U.S. Supreme Court expands state power over tribes in win for Oklahoma (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-expands-state-power-over-tribes-win-oklahoma-2022-06-29/)


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.

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.

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.

This SCOTUS is shaping up to be the wrongest one in US history. :eek: :rolleyes: :icon_evil :dontgetit

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 ..

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

So you mean like churches?

So you mean like churches?

Native American tribes aren't non-profit entities.

Native American tribes aren't non-profit entities.
And churches are? Lol I guess I don’t understand enough about financing and capitalism

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?

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.

I think tribes spend money on infrastructure and social services within their tribal boundaries and for their members. Sounds like an operating government.

^^^ yep my thoughts exactly

I mean you’re right but were they adequately prepared for this ruling?

For McGirt? Not at all. Not even close. There has been some nutso stuff happening in Indian Country. In the triple homicide involving former OKC attorney Keegan Harroz, the "Provisional State of Sequoyah" had their "Assistant Solicitor General" file an Entry of Appearance and a Brief (now sealed because it's nonsense) seeking to argue that the Muskogee Tribe had the sole jurisdiction to prosecute this case and that it was improperly filed. I went down that rabbit hole and just read some of this guy's briefs.

https://www.oscn.net/dockets/Results.aspx?db=all&number=&lname=Tay&fname=Paul&mname=&DoBMin=&DoBMax=&partytype=&apct=&dcct=&FiledDateL=&FiledDateH=&ClosedDateL=&ClosedDateH=&iLC=&iLCType=&iYear=&iNumber=&citation=

When he's not doing things which get him placed into custody for kidnapping and rape by instrumentation, he's filing ridiculous pleadings in cases he has nothing to do with.

The State of Sequoyah has an active FB page, and I guess they think they're doing something over there. This ruling sure took the wind out of their sails I'd think.

So no, I don't think a Court who has never heard a murder case is equipped to handle a triple homicide capital case. Oklahoma and her counties have been doing it for ~131 years and this case is going to be an undertaking even for Okmulgee County.

McGirt essentially made Oklahoma not a State anymore and it allowed tribes to have jurisdiction of non-citizens when we haven't done that in 100+ years. The tribal nations certainly didn't think they had those powers until 130+ years after they lost those powers, a creative attorney made a creative defense for a client and he won.

I think tribes spend money on infrastructure and social services within their tribal boundaries and for their members. Sounds like an operating government.

There are a lot of ways they're not operating governments. They depend on the State and U.S. government for a great deal. I'm glad that they're turning things around for a lot of their citizens, but going on as if they could one day decide I need to present my passport at a border is not realistic talk. They are a political classification whose existence depends on the U.S. Congress.

I assume this doesn’t apply to the reservation in Osage county? Just the Indian Nations that share a physical domain with the state of Oklahoma? If so I can understand this ruling. If not and it also applies to the reservation then to me it seems like a bad decision based on what I know of our early history and the additional sovereignty that reservations were intended to have.

There are a lot of ways they're not operating governments. They depend on the State and U.S. government for a great deal. I'm glad that they're turning things around for a lot of their citizens, but going on as if they could one day decide I need to present my passport at a border is not realistic talk. They are a political classification whose existence depends on the U.S. Congress.

Thanks for the explanatory posts...

For McGirt? Not at all. Not even close. There has been some nutso stuff happening in Indian Country. In the triple homicide involving former OKC attorney Keegan Harroz, the "Provisional State of Sequoyah" had their "Assistant Solicitor General" file an Entry of Appearance and a Brief (now sealed because it's nonsense) seeking to argue that the Muskogee Tribe had the sole jurisdiction to prosecute this case and that it was improperly filed. I went down that rabbit hole and just read some of this guy's briefs.

https://www.oscn.net/dockets/Results.aspx?db=all&number=&lname=Tay&fname=Paul&mname=&DoBMin=&DoBMax=&partytype=&apct=&dcct=&FiledDateL=&FiledDateH=&ClosedDateL=&ClosedDateH=&iLC=&iLCType=&iYear=&iNumber=&citation=

When he's not doing things which get him placed into custody for kidnapping and rape by instrumentation, he's filing ridiculous pleadings in cases he has nothing to do with.

The State of Sequoyah has an active FB page, and I guess they think they're doing something over there. This ruling sure took the wind out of their sails I'd think.

So no, I don't think a Court who has never heard a murder case is equipped to handle a triple homicide capital case. Oklahoma and her counties have been doing it for ~131 years and this case is going to be an undertaking even for Okmulgee County.

McGirt essentially made Oklahoma not a State anymore and it allowed tribes to have jurisdiction of non-citizens when we haven't done that in 100+ years. The tribal nations certainly didn't think they had those powers until 130+ years after they lost those powers, a creative attorney made a creative defense for a client and he won.

My takeaway from your comment is that you don't agree with McGirt, and you don't agree with tribal sovereignty?

Looks to me that McGirt is in federal prison, rather that state?

Not sure where you are going with the State of Sequoyah stuff. Appears you think someone who made a filing in the Harroz case is a criminal and sex offender? Also, was the filing dismissed or disregarded?

Regardless, I think the Harroz case is going ahead in state, or federal court? And nothing in McGirt placed justice in this case at risk?

I really agree that no dude should tell me how to think.

My takeaway from your comment is that you don't agree with McGirt, and you don't agree with tribal sovereignty?

I believe in concurrent sovereignty. I do not think tribes should have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters concerning non-members. It sounds good in theory, but I've practiced in tribal courts and have come away from the experiences with a less optimistic outlook. I think over time, improvement would be made, but what's the point when we have counties which have been doing these things since 1907 and before?

Really disappointed in this Supreme Court. Not only does their decision continue a tradition of ignoring tribal sovereignty, but they bought into Stitt’s made up BS about crime. These justices aren’t even basing their decisions on laws and facts anymore, but a lot of their conservative political ideology. Even Gorsuch—who has a lot of experience on this topic—said their argument ignored law. Here’s a good summary from Oklahoman Indigenous reporters: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/scotus-oklahoma-castro-huerta-inaccurate-prosecution-data/629674/

^The Gorsuch dissent is pretty darn fiery.

^The Gorsuch dissent is pretty darn fiery.

Agreed. That man was not pleased.

That’s because he’s actually familiar with tribal laws and sovereignty. He argued in McGirt that the courts have basically just been ignoring law to undermine tribal sovereignty and treaty rights. Then the court turns around and just makes up stuff to start cutting holes in McGirt without sound legal justifications.

That’s because he’s actually familiar with tribal laws and sovereignty. He argued in McGirt that the courts have basically just been ignoring law to undermine tribal sovereignty and treaty rights. Then the court turns around and just makes up stuff to start cutting holes in McGirt without sound legal justifications.

SCOTUS has done that in numerous recent decisions, sadly.

Was this an attempt to keep women from fleeing to Reservations to get abortions?

Was this an attempt to keep women from fleeing to Reservations to get abortions?

Don't know, but tribes should have the right to offer abortion services to female members in response to the Oklahoma abortion ban.