Survivors of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre filed a lawsuit, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court dismissed it on Wednesday, dashing advocates for racial justice’s hopes that the city would make financial reparations for one of the worst single acts of violence against black people in American history, which killed up to 300 people and destroyed a once-thriving district.
The nine-member court upheld a district court judge’s judgment in Tulsa last year, holding that the plaintiff’s objections about the destruction of the Greenwood district, while reasonable, did not fall under the state’s public nuisance legislation.
Related posts
“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 judge stated in his ruling. We hold today that no set of facts consistent with the plaintiff’s allegations could allow for relief.
Damario Solomon-Simmons, the survivors’ attorney, did not return messages left Wednesday.
In a statement, the city stated 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,” and that it remains dedicated “to working with residents and providing resources to support” the communities.
The lawsuit sought to compel the city of Tulsa and others to compensate for the destruction of the once-thriving black area by a white mob. On May 31 and June 1, 1921, a white mob robbed and burned the section known as Black Wall Street, with some people hurriedly deputized by officials.
The National Guard monitored internment camps for thousands of survivors, while up to 300 black Tulsans lost their lives. Burned bricks and a portion of a church basement are all that remain of the historically black district, which spans over 30 blocks.
Lessie Benningfield Randle and Viola Fletcher, two survivors of the attack who are now over 100 years old, filed a lawsuit in 2020 in the hopes of seeing what their attorney called “justice in their lifetime.” Hughes Van Ellis, the third plaintiff, died last year at the age of 102.
The court also determined that the plaintiffs’ claims, which typically only apply to contractual ties, lacked sufficient support for an unjust enrichment claim.
Other defendants in the case were the Tulsa Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Tulsa County Commissioners, the Tulsa County Sheriff, and the Oklahoma Military Department.
Oklahoma’s public nuisance legislation filed the case, asserting that the white mob’s actions still cause harm to the city today. The slaughter, it claimed, was the cause of Tulsa’s long history of racial separation and conflict.
The city and insurance companies never reimbursed victims for their losses, and the slaughter resulted in racial and economic imbalances that continue to this day, according to the lawsuit. It demanded, among other things, a full accounting of the property and riches lost or taken during the massacre, the construction of a hospital in north Tulsa, and the establishment of a victims compensation fund.
Local issues like derelict dwellings, illegal drug sales, and harmful animals often trigger public nuisance claims. States used these claims in lawsuits against tobacco corporations and opioid medicine manufacturers in the 1990s, but many of these cases ended in settlements instead of trials.
In 2019, Oklahoma’s attorney general invoked the public nuisance law to order Johnson & Johnson to pay the state $465 million in damages. Two years later, the Oklahoma Supreme Court overturned its ruling.
