McGirt v Oklahoma

[Pete]

U.S. Supreme Court expands state power over tribes in win for Oklahoma

WASHINGTON, June 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday widened the power of states over Native American tribes and undercut its own 2020 ruling that had expanded Native American tribal authority in Oklahoma, handing a victory to Republican officials in that state.

The court ruled 5-4 in favor of Oklahoma over the state's attempt to prosecute Victor Castro-Huerta, a non-Native American convicted of child neglect in a crime committed against a Native American child - his 5-year-old stepdaughter - on the Cherokee Nation reservation.

[okatty]

Big ruling today by SCOTUS. 5-4 ruling in Castro-Huerta — which allows states to exercise criminal jurisdiction over many (if not most) crimes committed by non-Native Americans on tribal lands.

[Plutonic Panda]

Well that just sucks. Huge loss for the tribes. Biden mentioned it in a tweet and said he is looking to take congressional action. Hopefully in the future this leads to an even bigger control the tribes get in their jurisdiction than the original ruling gave.

[TheTravellers]

This SCOTUS is shaping up to be the wrongest one in US history.

[BoulderSooner]

Well that just sucks. Huge loss for the tribes. Biden mentioned it in a tweet and said he is looking to take congressional action. Hopefully in the future this leads to an even bigger control the tribes get in their jurisdiction than the original ruling gave.

i guess i don't understand why this "sucks" this is a huge win for the state of Oklahoma .. a 5-4 vote the other way would have continued down the road of half the state effectively not being Oklahoma ..

[Midtowner]

I'm not sure why it is bad either. McGirt was causing murderers to potentially walk free. The volume expected to be prosecuted by the federal court in the Eastern District and Northern District was not realistic. And the tribes were looking to contradict state law, for example, by opening up tribal abortion clinics claiming sovereignty from prosecution. Agree or disagree with the state's abortion laws, the power of the State to enact and enforce laws and have its own sovereignty was at stake.

[HangryHippo]

I'm not sure why it is bad either. McGirt was causing murderers to potentially walk free. The volume expected to be prosecuted by the federal court in the Eastern District and Northern District was not realistic. And the tribes were looking to contradict state law, for example, by opening up tribal abortion clinics claiming sovereignty from prosecution. Agree or disagree with the state's abortion laws, the power of the State to enact and enforce laws and have its own sovereignty was at stake.

They’d just apply to the parts of OK that aren’t sovereign tribal nations, no?

[Zuplar]

I too think this is a positive ruling for the state. This should help with some of the issues caused by the Mcgirt decision.

[Dob Hooligan]

I think everything would work out just fine if there were dialogue and cooperation. Every party involved is a justice loving American institution. Things might look different, but the US criminal system tries and convicts people all the time. I fail to see how some issue in Oklahoma is too big for all the power of the United States of America to solve.

[TheTravellers]

I usually do research on my own for stuff like this, but don't really have time now to delve into this. If a tribal nation is sovereign and their lands are their own, how does it work so that the US (and now OK) can go in and do things on their land? Treaties, agreements, etc.? Wouldn't that be like the US going into Canada and doing things on their land? I haven't paid much attention to how it all works, so if somebody can put a link here or explain how it works, I (and others too, most likely) would appreciate it.

[Midtowner]

They’d just apply to the parts of OK that aren’t sovereign tribal nations, no?

Right, but those parts of OK are also in Oklahoma and now subject to Oklahoma's jurisdiction again. The State should be able to pass laws and enforce them within its own borders. With this "sovereignty" thing, you had potential situations where non-Indians could be prosecuted by tribal courts. In Oklahoma, we elect the judges that hear our criminal cases. The judges hearing these tribal cases are either federal judges who are unelected prosecuted by AUSAs who are unelected, or tribal courts which would be elected by tribal citizens where you would have to expect the court to be biased towards native interests.

And within the area covered by McGirt, we had 2 million citizens, most of whom were non-Native and 43% of the state's land. Tribes were talking about not having to pay ad valorem taxes or charge sales tax on their lands. This is a big pushback on that.

[Midtowner]

I usually do research on my own for stuff like this, but don't really have time now to delve into this. If a tribal nation is sovereign and their lands are their own, how does it work so that the US (and now OK) can go in and do things on their land? Treaties, agreements, etc.? Wouldn't that be like the US going into Canada and doing things on their land? I haven't paid much attention to how it all works, so if somebody can put a link here or explain how it works, I (and others too, most likely) would appreciate it.

The ruling is that Oklahoma is still Oklahoma, and we have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by anyone, regardless of who is native within the State of Oklahoma. This is not like Oklahoma going to Canada as the tribes are not sovereign to the same extent that they could, for example, require passports for entry. Tribal lands are tribal, the government is at least sovereign to the point that they can't be sued, but tribal lands are still Oklahoma. I would imagine that would mean that if the Chickasaws wanted to open an abortion clinic at Winstar, Oklahoma couldn't sue the tribe, but they could prosecute everyone involved to the extent that they had criminal liability according to state law.

