McCoy v. Shaw

Background

McCoy, a Chickasaw man of one-quarter blood, owned patented homestead and surplus allotments from which restrictions had been removed. He received a one-eighth royalty share from oil produced under a lease and sued in Oklahoma state court to stop collection of a gross production tax, saying the tax violated treaties and Acts of Congress. The trial court dismissed the suit for want of equity, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed without deciding the federal treaty question, holding that Oklahoma statutes (§§ 9971 and 9973) provided a plain, adequate, and exclusive remedy — pay the tax under protest and sue to recover — relying on its earlier decision in Black v. Geissler.

Reasoning

The main issue was whether the tax violated federal treaties and statutes. The United States Supreme Court explained that when a state court resolves a case on an independent state-law ground that fully supports the judgment, the Supreme Court cannot review the federal question. The Oklahoma court’s decision rested on state statutory remedies and precedent, and the high Court found that ground to be consistent with earlier decisions and not a device to avoid the federal issue. For that reason the Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and did not rule on the treaty claim.

Real world impact

The ruling leaves the federal treaty issue undecided and requires the claimant to use the state remedy (pay under protest and sue) before federal review is available. Other people contesting state taxes in similar circumstances must follow state procedures first. This was a jurisdictional decision, not a final ruling on the merits of the treaty claim.