Sara E. Hill: Cherokee Embarrassment

Editorial Analysis: President Joe Biden’s nominee for the vacant federal judgeship in the Northern District of Oklahoma endorsed by OK Senators James Lankford and Markwayne Mullin has managed to humiliate Oklahoma supporters, the Cherokee tribe, and her profession during her testimony to Congress.

As she was interviewed by Sen. John Kennedy, (R-La.) during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Sara E. Hill appeared ignorant of basic legal and Constitutional terms.

According to, When Kennedy asked Hill the difference between a “stay” order and an “injunction” order — two orders frequently issued by federal courts — Hill stumbled through her answers.

“A stay order would prohibit, um, sorry. An injunction would restrain the parties from taking action. A stay order … I’m not sure I can, actually can, can give you that,” she said.

An injunction is an order from the court that prohibits a party in a case from performing or ordering a specified act as the case continues, either temporarily or permanently, sometimes referred to as a temporary restraining order.

A stay order is issued to stop the legal proceedings of a case in court Fox reported, further quoting Carrie Severino, constitutional lawyer and president of the Judicial Crisis Network from Severino’s X (formerly Twitter) saying, “How can an individual who wants to be a federal judge possibly not know this?” Severino also exclaimed, “This is not a trick question.” Click here for more from Fox.

In a story on, Editor Patrick B. McGuigan October 19 quoted several concerns of Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt on the nomination of Hill including that she is a longtime tribal government employee, most significantly as attorney general for the Cherokee Nation. Click here for that story.

Tribal Member or not, would you want a judge to rule on any case when they don’t know the definitions and or impact of Constitutional proceedings?

McGuigan wrote, “A review of her record points to involvement in the crafting of court filings in three significant set of issues involving Indian Country in Oklahoma — the 2020 McGirt v. Oklahoma case and its aftermath, the somewhat clarifying Castro-Huerta case, as well as the Hooper and Stroble cases.

“The cases, taken together, touch most of the significant questions concern McGirt and its aftermath — including reservation status, criminal justice jurisdiction, issues of tribal and non-tribal treatment of persons residing within “Indian Country” (beyond the definition of reservations and jurisdictional areas) and taxation, among other civil matters,” McGuigan added.

Gov. Stitt released a statement saying, “I have serious concerns about President Biden’s nomination of longtime tribal government Attorney Sara Hill to be a federal judge in Oklahoma. Why would President Biden nominate someone to the federal bench who has little, if any, experience as lead counsel in federal litigation? Furthermore, is the best choice an attorney general of a tribal government who has spent a great deal of time and resources actively suing the State of Oklahoma in an effort to overturn 116 years of Statehood and working to strip the state of our authority to enforce laws.

“We already know where she stands on important questions facing our state as to who has jurisdiction to write speeding tickets and whether members of her tribe should be exempt from paying taxes that fund schools and roads? It raises many questions as to whether this appointment is based on qualification or on a broader political agenda of the Biden administration to turn half our state into several federally managed reservations” the statement concludes.

Consider carefully. Could every person living in these newfound “reservations” be subject to tribal law in family, civil and criminal courts? What about enforcement? Will tribal politics, with a majority of voters living outside of Oklahoma, direct our liberty and ability to conduct all enterprise? Do they really want to end Oklahoma as we know it?

In one significant example, OK2A opposes Sara Hill because she has supported Red Flag legislation to remove firearms without “Due Process” in the Cherokee Nation.

Added to this public record The Federalist reporter Evita Duffy-Alfonso November 17 wrote “Oklahoma district judge nominee Sara Hill apparently lied about her previous pledge to ignore state abortion laws on Cherokee Nation land following the historic Dobbs v. Jackson ruling.

“During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, asked Hill whether she had said that she “had no intent to enforce the law post-Dobbs.” Hill responded by claiming she “never said that.” However, video footage from her time as attorney general demonstrates otherwise,” Duffy-Alfonso continued. Click here for more from The Federalist.

From X users, The Federalist quotes political commentator Carl Jackson on the exchange with Sen. Kennedy, ““By the end of the first year of law school there wasn’t a student in the class that couldn’t answer that with ease.” Another X user said, “Did Sara Hill get her law degree from a Cracker Jack box? Or was it simply Woke University No Education School of Law?”

Oklahoma does have issues with the current State Court System, Human Services and the administration of justice, but to appoint a demonstrated incompetent Federal Judge is not going to help anyone.

Oklahomans would be wise to oppose this nomination and demand both Senators Lankford and Mullin retract their support of this nomination. There are other tribal attorneys that could serve honorably on the Federal bench after issues of jurisdiction in the State of Oklahoma are settled.

Sara E. Hill, President Biden’s nominee for a vacant judgeship in the Northern District of Oklahoma

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *