Does the United Keetoowah Band's April 2025 signing of Oklahoma's model gaming compact create a valid agreement with the State?
Plain-English summary
In 2004, Oklahoma voters approved State Question 712, which became the State-Tribal Gaming Act. The Act offered a standardized "Model Compact" to all federally recognized tribes in Oklahoma. Tribes could accept the offer by signing the Model Compact in its statutory form. Of Oklahoma's 38 tribes, 35 accepted.
The Model Compact had a 15-year initial term ending January 1, 2020. It contained an auto-renewal provision: if certain conditions were met (specifically, if non-tribal "organization licensees" were authorized to conduct electronic gaming after the compact's effective date), the Compact would automatically renew for additional 15-year terms.
The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians (UKB) did not sign the Model Compact before January 1, 2020. On April 29, 2025, the UKB signed the Model Compact and submitted it to the Department of the Interior for federal approval.
Senator Frix asked the AG: did the UKB's April 2025 signing create a valid compact?
AG Drummond said no, on three grounds:
- Oklahoma's offer expired. The Model Compact had a January 1, 2020 expiration date in its initial term. After that, the offer was no longer open to acceptance.
- Auto-renewal does not save the UKB. The auto-renewal language applies only to compacts "in effect" on January 1, 2020. The UKB did not have a compact in effect, so there was nothing to renew.
- No mutual consent. Under Oklahoma contract law, an acceptance must match the offer. Signing a Model Compact whose expressly-printed expiration date had passed does not match a still-open offer (because there is no still-open offer).
The UKB's only path to a valid Oklahoma gaming compact now runs through the Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations under 74 O.S. § 1221(C), which can approve a negotiated compact containing terms that depart from the Model Compact.
What this means for you
If you are an Oklahoma tribe without an existing Model Compact
You cannot accept the Model Compact by signing it. The offer is gone. To get a Class III gaming compact under Oklahoma law, you must negotiate with the Governor and obtain approval from the Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations. Per Treat II, the Joint Committee process requires legislative approval before any compact deviates from the Model Compact's terms.
If you are an Oklahoma tribe with an existing (renewed) Model Compact
Your compact is unaffected. The auto-renewal worked because your compact was in effect on January 1, 2020. The 35 tribes that signed before that date continue to operate under renewed Model Compacts.
If you are a tribal gaming attorney
The pathway analysis is now clean: pre-2020 acceptance → renewed Model Compact valid; post-2020 acceptance → invalid. For new compacts, the Joint Committee path is the only option, and Treat II (with the constitutional non-delegation concerns flagged by Justice Rowe's concurrence) limits how far the Joint Committee can go in approving compacts that operate as amendments to Oklahoma law.
If you serve on the Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations
This opinion confirms your role for new compacts. Your approval is required if the Governor negotiates terms that deviate from the Model Compact. Recent rejected compacts (Logan/Oklahoma County tribes in 2023) show the Committee is taking the role seriously.
If you are the Governor or Governor's counsel
You cannot offer the expired Model Compact to a tribe and call it a valid compact. To bring in new tribes, you must negotiate fresh, and the negotiated terms must clear Joint Committee review.
If you are an Oklahoma legislator interested in gaming policy
The opinion clarifies what flexibility exists for the State going forward. New tribal compacts must come through the Joint Committee. Reauthorizing the Model Compact for new acceptance would require legislative action (likely a referral to voters, given that the original compact was enacted by State Question 712).
If you are a federal Indian-law practitioner
The federal IGRA-side analysis is normal: a compact is effective only when (a) entered between the State and the Tribe and (b) approved by the Secretary of Interior with publication in the Federal Register. But step (a) requires a valid state-side commitment, and Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Kelly makes clear that a state actor who lacks authority cannot bind the State even with Secretary approval.
Common questions
Q: Wasn't the auto-renewal triggered by the racing-track expansion in Oklahoma?
