Sharp v. Murphy
The Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit's ruling in favor of Patrick Murphy, a Creek Nation member on death row in Oklahoma, in a one-sentence companion opinion that rests entirely on the same day's blockbuster ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma.
McGirt held that a large swath of eastern Oklahoma remains a Native American reservation, stripping the State of jurisdiction to prosecute tribal members for crimes committed there — and this case carries that same result for Murphy's murder conviction.
“The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is affirmed for the reasons stated in McGirt v. Oklahoma, ante, p. ___.”
The Court's entire ruling, deferring to its same-day decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma.
How it got here: The Tenth Circuit ruled for Murphy, finding Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction; the State's interim warden petitioned the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Patrick Murphy, a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, was convicted of murder in Oklahoma state court and sentenced to death. He argued that Oklahoma never had the authority to prosecute him because the crime occurred within the boundaries of the Creek Nation reservation — land that, if still a reservation under federal law, falls under federal rather than state criminal jurisdiction. The Tenth Circuit agreed and ruled in Murphy's favor.
The question before the Court
Does a Creek Nation member convicted of murder in Oklahoma state court have the right to challenge that conviction on the ground that Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction because the crime occurred on Indian land?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Tenth Circuit's ruling in Murphy's favor is affirmed. Because the Court held in the companion case McGirt v. Oklahoma, decided the same day, that the Creek Nation's reservation in eastern Oklahoma was never formally dissolved by Congress, the State of Oklahoma lacked the authority under federal law to prosecute Murphy for a crime committed within that reservation. Oklahoma's jurisdiction over tribal-member defendants for crimes on reservation land belongs to federal courts, not the State.
The Court's entire reasoning is contained in McGirt and is incorporated here by reference. This one-sentence order carries the same practical consequence: Murphy's state murder conviction cannot stand as a matter of federal law governing criminal jurisdiction over Indian country.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Murphy's Oklahoma state murder conviction and death sentence are effectively undone because Oklahoma lacked the authority to prosecute him in the first place. His case, along with McGirt, signals that thousands of past and future Oklahoma state criminal prosecutions involving tribal members in eastern Oklahoma may be subject to challenge in federal court.
What changes now
Murphy's conviction and death sentence are vacated, and any retrial would have to take place in federal court rather than Oklahoma state court. The ruling is final on the jurisdictional question, though further proceedings on the underlying charges are possible in federal court. The broader implications — for other state convictions involving tribal members in eastern Oklahoma — will play out in individual cases going forward.
What this does not decide
This order contains no independent reasoning and decides nothing beyond what McGirt v. Oklahoma decided. It does not address what happens to other past state convictions, whether Oklahoma can seek federal prosecution of Murphy, or any question about tribal sovereignty outside the Creek Nation reservation's boundaries.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Thomas
Justices Thomas and Alito noted their dissent without filing a written opinion in this case. Their objections to the underlying ruling are expressed in the dissent filed in the companion case, McGirt v. Oklahoma.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court resolved this case entirely by reference to its companion ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma, decided the same day. All legal reasoning behind the outcome appears in McGirt, not in this brief per curiam order.
- In McGirt, the Court held that Congress never formally dissolved the Creek Nation's reservation in eastern Oklahoma, meaning the land retains its reservation status for purposes of federal criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against tribal members.
- Because Murphy is a Creek Nation member who committed his crime within that reservation, Oklahoma was not the proper authority to prosecute him — federal law reserved that power for federal courts — and his state conviction cannot stand.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms McGirt v. Oklahoma
The Court applies McGirt's holding that the Creek Nation reservation remains intact, affirming the Tenth Circuit for the same reasons.