Oklahoma Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuit by Tulsa Massacre Survivors

Viola Ford Fletcher, a Tulsa Race Massacre survivor, is pictured at the House General Government Committee meeting at the Oklahoma Capitol, Oct. 5, 2023. Doug Hoke/The Oklahoman via AP

The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit brought by survivors of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, ruling that their grievances were legitimate but didn’t fall within the scope of the state’s public nuisance statute and that their allegations were insufficiently supported in other ways.

“We affirm the District Court’s July 12, 2023 Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice,” the nine-member Oklahoma Supreme Court wrote in its June 12 opinion.

The plaintiffs—all over 100 years old—sought reparations for the 1921 massacre in which a white mob destroyed the majority-black Greenwood district over the course of two days, May 31 and June 1.

At the time, official records stated that 10 white people and 26 black people died during the attack, but researchers now estimate that as many as 300 people were killed and that most of them were black.

The 35-block business district was a prosperous center of industry in the black community, also known as “Black Wall Street.”

The plaintiffs alleged that the actions of the mob in 1921 continue to have a negative impact on the city by contributing to present-day racial and economic disparities.

The lawsuit, which was appealed to the high court after being thrown out by order of a lower court judge in July 2023, sought a detailed accounting of the property and assets lost in the incident and called for the construction of a hospital in north Tulsa and the creation of a victims compensation fund. It also sought immunity from all city and county taxes and utility expenses for the next 99 years for descendants of those who were killed, injured, or lost property during the event.

In dismissing the lawsuit, the Oklahoma Supreme Court also held that the plaintiffs’ allegations did not sufficiently support a claim of unjust enrichment, nor did the allegations sufficiently support a claim for the unauthorized use of name and likeness under relevant Oklahoma statutes that were cited in the original complaint.

“Plaintiffs do not point to any physical injury to property in Greenwood rendering it uninhabitable that could be resolved by way of injunction or other civil remedy,” the justices wrote in their decision. “Today we hold that relief is not possible under any set of facts that could be established consistent with plaintiff’s allegations.”

In this 1921 image provided by the Library of Congress, smoke billows over Tulsa, Okla., during the Tulsa Race Massacre. Alvin C. Krupnick Co./Library of Congress via AP, File

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Damario Solomon-Simmons, did not immediately return a request for comment on the court’s decision.

The city of Tulsa said in a statement to media outlets that it respects the court’s decision and “affirms the significance of the work the City continues to do in the North Tulsa and Greenwood communities.”

The city added that it remains committed to working with residents and providing resources to support the communities.

Background

Three survivors of the massacre—Lessie Randle, Viola Fletcher, and Hughes Van Ellis—brought the lawsuit in 2020. Mr. Van Ellis died last year at the age of 102.

The trio, who resided in Tulsa’s Greenwood district that was decimated in the massacre, sought relief for the damage inflicted during the incident, which their complaint labeled as a “public nuisance.”

Public nuisance claims are typically used to address local concerns such as dangerous animals, blighted homes, or illegal drug dealing. Such claims were used in lawsuits that states brought against tobacco companies in the 1990s and against opioid drug makers. However, many of them led to settlements rather than trials.

Oklahoma’s attorney general used the public nuisance law to force opioid drug maker Johnson & Johnson to pay the state $465 million in damages, though the Oklahoma Supreme Court overturned that decision two years later.

The three survivors’ lawsuit did not specify a dollar amount sought but asked the court to declare that a public nuisance created by the defendants was capable of being abated “through the expenditure of money and labor.”

The plaintiffs also sought to recover what they labeled as unjust enrichment, which was allegedly gained by exploiting the event.

Lessie Benningfield Randle, a Tulsa Race Massacre survivor, is pictured during the House General Government Committee meeting at the Oklahoma Capitol, Oct. 5, 2023. Doug Hoke/The Oklahoman via AP

Tulsa County District Judge Caroline Wall dismissed the lawsuit in July 2023, writing in her order that the basis for dismissal was set forth in the defendants’ briefs.

One of these briefs, a motion to dismiss filed by the city of Tulsa, raised various arguments, including that the nuisance claim was too vague to state a “cognizable claim” against the city, and that the unjust enrichment allegation “failed to plead sufficient facts” that would support such a claim.

Other defendants in the case included the Tulsa Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Tulsa County Commissioners, the Tulsa County Sheriff, and the Oklahoma Military Department.

A brief filed by the Tulsa County Sheriff raised similar arguments, pointing to insufficient grounds under public nuisance and unjust enrichment statutes, adding the argument that the plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred by the Governmental Tort Claims Act.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.