A: Yes: for compacts that were in effect on January 1, 2020. The auto-renewal language requires that "organization licensees or others are authorized to conduct electronic gaming . . . pursuant to any governmental action of the state" after the compact's effective date. That worked for the 35 tribes with pre-2020 compacts. It does not work for tribes with no pre-2020 compact.
Q: Why January 1, 2020?
A: That's the date the Model Compact's initial 15-year term ended. The Compact was first offered with a 15-year term that ran from approval to January 1, 2020.
Q: Can the UKB operate gaming under a "deemed approved" theory if Interior doesn't act?
A: Federal IGRA allows a compact to take effect if the Secretary fails to act within 45 days, but only if the compact is otherwise valid. Without state-side authority, "deemed approved" does not cure the lack of state consent (per Pueblo of Santa Ana).
Q: What is the Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations?
A: A bicameral legislative committee that reviews and approves compacts negotiated by the Governor with tribes when those compacts contain provisions different from the Model Compact. Authority is in 74 O.S. § 1221(C).
Q: Did the Joint Committee approve the UKB's compact?
A: No. The AG noted that "this office cannot find any evidence" of Joint Committee approval prior to submission to the Department of the Interior on April 30, 2025.
Q: Could the UKB still get a compact?
A: Yes, by going through the Joint Committee process. The opinion explicitly says "any option available to the UKB under 74 O.S. Supp. 2012, § 1221(C) presumably remains available."
Background and statutory framework
Under federal IGRA (25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721), Class III gaming on Indian lands requires a Tribal-State compact approved by the Secretary of Interior. The State of Oklahoma offered the Model Compact through the State-Tribal Gaming Act enacted by SQ 712 in 2004.
Key Oklahoma decisions:
- Sheffer v. Buffalo Run Casino (2013): the Model Compact is "an offer to federally recognized tribes . . . to engage in Class III gaming on tribal lands."
- Cherokee Nation v. Stitt (W.D. Okla. 2020): the existing Model Compacts auto-renewed for additional 15-year terms on January 1, 2020. The same court denied the UKB's intervention because the UKB lacked an approved compact.
- Treat I and Treat II (2020, 2021): the Governor cannot bind the State to compacts containing terms beyond the Model Compact without Joint Committee approval. Treat II specifically invalidated a UKB compact negotiated by the Governor.
The opinion treats the Model Compact under both Oklahoma contract law (offers, acceptances, expiration) and statutory construction principles (it is, after all, a voter-approved statute under Griffith v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola, 2009). Both lenses lead to the same conclusion.
The April 29, 2025 signing was the UKB's second attempt at a Model Compact (the first was July 2020, also too late). Both attempts failed because the offer had expired.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- 3A O.S. §§ 261–282, State-Tribal Gaming Act
- 3A O.S. § 281, Part 15(B), Initial term and auto-renewal
- 74 O.S. § 1221(C), Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations
- 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721: IGRA
Cases:
- Cherokee Nation v. Stitt, 475 F. Supp. 3d 1277 (W.D. Okla. 2020), auto-renewal for compacts in effect January 1, 2020
- Treat I, 2020 OK 64, 473 P.3d 43, Governor cannot exceed Model Compact terms
- Treat II, 2021 OK 3, 481 P.3d 240, Joint Committee approval requirement
- Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Kelly, 104 F.3d 1546 (10th Cir. 1997), state authority requirement
Source
- Landing page: https://oklahoma.gov/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2025/ag-opinion-2025-07.html
- Original PDF: https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2025/A.G. Opinion 2025-7 2025 OK AG 7.pdf
Original opinion text
GENTNER DRUMMOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION
2025-7
The Honorable Avery Frix
Oklahoma State Senate, District 9
2300 N. Lincoln Boulevard, Room 413
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
[email protected]
June 9, 2025
Dear Senator Frix:
This office has received your request for an Attorney General Opinion in which you ask, in effect,
the following question:
Does the April 29, 2025, execution of Oklahoma’s model gaming compact by
the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (the “UKB”)
create a valid agreement between the State of Oklahoma and the UKB, or was
Oklahoma’s codified model gaming compact offer (codified at 3A O.S.2021, §
280) limited by the expiration of the compact’s initial term or otherwise?
