In a quiet but significant move, the Lawton City Council approved a $4 million settlement in the federal civil rights case Jackson v. City of Lawton et al. (Case No. CIV-23-284-G) during their most recent meeting on June 24, 2025. The approval occurred immediately after returning from executive session, with no public discussion offered before or after the vote.
⚖️ What Is Jackson v. City of Lawton?
The case was filed by Kent Jackson, representing the estate of Israel Williams, a man who died while in custody at the Lawton City Jail. The complaint alleges deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, among other constitutional violations, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Williams, who was diabetic, was arrested in June 2021 and booked into jail, where he allegedly received inadequate medical care despite visible signs of distress. He later died after being transported to a local hospital. The suit named 16 defendants, including police officers, jail staff, medical contractors, and city leadership.
⚖️ About the Case
The case, filed in the Western District of Oklahoma under Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, alleged civil rights violations by the City of Lawton and its personnel. Section 1983 allows individuals to sue state or local officials for violating constitutional rights — a powerful yet difficult legal avenue. To succeed, plaintiffs must overcome both qualified immunity, and sovereign immunity.
Settlements of this size in civil rights cases are rare in Oklahoma and typically signal serious claims or legal vulnerabilities.
📚 Understanding Section 1983, Sovereign & Qualified Immunity
42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a federal statute that allows individuals to sue state and local officials for violating constitutional rights under color of law. These cases are rarely successful, due in large part to legal protections like:
- Qualified immunity, which shields public officials unless they violate “clearly established” law.
- Sovereign immunity, which protects government entities from lawsuits unless the plaintiff can prove the violation stems from an official policy, practice, or custom.
Despite these legal hurdles, Jackson v. City of Lawton survived several attempts by the defense to dismiss it early. That the case reached the settlement stage — and was resolved with a multi-million dollar payout — suggests the plaintiff’s claims carried significant legal weight.
🏛️ Executive Session and the Vote
The settlement vote followed an executive session item listed as:
Addendum Agenda – Executive Item #3:
“CIV-23-284-G, Jackson v. City of Lawton et al., discussion and possible action.”
After the council returned from executive session, the following was stated publicly and captured on video:
- Motion to settle the case for $4 million.
- Funds to be drawn from the City’s sinking fund.
- No comment or discussion offered.
- Approved by an 7–0 vote.
📺 Watch the moment here (YouTube – starts at 5:16:00)
🧾 Public Funds, Public Transparency
The Oklahoma Open Records Act (51 O.S. § 24A.2):
“The people are vested with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their government.”
With no public discussion offered before or after the vote — and with the item discussed solely in executive session — this large financial decision was made with no on-the-record discussion.
City Council declined to make any public statement about the case during the meeting, beyond reading the motion and approving it.