It will be interesting to see what the outcomes of this will be.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/09/supreme-court-allows-native-american-jurisdiction-half-oklahoma/3208778001/

"WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the eastern half of Oklahoma can be considered Native American territory, a decision the state previously warned could create "civil, criminal and regulatory turmoil."

The 5-4 decision was written by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by the court's four liberal justices. The justices were considering the issue for the second time after failing to decide a different case last year, when Gorsuch was recused and the court likely deadlocked.

The case concerned an appeal from Jimcy McGirt, a Native American, who claimed his state rape conviction from 1997 should be overturned because Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction. Congress, his lawyer Ian Gershengorn said, never properly terminated the reservation.

More:1 in 3 American Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped, but survivors rarely find justice on tribal lands

During oral arguments in May, the justices reached back to 1907 to determine whether Congress, using imprecise language, failed to disestablish the 1866 boundaries of the reservation.

If so, virtually half of Oklahoma – home to 1.8 million residents and including Tulsa, where President Donald Trump recently held a controversial campaign rally amid a global pandemic – would remain Native American territory. That means Native Americans are subject to federal, not state, laws.

"In reaching our conclusion about what the law demands of us today, we do not pretend to foretell the future and we proceed well aware of the potential for cost and conflict around jurisdictional boundaries, especially ones that have gone unappreciated for so long," Gorsuch wrote in Thursday's decision. "But it is unclear why pessimism should rule the day. With the passage of time, Oklahoma and its Tribes have proven they can work successfully together as partners."

Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the earlier Oklahoma case, presumably because he was involved while serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.
"The federal government promised the (Muscogee Creek Nation) a reservation in perpetuity," Gorsuch wrote, adding that while Congress has "diminished" the sanctuary over time lawmakers had "never withdrawn the promised reservation."

"As a result, many of the arguments before us today follow a sadly familiar pattern. Yes, promises were made, but the price of keeping them has become too great, so now we should just cast a blind eye. We reject that thinking."

The state's solicitor general, Mithun Mansinghani, warned that could require the release of more than 1,700 inmates. That didn't sit well with several justices who feared a chaotic overhaul of long-decided criminal cases.

"What makes this case hard is that there have been hundreds, hundreds of prosecutions, some very heinous offenses of the state law. On your view, they would all become undone," Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Gershengorn.

"Won't (residents) be surprised to learn that they are living on a reservation and that they are now subject to laws imposed by a body that is not accountable to them in any way?" Associate Justice Samuel Alito asked.

In the earlier case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled the state lacked jurisdiction to prosecute a gruesome murder because it happened within 3 million acres belonging to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. The ruling threatened more than 19 million acres in eastern Oklahoma once inhabited by five Native American tribes.

Yet many Oklahoma public officials, including Republican Rep. Tom Cole and former Democratic Gov. Brad Henry, urged the justices to rule in favor of the Native American tribes whose sovereignty they said has been good for the state.

"In one area after another – taxation, gaming, motor vehicle registration, law enforcement, and water rights – the Nations’ sovereignty within their reservations and the state’s recognition of that sovereignty have provided the framework for the negotiation of inter-governmental agreements that benefit all Oklahomans," they said.

The Trump administration took the state's side, telling the justices that Congress long ago broke up the Creek Nation's lands, abolished its courts and set a timetable for the tribe's dissolution.

Last year, 10 states from Maine to Texas to Montana warned that the boundaries of tribal lands have jurisdictional consequences there as well. They said a decision in the tribe's favor "would be confusing and costly at best, and disastrous at worst," affecting health and energy policy, environmental regulation, economic development and taxes."

OK lawyers. What does this mean? Why wouldn't this now turn ownership of everything in the affected areas to the tribes - like the entire city of Tulsa, for example?