I.
SUMMARY
In 2004, Oklahoma voters approved State Question 712, enacting the State-Tribal Gaming Act
(“STGA”). Through the STGA, Oklahoma offered a model tribal gaming compact (the “Model
Compact”) to all federally recognized Indian tribes. The Model Compact, codified at title 3A,
section 281(15)(C) of the Oklahoma Statutes, clearly provides that its term ended on January 1,
2020. After January 1, 2020, no federally recognized Tribe in Oklahoma could execute the Model
Compact and enter a valid gaming compact with the State of Oklahoma without further action
from the Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations (“Joint Committee”). The automatic renewal
provisions of the STGA and Model Compact provide no relief here as they only apply to gaming
compacts in effect on January 1, 2020.
Because the UKB did not have a Model Compact in place on January 1, 2020, the STGA’s renewal
provision precludes the UKB’s attempt to enter the Model Compact on April 29, 2025. Under
current law, a new compact may be entered after January 1, 2020, but it must be approved by the
Joint Committee as provided in title 74, section 1221(C) of the Oklahoma Statutes.
313 N.E. 21ST STREET • OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 • (405) 521-3921 • FAX: (405) 521-6246
Senator Avery Frix
Oklahoma State Senate, District 9
A.G. Opinion
Page 2
II.
BACKGROUND
A.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”)
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721 (“IGRA”), governs gaming activities
on Indian lands, as defined by Section 2703(4). Relevant here, IGRA states that “Class III gaming
activities shall be lawful on Indian lands only if such activities are . . . (C) conducted in
conformance with a Tribal-State compact entered by the Indian tribe and the State under [Section
2710(d)(3)] that is in effect.” 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1). IGRA also requires that a compact be
submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for review and establishes that a compact is effective
when notice of the Secretary’s approval is published in the Federal Register. 25 U.S.C. §
2710(d)(3)(B). 1 Section 2710(d)(8)(A) authorizes the Secretary to approve “any Tribal-State
compact entered into between an Indian tribe and a State governing gaming on Indian lands of
such Indian tribe.” 2 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 293.15(a)(1). Once effective, Class III
gaming on the Indian lands of the compacting Tribe is “fully subject to the terms and conditions
of the Tribal-State compact.” 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(2)(C).
B.
The State-Tribal Gaming Act
In 2004, Oklahoma voters approved State Question 712, enacting the STGA. 3 See 2004 Okla. Sess.
Laws ch. 316 (codified at 3A O.S.2021, §§ 261–282). Through the STGA, Oklahoma offered a
model tribal gaming compact to all federally recognized Indian tribes. 3A O.S.2021, § 280. The
Model Compact is “an offer to federally recognized tribes in the State of Oklahoma to engage in
Class III gaming on tribal lands under the terms and conditions of the proposed compact.” Sheffer
v. Buffalo Run Casino, PTE, Ind., 2013 OK 77, ¶ 4, 315 P.3d 359, 361 (citations omitted). The
Model Compact must be completed and signed by the “chief executive officer” of the Tribe
accepting the offer. Once accepted, “[n]o further action by the Governor or the state is required
before the compact can take effect,” but the Secretary of Interior must still approve the agreement
under federal law. 3A O.S.2021, § 280; 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d). With narrow exceptions, the terms
and conditions of the Model Compact are not negotiable. Treat II, 2021 OK 3, ¶ 7, 481 P.3d 240,
242. Therefore, the “authority to negotiate the provisions of the Model Compact are limited.” Id.
Oklahoma law historically prohibited gambling, but the STGA authorizes “the conducting of and
the participation in any game authorized by the model compact . . . when played pursuant to a
compact which has become effective.” 3A O.S.2021, § 280; see also id. § 262(A); and 21
O.S.2021, §§ 941–948. The STGA “is game-specific and shall not be construed to allow the
operation of any other form of gaming unless specifically allowed by this act.” 3A O.S.2021, §
1
If the Secretary does not act within forty-five days, the compact is deemed approved and shall then be
published in the Federal Register. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8)(C)–(D).
