Why Are They Being Denied Reparations?A deep dive into the recently dismissed Tulsa reparations case
On June 12, 2024, the Oklahoma Supreme Court dismissed the reparations lawsuit filed by 3 survivors of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, most notably Lessie Benningfield Randle (108 years old), Viola Fletcher (109 years old) and Hughes Van Ellis. Unfortunately, Hugh Van Ellis passed away in October 2023. The case was originally filed in 2020 with Tulsa County District Court against 7 defendants among them the city of Tulsa, the Oklahoma National Guard, and the Tulsa Chamber of Commerce. However, this isn’t the first time reparations were sought after for what took place in 1921. Previous Reparations CaseAfter the massacre took place in 1921, the Tulsa Real Estate Exchange was established by the Tulsa Chamber of Commerce. They were tasked with calculating the total property damage that took place and advocated for not rebuilding Greenwood, but relocating the entire black community that once lived there. However, this should not come as a surprise as Tate Brady, a member of the White Supremacy group the KKK, sat on the board of the Tulsa Real Estate Commission at the time.¹ Most of pre-massacre Greenwood was never rebuilt and many of its original residents were forced into a haphazard internment camp. In 1997, Don Ross of the Oklahoma legislature put forth a reparations bill to the tune of $6 million. The bill did not pass, but a commission was formed to uncover the facts of what happened during the massacre and make recommendations for remedies. When the official report was published in 2001, reparations were among the recommendations mentioned. In 2001, the Tulsa Reparations Coalition was formed and led a campaign to seek reparations based on the Tulsa Race Riot Commission’s report of that same year.² The Oklahoma governor at the time denied that the state was culpable for what took place in 1921 despite evidence presented in the report that showed otherwise. In 2003, a lawsuit was in the US District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma filed by a group called the Reparations Coordinating Committee which featured prominent civil rights lawyers like Charles Ogletree Jr. (He represented Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation). The court dismissed the case because the statute of limitations for a civil suit had passed. There were eyewitness testimonies of the possibility of mass graves linked to the race massacre as early as 1998, but it wasn’t until after the pandemic that an official investigation was launched. On July 12, 2024, the city of Tulsa announced the investigation team was able to ID the first victim from the mass grave as we discussed in last week’s newsletter. Reasons for Dismissing the CaseNow that a victim has been identified, it’s important to revisit why the most recent reparations case was dismissed. According to CNN, the court decision said “However, the law does not permit us to extend the scope of our public nuisance doctrine beyond what the Legislature has authorized to afford Plaintiffs the justice they are seeking” The Oklahoma legislature has made it such that for a public nuisance law to apply in a case there must be a remedy that falls within three categories: indictment, civil action, and abatement.³ Essentially, the Oklahoma legislature has limited the scope under which a violation of a public nuisance law can be argued in court. The court responded that given the constraints the legislature has placed on them, they’ve ruled that:
According to NPR, “A Chamber of Commerce attorney previously said that the massacre was horrible, but the nuisance it caused was not ongoing.” It’s important to note here it was also the Tulsa Chamber of Commerce in the aftermath of the Tulsa Race Massacre that pushed the city of Tulsa NOT to rebuild Greenwood and to relocate its former residents. One of the reasons it gave was that the land was better used for “industrial purposes.” As I noted last week, oil was discovered 12 miles outside of Tulsa just a few years before the massacre.⁵ Let’s take a look at Oklahoma’s public nuisance law. Public Nuisance LawThe Oklahoma Public Nuisance Law states “A public nuisance is one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon the individuals may be unequal.” In this law “nuisance” has a four-pronged definition.