From what I understand they boxed it in and related it to the MCA (Major Crimes Act) only, so from what I've read (of course, IANAL) was that the only real consequence is that tribal members will need to be tried in Federal court, not state court now, for crimes committed on these lands.

https://mailchi.mp/naja.com/naja-reporting-guide-us-supreme-court-cases-mcgirt-v-oklahoma-sharp-v-murphy?e=8939db2a49


Past convictions of tribal citizens by the State of Oklahoma might be overturned; but the issue of when a new Supreme Court decision affects past criminal convictions is itself very complicated, so the effect on past convictions is uncertain. Moreover, a ruling that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation remains intact will not grant criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The Supreme Court case Oliphant v. Suquamish still limits tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit crimes in Indian Country. Federal law also still prevents tribes from exercising civil or regulatory jurisdiction over non-Indians in most circumstances. A ruling in this case will not change land ownership in Eastern Oklahoma.

OK lawyers. What does this mean? Why wouldn't this now turn ownership of everything in the affected areas to the tribes - like the entire city of Tulsa, for example?

nope but it will make it very very easy to open casinos any where in eastern oklahoma including down town tulsa

http://www.oag.ok.gov/state-muscogee-creek-cherokee-chickasaw-choctaw-and-seminole-nations-release-joint-statement-in-response-to-scotus-decision-in-mcgirt-case


OKLAHOMA CITY – The State of Oklahoma, Muscogee (Creek), Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole Nations released this joint statement today following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the McGirt v. Oklahoma case.

The State, the Muscogee (Creek), Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole Nations have made substantial progress toward an agreement to present to Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice addressing and resolving any significant jurisdictional issues raised by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma.

The Nations and the State are committed to ensuring that Jimcy McGirt, Patrick Murphy, and all other offenders face justice for the crimes for which they are accused. We have a shared commitment to maintaining public safety and long-term economic prosperity for the Nations and Oklahoma.

The Nations and the State are committed to implementing a framework of shared jurisdiction that will preserve sovereign interests and rights to self-government while affirming jurisdictional understandings, procedures, laws, and regulations that support public safety, our economy, and private property rights. We will continue our work, confident that we can accomplish more together than any of us could alone.

OK lawyers. What does this mean? Why wouldn't this now turn ownership of everything in the affected areas to the tribes - like the entire city of Tulsa, for example?

The Dawes Act pretty well handles individual surface and mineral ownership/rights. It might get more interesting when it comes to Federal or State lands or water rights (Sardis lake comes to mind) but that's just conjecture on my part.

From what I understand they boxed it in and related it to the MCA (Major Crimes Act) only, so from what I've read (of course, IANAL) was that the only real consequence is that tribal members will need to be tried in Federal court, not state court now, for crimes committed on these lands.

Does anyone know of any mechanism where the federal government would just accept the rulings of the state courts for past offenses and then things will be decided in federal court going forward?

This ruling tell Congress it needs to make a decision what is native territory quickly.



Also, I find it interesting that the article has this quote even though it had nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling. He is living rent free in their heads.

“If so, virtually half of Oklahoma – home to 1.8 million residents and including Tulsa, where President Donald Trump recently held a controversial campaign rally amid a global pandemic“

nope but it will make it very very easy to open casinos any where in eastern oklahoma including down town tulsa

The Creeks had already proposed doing this. Not sure what its current status is though.

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/muscogee-creek-nation-exploring-building-downtown-tulsa-hotel/article_8da06a0a-c170-55cb-9931-b6ef5ce1f3a8.html

Rebecca Nagle (Cherokee) out of Tahlequah did an incredible podcast on this case that every Oklahoman should listen to: https://crooked.com/podcast-series/this-land/

It's kind of disorienting to see the Supreme Court put in writing that the U.S. unconstitutionally violated treaties with sovereign nations, but I'm really happy for Indigenous citizens of the nations to win this case.

Just a few clarification points. stolen from twitter

Two points that all ntvs should keep in mind today:
(1) this opinion and case is about Muscogee Creek Nation, their treaty, and their lands and
(2) this opinion does not “return” lands - it is all about acknowledging existing jurisdiction.


Here is a link to the official creek nation boundaries

http://mcngis.com/images/stories/maps/MCN_JURISDICTION_2012_8.5X11rd.pdf

The ruling will also apply to The Seminole, Cherokee, Choctaw and Chickasaw, not just the Creek Nation. The exact same mechanisms and laws were used (or in this case improperly used) to disestablish the reservations for all five tribes.