Whereas the IGRA uses the term “may,” it has been held that the Secretary “must” disapprove a compact
if it would violate any of the limitations in 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8). Amador County v. Salazar, 640 F.3d 373, 381
(D.C. Cir. 2011).
2
Oklahoma Secretary of State, State Question 712, https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/questions/712.pdf
(last visited June 9, 2025).
3
Senator Avery Frix
Oklahoma State Senate, District 9
A.G. Opinion
Page 3
262(H). 4 Through the STGA, the Model Compact sets forth, among other things, standards and
regulations for conducting games, oversight and monitoring mechanisms, provisions for
recordkeeping and auditing, licensing, dispute resolution, and authorized locations for gaming
facilities. Id. § 281. Like the rest of the STGA, the Model Compact permits a compacting tribe to
conduct “covered game[s]” only in conformity with the compact. More precisely, a compacting
tribe may only conduct those specifically enumerated games and games “approved by legislation
for use by any person or entity” or “approved by amendment of the State-Tribal Gaming Act.” Id.
§ 281, Parts 3(5) and 4(A).
C.
Developments and litigation relating to Oklahoma tribal gaming compacts.
Of the 38 federally recognized Indian Tribes in Oklahoma, 35 accepted the State’s offer and
entered the Model Compact. 5 For 14 years, state-tribal compacts existed without significant
interruption. However, since 2019 several disputes have resulted in litigation.
First, in 2019 the Governor asserted that the existing compacts would no longer be effective after
January 1, 2020. In response, numerous tribes filed suit, seeking declaratory relief to acknowledge
the continuing validity of the compacts after January 1, 2020. Cherokee Nation v. Stitt, 475 F.
Supp. 3d 1277 (W.D. Okla. 2020). The district court held that, per their terms, the compacts
automatically renewed for additional 15-year terms on January 1, 2020. Id. The district court also
denied the UKB’s attempt to intervene in the case because the UKB did not have “an approved
compact.” Cherokee Nation v. Stitt, 475 F.Supp.3d 1283.
Second, in 2020 the Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed whether two tribal gaming compacts
negotiated and entered by the Governor were binding on the State when the types of gaming
authorized under the compacts were not legal under Oklahoma law. Treat v. Stitt, 2020 OK 64,
473 P.3d 43 (Treat I). The court held that the compacts were invalid because “[t]he legislative
branch sets the policy of the State” and “the Governor must negotiate the compacts within the
bounds of the laws enacted by the Legislature . . . .” Id. ¶¶ 4–5, 473 P.2d at 44. Shortly after Treat
I, the court revisited the issue and again determined the Governor invalidly negotiated and entered
new tribal gaming compacts, including one with the UKB. Treat v. Stitt, 2021 OK 3, 481 P.3d 240
(Treat II). When a tribal gaming compact contains provisions different than those in the Model
Compact, the court concluded that the Governor must either adhere to the parameters of the Model
Compact or obtain approval of the Joint Committee. Id. ¶¶ 6, 12, 481 P.3d at 242, 244. Following
Treat II, the Governor and tribes sought approval from the Joint Committee, but the compacts were
denied. 6
In 2018, the Legislature authorized tribes to enter supplements to the Model Compact that authorized nonhouse-banked table games. House Bill 3375, 2018 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 11, § 2 (codified at 3A O.S.2021, § 280.1).
4
Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services, Compacted Tribes,
https://oklahoma.gov/omes/gaming-compliance-unit/compacted-tribes.html (last visited June 4, 2025).
5
See Janelle Stecklein, Lawmakers reject gaming compacts for two small Oklahoma tribes,
OKLAHOMAVOICE.COM (Oct. 25, 2023), https://oklahomavoice.com/2023/10/25/lawmakers-reject-new-loganoklahoma-county-casino-compacts/.
