation of Native citizens on reservations, regardless of land ownership type.

Conclusion

The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision in Stroble v. Oklahoma Tax Commission delivers a significant blow to tribal efforts to extend the protections of McGirt into civil and financial realms. By upholding state taxation of a Native citizen residing within a recognized reservation, the court has not only triggered legal controversy but ignited a broader debate about the limits of tribal sovereignty in the 21st century.

Whether this ruling will stand as precedent—or be overturned in federal court—remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the battle over who governs Indian Country in Oklahoma is far from finished.