[Plutonic Panda]

Where is the proof that the increase of crime was directly tied to the McGirt decision and where is the proof that the tribes wouldn’t of been able to work out these issues on their own given the proper amount of time? I guess I just don’t see why it’s a bad thing to let tribes handle crimes committed on their lands by their own members. I guess we should just let a country that stole their land from them continue to have power over them why not

[Rover]

This political court is hell-bent on returning power to a select few regardless of historic wrongs and continuing prejudices. The conquering and controlling of people is part of the returning USA to the "good old days" that a certain sect is yearning for. Having to honor old contracts and treaties in this case is just not good business for the conquerors. The sect finally got enough politicians on the court to rule in their favor.

[Plutonic Panda]

It could have unintended consequences so it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out.

[onthestrip]

They’d just apply to the parts of OK that aren’t sovereign tribal nations, no?

Yes but literally the entire east half of the state was being considered as tribal according to McGirt. Oklahoma effectively would be nothing like we've known it for the last 100 years. Does this ruling just apply to only criminal matters? Will we still see some tribes and tribe members try to get out of paying state income tax? Thats one of the reasons I dont understand why people think todays ruling is bad for Oklahoma, unless it was just reactionary stuff that you had to do if you consider yourself a big progressive.

Where is the proof that the increase of crime was directly tied to the McGirt decision and where is the proof that the tribes wouldn’t of been able to work out these issues on their own given the proper amount of time? I guess I just don’t see why it’s a bad thing to let tribes handle crimes committed on their lands by their own members. I guess we should just let a country that stole their land from them continue to have power over them why not

Lots of instances of people purposefully targeting tribal members for petty crimes because they know they wont get prosecuted due to feds and tribes being overwhelmed or just not able to handle all these cases.

I get it if you were a tribe member but no reason typical Oklahomans should be upset at this.

[Dob Hooligan]

Yes but literally the entire east half of the state was being considered as tribal according to McGirt. Oklahoma effectively would be nothing like we've known it for the last 100 years. Does this ruling just apply to only criminal matters? Will we still see some tribes and tribe members try to get out of paying state income tax? Thats one of the reasons I dont understand why people think todays ruling is bad for Oklahoma, unless it was just reactionary stuff that you had to do if you consider yourself a big progressive.



Lots of instances of people purposefully targeting tribal members for petty crimes because they know they wont get prosecuted due to feds and tribes being overwhelmed or just not able to handle all these cases.

I get it if you were a tribe member but no reason typical Oklahomans should be upset at this.

Still. It would work its way out. It is impossible to think that the tribal justice system and the federal justice system cannot properly adjudicate criminal activity. Might take a cople years to get proper funding. But nobody wants criminals getting off scot free. Thant has to be a fear mongering fantasy.

[BoulderSooner]

Yes but literally the entire east half of the state was being considered as tribal according to McGirt. Oklahoma effectively would be nothing like we've known it for the last 100 years. Does this ruling just apply to only criminal matters? Will we still see some tribes and tribe members try to get out of paying state income tax? Thats one of the reasons I dont understand why people think todays ruling is bad for Oklahoma, unless it was just reactionary stuff that you had to do if you consider yourself a big progressive.



Lots of instances of people purposefully targeting tribal members for petty crimes because they know they wont get prosecuted due to feds and tribes being overwhelmed or just not able to handle all these cases.

I get it if you were a tribe member but no reason typical Oklahomans should be upset at this.

all of this

[Midtowner]

Where is the proof that the increase of crime was directly tied to the McGirt decision and where is the proof that the tribes wouldn’t of been able to work out these issues on their own given the proper amount of time? I guess I just don’t see why it’s a bad thing to let tribes handle crimes committed on their lands by their own members. I guess we should just let a country that stole their land from them continue to have power over them why not

The ruling did refer to only 1/4 of referrals from law enforcement to the tribal courts was being prosecuted, so that's not nothing.l

[chssooner]

Imagine the Tribes, getting to use state resources without paying state income taxes. That was where we were heading under McGirt. And we still may be heading there.

[PoliSciGuy]

So you mean like churches?

[mugofbeer]

So you mean like churches?

Native American tribes aren't non-profit entities.

[Plutonic Panda]

Native American tribes aren't non-profit entities.

And churches are? Lol I guess I don’t understand enough about financing and capitalism

[Plutonic Panda]

The ruling did refer to only 1/4 of referrals from law enforcement to the tribal courts was being prosecuted, so that's not nothing.l

I mean you’re right but were they adequately prepared for this ruling? That’s an honest question BTW because I don’t know. Did they have the proper time to prepare for that? Furthermore has the state even made a reasonable and respectable attempt at being an ally to the tribes and offering to cooperate with them in this? Because it seemed like the decision was handed down during a time where the state(not to get too political here given the recent OKCTalk rules) states governor has been questionable in regards to his interactions with the tribes?

[chssooner]

And churches are? Lol I guess I don’t understand enough about financing and capitalism

Churches don't set out to make a profit. They are supposed to use their excess funds to help missions and donate to causes they support, after paying their operating costs. Tribes set out to make a profit. And they don't donate the excess. But the main thing is, if they are federally tax-exempt, they are state tax-exempt.