6
Senator Avery Frix
Oklahoma State Senate, District 9
A.G. Opinion
Page 4
On April 29, 2025, the UKB signed and submitted the Model Compact 7 to the Department of the
Interior for the Secretary’s approval. Your question requires determining whether (1) the UKB
lawfully accepted the State’s offer to enter the Model Compact, or (2) the UKB’s April 29, 2025,
compact properly utilized the statutory authority conferred under title 74, section 1221(C) of the
Oklahoma Statutes, which requires approval by the Joint Committee.
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
Because the State’s Model Compact offer was not valid on April 29, 2025, the UKB
does not have a lawful State-Tribal Compact.
1. Oklahoma’s offer to its federally recognized tribes to enter the Model Compact
expired before the UKB’s purported acceptance on April 29, 2025.
A state-tribal gaming compact is “an intergovernmental agreement executed between Tribal and
State governments under IGRA that establishes between the parties the terms and conditions of
the operation and regulation of the Tribe’s class III gaming activities. Accordingly, and though
they are not ordinary private party contracts . . . gaming compacts are a ‘form of a contract.’”
Cherokee Nation, 475 F. Supp. 3d 1277, 1281 (W.D. Okla. 2020) (citing Citizen Potawatomi
Nation v. Oklahoma, 881 F.3d 1226, 1238-39 (10th Cir. 2018)); see also Treat II, 2021 OK 3, ¶ 7,
481 P.3d at 242 (citing Griffith v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola, 2009 OK 51, ¶ 7, 230 P.3d 488,
491).
Generally, “principles of federal contract law” govern the formation and interpretation of
compacts, and where the terms of a contract are unambiguous, the four corners of the compact
encompasses the parties’ intent. Cherokee Nation, 475 F. Supp. 3d at 1281 (citing Citizen
Potawatomi Nation, 881 F.3d at 1238-39). 8 However, “whether a state has validly bound itself to
a compact” is controlled by state law. Citizen Potawatomi Nation, 881 F.3d at 1239 n.18 (quoting
Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Kelly, 104 F.3d 1546, 1557 (10th Cir. 1997)). Therefore, determining
whether the Model Compact signed by the UKB is valid requires this office to review the compact
using both federal and state law. Cherokee Nation, 475 F. Supp. 3d at 1281.
A qualifying tribe could only enter the Model Compact with the State by accepting the State’s
offer. 9 See 3A O.S.2021, § 281; Treat II, 2021 OK 3, ¶¶ 6-8, 481 P.3d at 242-43. Here, the State’s
Model Tribal Gaming Compact Between the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians and the State of
Oklahoma, Apr. 29, 2025 (received by the Off. of Indian Gaming on Apr. 30, 2025) (on file with author).
7
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has determined that “the Model Tribal Gaming Compact may not be
viewed as an ordinary private contract because it is a voter-approved statute,” and therefore, “must be interpreted by
use of canons of statutory construction.” Griffith, ¶ 7, 230 P.3d at 491. While principles of federal contract law and
canons of statutory construction are not necessarily coterminous, using the latter leads to the same result. In either
case, a reviewing court must interpret unambiguous words as written.
8
The model compact offer was made “to all federally recognized Indian tribes as identified in the Federal
Register within this state that own or are the beneficial owners of Indian lands as defined by the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. Section 2703(4), and over which the tribe has jurisdiction as recognized by the Secretary
9
Senator Avery Frix
Oklahoma State Senate, District 9
A.G. Opinion
Page 5
offer was to either accept or reject the Model Compact which if accepted, “shall have a term which
will expire on January 1, 2020.” 3A O.S.2021, § 281, Part 15(B). Stated otherwise, the initial term
for the Model Compact expired on January 1, 2020, and after that date the offer could not be
accepted. Accordingly, the compact signed by the UKB on April 29, 2025, is invalid as a matter
of law. 10 15 O.S.2021, § 73(2).
2. The automatic renewal provisions of the Model Compact are inapplicable as to
the UKB’s purported acceptance.
