High Court Pass on Oklahoma Tribal Tax Case Has Limited Impact

The US Supreme Court refused to hear arguments in a case involving state taxation of tribally sourced income earned by a tribal member who resided within her tribe’s territorial boundaries. Without a statement explaining the decision, it’s impossible to say why the Supreme Court denied cert on April 6 in Stroble v. Oklahoma.

The question is now what the impact will be on states and tribes.

For Alicia Stroble and similarly situated taxpayers within Oklahoma, the denial has predictable consequences. The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision allowing state taxation means Stroble won’t be getting the refund she sought. And the state of Oklahoma will continue to assert state income taxing authority over her tribally sourced income.

Similarly situated taxpayers—roughly 200,000 individual tribal members within the state of Oklahoma—will continue to be subject to Oklahoma income taxes, amounting to approximately $73 million per year in state income tax.

The denial of cert doesn’t mean that the Supreme Court is abandoning precedent established by McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission, where the Court held that Arizona couldn’t tax the income of a citizen of the Navajo Nation who lived on the Navajo reservation and whose income derived solely from sources within the reservation.

To the contrary, if McClanahan were in jeopardy, the Court would have granted cert. It seems unlikely that the denial of cert will embolden other states to aggressively pursue state income taxation of tribally sourced income earned by tribal members who reside within the territorial boundaries of their tribe.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court distinguished McClanahan (wrongly) by asserting that Stroble didn’t earn income within Indian Country. To follow Oklahoma’s assertion of state taxing authority over income earned by tribal members who reside within Indian Country, other states would have to dispute the existence of territorial boundaries.

Apart from the five Tribal Nations in Oklahoma impacted by McGirt, the geographical boundaries of the territories of 574 federally recognized Indian Tribes generally aren’t in dispute.

Let’s not forget that Stroble, like McClanahan, is a personal income tax case. There are nine states in the country, including several with federally recognized Indian Tribes (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming), that don’t impose a personal income tax. For those states, the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s unwillingness to follow Supreme Court precedent in McGirt and McClanahan is irrelevant because those states won’t tax the personal income of anyone.

Because the laws governing the scope of state taxation of real property and various transactions in Indian Country are much more complicated and nuanced than the rules regarding personal income, those disputes will continue to arise regardless of the outcome in Stroble.

A bigger question is what the Supreme Court’s denial of cert in Stroble means for tribal sovereignty writ large. For the reasons explained above, denial of cert doesn’t forecast a wholesale shift in tribal-state relations.

In Oklahoma, the state supreme court has had the last word that it is unwilling to extend McGirt to curtail state taxing authority. The consequence that flows from permitting state taxation is that, as a practical matter, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation can’t impose its own income tax. Lack of the ability to raise revenue is a practical constraint on the sovereignty of any government.

Therefore, the denial of cert in Stroble and expansion of state taxation authority in Indian country diminishes the sovereignty of the five impacted tribes in Oklahoma.

The Supreme Court’s unwillingness to weigh in on the Oklahoma case may not necessarily be a harbinger of diminished tribal sovereignty state-wide. This is because tribal-state relations aren’t solely delineated by the judiciary.

To the contrary, successes in inter-governmental relations that promote tribal sovereignty often stem from engagement between tribes and the executive and/or legislative branches of state government. In Oklahoma, there are signs of hope for cooperative sovereignty. The Mayor of Tulsa appointed a director of tribal policy and partnerships in the mayor’s administration in efforts to co-govern the city of Tulsa with the Tribal Nations.

At the city level, this example shows that city leadership recognizes the Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt and is committed to working with tribal leaders cooperatively. Pessimism doesn’t have to continue to rule the day.

The case is Stroble v. Okla. Tax Comm’n, U.S., No. 25-382, review denied 4/6/26.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Pippa Browde is a professor at the University of Montana School of Law, where she researches and writes about all things tax in Indian country.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines