She's a Muscogee (Creek) citizen, employee and resident. So, she challenged the Oklahoma Tax Commission for an income tax exemption, hoping the court would rule in her favor.
"Under controlling principles of both state and federal law, Oklahoma has no power to tax the income of Creek citizens who, like Ms. Stroble, both reside and earn their income within their nation's reservation," Michael Parks, Stroble's attorney, said during the hearing.
But that didn't happen. And depending on her next steps, the ruling could extend beyond Oklahoma.
The case
Stroble argued she was exempt from state income taxes from 2017-19, totaling more than $7,000, citing a section of the Oklahoma Administrative Code. It states an exemption is granted to tribal members living within and receiving income from their tribe's jurisdiction.
In October 2022, the Oklahoma Tax Commission ruled that Stroble fulfilled all but one requirement for exemption. It wrote she received a fee title for her property from a non-tribal entity, LaSalle Bank National Association, and that the area was not held in trust or federally-owned as restricted reservation land, disqualifying it as Indian Country.
According to court documents, 95% of the Muscogee reservation is fee land.
One month later, Stroble filed a motion to retain the case in the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Then she waited for nearly three years, supported by the state's five largest tribes.
In July, Stroble got her answer.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled (6-3) she was not exempt from state income tax despite her Muscogee citizenship, tribal job and home located within the reservation boundaries. Four of the concurring judges were appointed by Gov. Kevin Stitt, an outspoken critic of tribal sovereignty.
Most of the court argued McGirt v. Oklahoma, the U.S. Supreme Court case that reinforced tribal sovereignty over major crimes, did not extend to civil cases.
But Parks said his and the tribes' argument relied on laws that predate McGirt. He said the court did not address that aspect of the argument in its majority ruling.
"We argued that our appeal was not just based on McGirt, but rather was based on other cases decided by the United States Supreme Court long before McGirt that were 20 and 30 years old, which ruled that even fee land could be part of a reservation or part of Indian Country," Parks said. "They didn't even address our arguments … they just said, 'We hold that McGirt doesn't apply to a tax case or a civil case. It's limited to a criminal case. And therefore we're going to affirm what the Oklahoma Tax Commission did.'"
Parks' reasoning includes federal law, which says "all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent" is Indian Country.
But the Oklahoma Tax Commission says federal law doesn't preempt state income tax. Its attorneys argue the federal statute does not mention the state's taxing jurisdiction.
OTC said it was pleased with the ruling, but declined to comment further.
Implications of going federal
On July 18, Stroble and Parks filed a motion to suspend the court's mandate while they consider taking the decision to the United States Supreme Court. That mandate was issued on July 24, meaning they have less than three months to determine their next steps, according to Parks.
Those plans could include appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court or a federal district court. Or, the pair could do nothing, finalizing the decision.
"We don't know if we're going to do that. But, you know, we're considering all of our options," Parks said.
As a result, Stroble and the Muscogee Nation remain quiet. Muscogee Principal Chief David Hill wrote the tribe was disappointed and was working on a formal response.
But Mike McBride, an attorney specializing in Tribal law, said the U.S. Supreme Court that decided McGirt v. Oklahoma is not the same as today's. He said if Stroble goes to the Supreme Court, the stakes will be raised.
"Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in McGirt in 2020 … it was a 5 to 4 decision, and that's a one justice majority," McBride said.
Then, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and Amy Coney Barrett was appointed.
"It flipped 5 to 4 against tribal interests … It could be that a majority of the justices at this point may lean towards state powers and have a different interpretation, and might be willing to scale back McGirt," McBride said.
For Gary Pitchlynn, an Indigenous law professor at the University of Oklahoma, this creates a reason for pause.
He said in his nearly 50 years of practicing law, there have been moments when he recommended not taking a case to the U.S. Supreme Court due to its makeup. This is one of them.
"McGirt is a bit of an anomaly in that had it not been for the appointment of Gorsuch, it would never have come down the way it did … On that court, there is not another expert in this area of the law on that court," Pitchlynn said.
But Pitchlynn doubts Gorsuch's input would matter in the same way today.
"I don't have any faith in the Supreme Court being faithful to its own precedents," Pitchlynn said. "It's already shown in this last round of decisions that it's willing to ignore its precedents to get to the end decision it wants to enter."
As a result, he doubts the Supreme Court would rule in favor of tribal interests.
"I don't hold out great hopes that the federal condition of the federal courts right now is one that I would want to rely on. And a decision on this issue coming out of any of the reservations in Oklahoma will also impact reservations all over the country," Pitchlynn said. "Quite honestly, it might be best for all concerned if Stroble doesn't go up right now."
Who will have the final say?
Last year, Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Dustin Rowe believed the case would eventually reach the high court, regardless of the ruling. He said the Supreme Court judges would determine the extent of tribal jurisdiction, or Congress would determine the reservation status.
But the case would not stop at Oklahoma.
"Although we are the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, essentially we're marking time, we don't get the final say," Rowe said during the hearing. "That's where this is headed, is it not? On either side, that's where this is headed."
And if that happens, the stakes will be raised.
Copyright 2025 KOSU