It's pretty incredible for the U.S. Supreme Court to finally admit that the U.S. policy of just breaking treaties with sovereign Indigenous nations doesn't just make it legal or constitutional. I mean, we all knew the land was stolen (multiple times over), but there's a lot to digest actually seeing it in writing.

https://t.co/hVq97zjcWh?amp=1

Worth a read. Gorsuch did a fantastic job in his opinion.

https://t.co/hVq97zjcWh?amp=1

Worth a read. Gorsuch did a fantastic job in his opinion.
A long read, but worth the effort. Would have never thought Gorsuch would have written such an affirmation of Native Indian treaties. Wow.

A long read, but worth the effort. Would have never thought Gorsuch would have written such an affirmation of Native Indian treaties. Wow.

What’s even wilder is that Merrick Garland has, at times, taken the approach we saw in Today’s Dissent.

Just further proof that the men and women on the federal bench do a lot more than sit around eating fantail shrimp in their robes.

These folks actually like to reach the right result, based on the language found in the Text.

It is refreshing.

Rebecca Nagle (Cherokee) out of Tahlequah did an incredible podcast on this case that every Oklahoman should listen to: https://crooked.com/podcast-series/this-land/

It's kind of disorienting to see the Supreme Court put in writing that the U.S. unconstitutionally violated treaties with sovereign nations, but I'm really happy for Indigenous citizens of the nations to win this case.
Some of the information is very interesting, but Nagle is a little much in parts.

Could someone point me to a good map that reflects the tribal lands located within Oklahoma and their boundaries? I have a feeling as time goes on, it will be helpful to know which counties and cities/towns are tribal and those that are not. Thanks.

Could someone point me to a good map that reflects the tribal lands located within Oklahoma and their boundaries? I have a feeling as time goes on, it will be helpful to know which counties and cities/towns are tribal and those that are not. Thanks.

Here's a PDF: https://www.ok.gov/health2/documents/map_tribal_jurisdictions.pdf

Here's a PDF: https://www.ok.gov/health2/documents/map_tribal_jurisdictions.pdf

McGirt only impacts the Five Tribes.

McGirt only impacts the Five Tribes.

this is correct .. .just the Musogee creek Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole , and Chickasaw ..... from that map

Noticed recently that Google Maps now has the outlines of the Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole, Choctaw, and Chickasaw Nations within Oklahoma's borders. Don't believe they were there before.

Just wondering why this effects the 5 tribes but not other tribes in both eastern and western Oklahoma?

Just wondering why this effects the 5 tribes but not other tribes in both eastern and western Oklahoma?

read McGirt

It's compact between the tribes and the state, so no one has the authority to speak for all the tribes. The state will have to work that out with each of them individually where this ruling effects the law. It's no different from Florida signing an agreement with El Salvador (not that they legally can). But for the example, Florida does not speak for all of the US, nor can they force another state into an agreement.

It is a landmark case in that the control for tribespeople does go back to the tribe. HOWEVER, there is already a good history of the tribes and the state working together on things like this to protect victims/etc. So anyone that thought that tribespeople were free to commit crimes was just off their rocker. There's also still tribal law enforcement. As long as the tribes feel like things are being done equitable, we shouldn't see any issues.

I'm fairly certain that the tribes aren't going to want to invest in prisons, so at some level, they're going to have to make deals with the State because while in theory, native courts presiding over their own members' crimes is a fine idea, but I would imagine the tribes have other funding priorities. Still, we might see the tribes make compacts with one another to mutually share the burden with some centralized court. I've been to tribal court, and they're not exactly happenin' places.

I'm fairly certain that the tribes aren't going to want to invest in prisons, so at some level, they're going to have to make deals with the State because while in theory, native courts presiding over their own members' crimes is a fine idea, but I would imagine the tribes have other funding priorities. Still, we might see the tribes make compacts with one another to mutually share the burden with some centralized court. I've been to tribal court, and they're not exactly happenin' places.

For any serious crime (felony), the crime is tried in Federal Court and the prisons are Federal.

Cool. This stuff is so outside of my wheelhouse that I really don't pay attention.