Yet, the very application of the law has been restrained by the Oklahoma legislature as noted above. Use of the Public Nuisance LawDefendants which include the city of Tulsa argued that this law does not apply, even though in 2022, the city attempted to use the same law to sue Johnson & Johnson for its role in the opioid crisis. The Oklahoma Supreme Court also said then that the public nuisance law did not apply to the actions of Johnson & Johnson and reversed the 465 million dollar judgment against the company.⁶ Why is this case raising alarm bells?What is particularly interesting to me is the role of corporate interests in the 1921 race massacre as well as in this reparations case that was just dismissed. An oil supply was found miles from Tulsa and an entire black neighborhood was razed to the ground a few years later in Jim Crow-Era America. In addition to that its residents were forced off the land and unable to make property insurance claims so it could be used for “industrial purposes.” Similarly, the Oklahoma Supreme Court as constrained by the Oklahoma Legislature has demonstrated a precedence of protecting corporate interests. Johnson & Johnson and now the Tulsa Chamber of Commerce cannot be held liable for corporate practices that have harmed and continue to harm black and poor communities in Oklahoma. For these reasons and more there should be greater public scrutiny of what has been and continues to take place in Tulsa. Let me know your thoughts on this week’s newsletter! p.s. I know a lot of news has broken since we last chatted, let me know your questions/what you want me to cover next week. until next week,
1 Paul S. Vickery, “Brady, Wyatt Tate,” The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture, https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=BR002,) 2 You’ll often see “Tulsa Race Massacre” and “Tulsa Race Riots” used interchangeably in this piece. The primary source documents I viewed this week often use the phrase “Tulsa Race Riots.” However, with the advent of official commissions and new research into the event, it was found that the Tulsa Race Massacre was called a “riot”, in part, to deny survivors access to insurance claims for their damaged homes and businesses. Loss of property due to a “riot” was not a legitimate claim to insurance benefits. You can read more about this here: https://www.tulsahistory.org/exhibit/1921-tulsa-race-massacre/ 3 “Today, the Court is asked to expand its public nuisance liability once more to include the lingering negative economic and social consequences stemming from the unjust, violent, and tragic moments of our history. The legislatively-authorized remedies for a public nuisance are: (1) indictment or information; (2) a civil action; and (3) abatement.” LESSIE BENNINGFIELD RANDLE VIOLA FLETCHER MURIEL WATSON ESTATE OF HUGHES VAN ELLIS SR v. CITY OF TULSA TULSA REGIONAL CHAMBER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR TULSA COUNTY OKLAHOMA VIC REGALADO OKLAHOMA MILITARY DEPARTMENT (2024) Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ok-supreme-court/116263433.html 4 LESSIE BENNINGFIELD RANDLE VIOLA FLETCHER MURIEL WATSON ESTATE OF HUGHES VAN ELLIS SR v. CITY OF TULSA TULSA REGIONAL CHAMBER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR TULSA COUNTY OKLAHOMA VIC REGALADO OKLAHOMA MILITARY DEPARTMENT (2024) Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ok-supreme-court/116263433.html 6 “In Johnson & Johnson, we were asked to address whether the conduct of an opioid manufacturer in marketing and selling prescription opioids constituted a public nuisance. Johnson & Johnson, ¶ 8, 499 P.3d at 723. We acknowledged that the opioid manufacturer's conduct annoyed, injured and endangered the comfort, repose, health, and safety of the public by contributing to the opioid epidemic. Id. ¶ 19, 499 P.3d at 725. Nevertheless, we declined to expand public nuisance liability to cover the opioid manufacturer's conduct because it was not criminal and did not involve property-based conflict. Id. “Applying the nuisance statutes to lawful products as the State requests would create unlimited and unprincipled liability for product manufacturers; this is why our Court has never applied public nuisance law to the manufacturing, marketing, and selling of lawful products.”” Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ok-supreme-court/116263433.html SHAE THE HISTORIAN is a newsletter for history lovers seeking to search the past, learn something new, and contribute to the archive of life. If you enjoyed this story, feel free to share it with someone. Stay curious, friends!
|
subota, 27. srpnja 2024.
Why Are They Being Denied Reparations?
Pretplati se na:
Objavi komentare (Atom)
-
Plus: Kicking off Pride Month with the new Goodnewspaper and more good news to celebrate! ...
-
Plus: A landmark ruling for new fossil fuel projects and more good news to celebrate! ...
-
And a job board for work in the food industry ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
Nema komentara:
Objavi komentar