TREAT v. STITT, 481 P.3d 240

Petitioners (Senate President Pro Tem Greg Treat and Speaker Charles McCall) sought a declaratory judgment that the Governor lacked authority to enter two new tribal gaming compacts (United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians; Kialegee Tribal Town).
While Treat I (2020) was pending (which invalidated earlier compacts), the Executive negotiated and signed two additional compacts and submitted them to the U.S. Department of the Interior, which deemed them approved by inaction only to the extent consistent with IGRA.
Oklahoma law provides two statutory routes for valid compacts: (1) acceptance of the voter‑approved Model Tribal Gaming Compact (fixed by statute), or (2) negotiation under 74 O.S. §1221(C) with approval by the Joint Committee on State‑Tribal Relations (and DOI when trust responsibilities exist).
The new compacts contained terms differing from the Model Compact and were not submitted to or approved by the Joint Committee.
The Court assumed original publici juris jurisdiction and held the Governor did not validly enter the compacts under Oklahoma law; therefore the compacts are invalid.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Treat)	Defendant's Argument (Stitt)	Held
Whether the Governor could bind the State by compacts that deviate from the Model Compact absent legislative action or Joint Committee approval	Governor exceeded statutory authority; deviation requires Joint Committee approval or legislative amendment to the Model Compact	Governor has executive authority to negotiate and enter compacts (argues execution power under art. VI)	Governor lacked authority; compacts that differ from Model Compact require Joint Committee approval or legislative amendment and are invalid without it
Whether the Model Tribal Gaming Compact grants the Governor broad negotiation power	Model Compact is statutory and limits executive negotiation (only fees/exclusivity may be renegotiated unilaterally)	Governor can negotiate terms beyond fees/exclusivity under general executive powers	Model Compact is statutory; executive authority is constrained to those statutory limits; other changes require Joint Committee/legislative action
Whether DOI inaction ratified the compacts for state law purposes	Federal inaction does not cure lack of state statutory authorization	DOI approval (by inaction) under IGRA validates compacts federally	DOI action pertains to IGRA; federal inaction does not relieve the State of its statutory requirements—compacts remain invalid under state law

Treat v. Stitt, 473 P.3d 43 (Okla. 2020) (prior decision invalidating compacts that authorized gaming beyond State‑Tribal Gaming Act)
Griffith v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola, 230 P.3d 488 (Okla. 2009) (Model Compact is a statutory, pre‑approved offer that, if accepted, constitutes the compact without further state action)
Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enter., LLC, 212 P.3d 447 (Okla. 2009) (Model Compact provisions are fixed by statute and not freely negotiable)
Fent v. Contingency Review Bd., 163 P.3d 512 (Okla. 2007) (publici juris doctrine allows the Court to assume original jurisdiction for issues of urgent public interest)
Ethics Comm'n of State of Okla. v. Cullison, 850 P.2d 1069 (Okla. 1993) (standards for granting declaratory relief)
Keating v. Edmondson, 37 P.3d 882 (Okla. 2001) (limits on Governor's statutory authority and appointment/executive powers)