Tulsa Race Massacre Survivors Lose Restitution Case Against City

Survivors of the Tulsa Race Massacre aren’t entitled to compensation for losses stemming from the 1921 attack on what was known as Black Wall Street, Oklahoma’s highest court said Wednesday.

The ruling deals a blow to racial justice advocates who saw the case as a legal path to reparations for historical violence against Black people.

Lessie Benningfield Randle and Viola Fletcher, both over 100, and descendants of other survivors sought restitution for the attack by a White mob on the Greenwood neighborhood of Tulsa, which was home to a thriving Black community and Black-owned businesses.

The survivors brought claims arguing the effects of the massacre continued to violate the state’s public nuisance law. They also sought recovery for unjust enrichment, arguing the city has unjustly benefited from the 1921 events. A state trial court dismissed their claims, and the survivors appealed.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal, saying “though Plaintiffs’ grievances are legitimate,” they don’t meet the standards for pursuing either claim.

“The inability of legislatively-authorized public nuisance remedies to redress the harms flowing from the Massacre highlights that Plaintiffs’ grievances do not fall within the scope of our State’s public nuisance statute,” Justice Dustin P. Rowe wrote.

The court rejected the survivors’ arguments that Tulsa’s fundraising and community events around the massacre could provide the basis for an unjust enrichment claim.

“Though Defendants’ promotion of the Massacre as a fundraising effort may be considered unconscionable by Plaintiffs, neither law nor equity prevent Defendants from promoting the Massacre for historical purposes and community improvement,” Rowe also wrote.

SolomonSimmonsLaw and others represent the survivors.

Justices M. John Kane IV, Yvonne Kauger, James R. Winchester, Douglas L. Combs, Noma Gurich, Richard Darby, and Dana Kuehn joined the opinion.

Justice James E. Edmondson concurred in part and dissented in part.

The case is Randle v. City of Tulsa, Okla., No. 121502, 6/12/24.