In addition to the initial term, a valid compact automatically renews for “successive additional
fifteen-year terms” if certain conditions are met. 3A O.S.2021, § 281, Part 15(B). Under Part 15(B),
the Model Compact expired on January 1, 2020. However, if on January 1, 2020:
organization licensees or others are authorized to conduct electronic gaming in any
form other than pari-mutuel wagering on live horse racing pursuant to any
governmental action of the state or court order following the effective date of this
Compact, the Compact shall automatically renew for successive additional fifteenyear terms.
Id. For two reasons, the renewal provision applies only to compacts in effect as of January 1, 2020.
First, “Part 15(B) plainly states the term of the Compacts: they ‘expire[d] on January 1, 2020.’”
Cherokee Nation, 475 F. Supp. 3d 1277 at 1281. Therefore, only compacts in effect on January 1,
2020, (i.e., signed by a tribe and effective under IGRA, see n.1 and accompanying text) can renew
under this provision. The UKB did not have a compact in effect on January 1, 2020. Therefore,
the renewal provision is inoperable and may not validate a compact executed by the UKB on April
29, 2025. 11
Second, to renew, on or before January 1, 2020, “organization licensees [or others] . . . [must] have
been authorized, and [must be] currently authorized, to conduct electronic gaming . . . ‘pursuant
to any governmental action of the [S]tate’ taken after the effect date[] of the Compact[].” Cherokee
Nation, 475 F. Supp.3d at 1281-82. But it logically follows that a compact must be effective before
January 1, 2020, for an authorization to take place “following” or “after” the effective date of an
effective compact. Otherwise, the operative renewal language “taken after the effective date of the
Compact” is rendered superfluous. And no one is suggesting that the purported UKB compact was
in effect on the pertinent statutory date—January 1, 2020. Unequivocally, the “effective date” of
of the Interior and is a part of the tribe’s ‘Indian reservation’ as defined in 25 C.F.R. Part 151.2 or has been acquired
pursuant to 25 C.F.R. Part 151….” 3A O.S.2021, §280.
See also Pueblo of Santa Ana, 104 F.3d at 1559 (entering a compact without authority renders the
agreement void and without effect, regardless of whether the Secretary approves it); Great Am. Reserve Ins. Co. of
Dallas v. Strain, 1962 OK 241, ¶ 5, 377 P.2d 583, 587 (“A contract may be void in the sense of being illegal; if so,
the obligation, being prohibited by law, is a nullity in its contemplation; hence, incapable of affirmance, ratification,
and enforcement.”).
10
As mentioned previously, the UKB attempted to enter another compact on July 1, 2020. However, that
compact itself was six-months beyond the initial term of the Model Compact and, like the case here, would not have
been subject to the automatic renewal.
11
Senator Avery Frix
Oklahoma State Senate, District 9
A.G. Opinion
Page 6
the purported compact has not commenced since the Secretary has not approved and published it
in the Federal Register. Additionally, the UKB readily admits that it did not enter the Model
Compact by January 1, 2020. 12 Accordingly, the automatic renewal provision of the Model
Compact are inapplicable as to the UKB’s purported acceptance.
3. The UKB did not accept the Model Compact.
The UKB’s purported acceptance of the Model Compact on April 29, 2025 is void and without
effect because the State’s offer expired on January 1, 2020—the expiration date of the Model
Compact’s initial term. In fact, the signed compact submitted to the Office of Indian Gaming
includes the expiration date in title 3A, section 281, Part 15(B) of the Oklahoma Statutes.13
Although the UKB did not strike through or otherwise substantively change any terms prior to
signing the Model Compact on April 29, 2025, attempting to create a binding agreement between
the UKB and the State of Oklahoma by simply signing the Model Compact in its original form
after January 1, 2020, contravenes Oklahoma law. Fundamentally, “a contract is an agreement to
do or not do a certain thing.” 15 O.S.2021, § 1. The existence of a contract is dependent, among
other things, upon free mutual consent, or agreement “upon the same thing in the same sense.” 15
O.S.2021, §§ 2 & 66. Therefore, if an offeree responds to an offer with terms that do not exactly
match the offer (which the UKB has done twice), the offeree rejects and terminates the original
offer. In re De-Annexation of Certain Real Property from City of Seminole, 2009 OK 18, ¶ 9, 204
P.3d at 89. 14 Here, no mutual consent existed on April 29, 2025, as the Model Compact’s term
expired five years before the purported acceptance.
