TREAT v. STITT, 473 P.3d 43

Petitioners Greg Treat (Senate President Pro Tempore) and Charles McCall (Speaker of the House) sought a declaratory judgment that Governor J. Kevin Stitt lacked authority to bind Oklahoma by entering new tribal gaming compacts with the Comanche Nation and the Otoe‑Missouria Tribes.
Governor Stitt negotiated compacts during mediation in related federal litigation; he submitted the compacts to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), which deemed them approved by inaction only to the extent consistent with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).
The compacts authorized certain Class III gaming (house‑banked card and table games and event wagering) that are expressly excluded from the State‑Tribal Gaming Act (STGA), Oklahoma law governing Class III gaming.
Under Oklahoma law, Class III gaming must conform to the STGA; the STGA expressly bars the specific games authorized by the compacts and limits criminal immunity to covered games.
The Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction under the publici juris doctrine and held that the Governor exceeded his authority; the compacts are invalid under Oklahoma law and the State is not bound until the Legislature amends the STGA to allow those games.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Governor had authority to bind the State by entering compacts authorizing Class III gaming expressly prohibited by the STGA	Treat/McCall: Governor exceeded authority; compacts must conform to STGA enacted by Legislature	Stitt: Governor may negotiate compacts to increase revenue and obtained DOI inaction approval	Governor lacked authority; compacts invalid and State not bound; even Joint Committee approval would not validate conflicts with STGA
Whether DOI approval by inaction makes compacts effective despite conflict with state law	Treat/McCall: DOI approval is limited to IGRA consistency and state law determines consistency	Stitt: DOI inaction approved the compacts, making them effective	DOI inaction approves only to extent consistent with IGRA; state law controls—because compacts conflict with STGA they remain invalid

Fent v. Contingency Review Bd., 163 P.3d 512 (Okla. 2007) (publici juris doctrine supports original jurisdiction for matters of urgent public interest)
Ethics Comm'n of State of Okla. v. Cullison, 850 P.2d 1069 (Okla. 1993) (standards for declaratory relief)
Griffith v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola, 230 P.3d 488 (Okla. 2009) (Governor may negotiate compacts but must act within statutory limits)
Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Kelly, 104 F.3d 1546 (10th Cir. 1997) (state law determines whether a compact is consistent with IGRA)