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/watch-now-contentious-mcgirt-forum-ends-early-after-shout-down-from-audience/article_e78ebc92-e35a-11eb-b862-7f75a71f7ab1.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

Apparently Stitt thought it a good idea to invite only prosecutors. While he maintained they invited tribal reps, it appears that is a contentious explanation. The article made no mention either of members of the Defense Bar being on the panel. It appears it was another in a string of Stitt dumpster fires.

“Had an official invitation been extended to Muscogee Nation, we would have welcomed the opportunity to work with local officials to make this an informative and productive session. But that invitation never came,” Hill wrote in his statement released Tuesday afternoon. “Unfortunately, this has become a pattern of behavior.”


The Tulsa World reported earlier this month that Stitt’s office emailed attorneys general for the Cherokee, Choctaw and Muscogee nations on June 3 notifying them of plans for the event. But the tribes each said they did not receive a meaningful invitation, with Hill going so far as to say a meeting with Kunzweiler in May was unproductive.

Yeah I saw some videos of it. Stitt has really made some awful decisions when it comes to dealing with the tribes. Hopefully the next governor is able to work with tribes and regain their trust.

I couldn't read the TW story due to a paywall, but in case anyone is interested here's the invite that was sent (via email) back on June 3.


Good afternoon —

I’m writing today to invite you and your Chiefs to the McGirt v. Oklahoma: Community Impact Forum, a joint event with Steve Kunzweiler’s office and Marsy’s Law.

Planning is still in its early stages, but the date is set for July 13, 2021 from 6:00-8:00pm in Tulsa. Exact location TBD.

The event will feature victims, advocacy groups, district attorneys, local law enforcement, tribal leaders, U.S. attorneys, and representatives from our congressional delegation, as well as the Governor, to come together to help answer the questions we hear from those who have been affected by the McGirt decision: “Where do I go now? Who can I talk to? Who can help me?”

The event will include a presentation from Steve Kunzweiler and a speaking panel to take questions from the audience, as well as an opportunity for victims to get connected with advocacy groups and resources.

More details and a formal invitation will follow, but out of respect for all of your busy schedules, we wanted to ensure your Chiefs have ample heads up to reserve this date/time on your calendar. Their participation will be key.

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to myself, Heather Prater or Sally Van Schenck from Kunzweiler’s office CC’ed here.

Many thanks!

– Carly

From the nondoc article - https://nondoc.com/2021/07/14/mcgirt-v-oklahoma-community-impact-forum/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=NonDoc&utm_content=Forum%20ends%20early,%20Stitt%20aims%2 0to%20overturn%20McGirt%20ruling

I guess this wasn't "official" enough?

I couldn't read the TW story due to a paywall, but in case anyone is interested here's the invite that was sent (via email) back on June 3.



From the nondoc article - https://nondoc.com/2021/07/14/mcgirt-v-oklahoma-community-impact-forum/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=NonDoc&utm_content=Forum%20ends%20early,%20Stitt%20aims%2 0to%20overturn%20McGirt%20ruling

I guess this wasn't "official" enough?

I'd expect an official invitation would include not just the day and time (as printed above) but also the actual location as well... Also the text of that e-mail notes that "More details and a formal invitation will follow"... Seems kinda strange that the comms director would release this informal e-mail instead of the actual formal invitation.

I'd expect an official invitation would include not just the day and time (as printed above) but also the actual location as well... Also the text of that e-mail notes that "More details and a formal invitation will follow"... Seems kinda strange that the comms director would release this informal e-mail instead of the actual formal invitation.

Good point. This is more of a heads up, than a formal invite. I'm curious if they expected people to reply to that, and only moved forward with those responses?

It seems odd that the panel consisted entirely of State Prosecutors. No Defense Bar, no Tribal reps. I'm suspicious of after the fact explanations.
Stitt has a previous history of excluding people from meetings. It ain't his first rodeo.

Good point. This is more of a heads up, than a formal invite. I'm curious if they expected people to reply to that, and only moved forward with those responses?
I’m skeptical that any real effort was made to bring tribal leaders. Putting out a simple PR doesn’t mean much, IMO.

https://www.news9.com/story/6126bb1232f23b0c2018d21a/man-at-center-of-tribal-jurisdiction-ruling-sentenced-to-life-without-parole-in-federal-court-