B.
The UKB’s pathway to a valid gaming compact under Oklahoma law runs through
the Joint Committee.
In striking its prior compact effort, the Oklahoma Supreme Court pointed to two methods by
which tribal gaming compacts can be entered into: “(1) via the Model Compact, or (2) via the
general statutory authority conferred under 74 O.S. Supp. 2012, § 1221(C), which requires the
approval of the Joint Committee . . . when a tribal gaming compact contains provisions different
from those in the Model Compact.” Treat II, 2021 OK at ¶ 6, 481 P.3d at 242. While the window
for accepting the Model Compact has closed, any option available to the UKB under 74 O.S. Supp.
2012, § 1221(C) presumably remains available. But cf. Treat II, 2021 OK at ¶ 3, 481 P.3d at 249
12
Mot. of United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Okla. to intervene & Br. in Supp. at 2, Cherokee
Nation v. Stitt, No. 5: 19-cv-1198-D (W.D. Okla. filed Feb. 14, 2020), ECF No. 56 ("The Band's Compact is awaiting
approval by the Department of the Interior."); see also Reply of United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Okla.
in Supp. of its Mot. to Intervene at 2-3, Cherokee Nation v. Stitt, No. CIV-19-1198-D (W.D. Okla. filed Feb. 25, 2020),
ECF No. 81 (acknowledging that the UKB did not have a compact currently in effect on February 20, 2020, at the
time of the filing). See also Cherokee Nation v. Stitt, 2020 WL 963380, at *1 n.2 (denying motions to intervene filed
by the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma and the Kialegee Tribal Town and recognizing the
UKB “lacks an approved compact.”).
13
See supra footnote 6.
See also Nabob Oil Co. v. Bay State Oil & Gas Co., 1953 OK 59, 255 P.2d 513, 515 (quoting Hartzell v.
Choctaw Lumber Co., 22 P.2d 387) (“In order that an offer and acceptance may result in a binding contract, the
acceptance must be absolute, unconditional, and identical with the terms of the offer, and must in every respect meet
and correspond with the offer; and any qualification or departure from those terms invalidates the offer.”).
14
Senator Avery Frix
Oklahoma State Senate, District 9
A.G. Opinion
Page 7
(Rowe, J., concurring in result) (observing Oklahoma’s constitutional non-delegation doctrine
would preclude the Joint Committee from “approv[ing] compacts that operate as amendments to
Oklahoma law”); see also Letter from Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond to
Members of the Joint Committee, date October 23, 2023 (highlighting same) (on file with author).
This office cannot find any evidence that the Joint Committee approved the purported compact
executed by the UKB on April 29, 2025, much less that the Joint Committee approved it “prior to
submitting the Compact to the Department of the Interior” the next day. Treat II, 2021 OK at ¶ 10,
481 P3d at 249. Accordingly, the UKB has not entered a valid gaming compact with the State of
Oklahoma.
It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the Attorney General that:
The April 29, 2025, execution of Oklahoma’s statutory model gaming compact by
the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma did not create a
valid agreement between the State of Oklahoma and the UKB. The Model
Compact term expired on January 1, 2020. Additionally, the renewal provision
provided in the Model Compact under the State-Tribal Gaming Act has no effect
on the purported compact signed on April 29, 2025, because the UKB did not have
a compact in effect as of January 1, 2020. Finally, the UKB did not seek approval
of the compact which the UKB signed on April 29, 2025, by the Joint Committee
on State-Tribal Relations. Thus, the UKB has not entered a valid gaming compact
with the State of Oklahoma.
GENTNER DRUMMOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
CHERYL DIXON
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL