McGirt v. Oklahoma

2020-07-09

Headline: The Court rules that land promised to the Creek Nation remains a federal Indian reservation, blocking Oklahoma from prosecuting many Native defendants and shifting major criminal cases to federal courts.

Holding: The Court held the lands Congress promised to the Creek Nation remain an Indian reservation for federal criminal law, so Oklahoma lacked authority to try an Indian for major crimes committed there and the state conviction was reversed.

Real World Impact:

Shifts major criminal prosecutions of Native defendants in northeastern Oklahoma to federal courts.
May void or reopen many past state convictions involving Native defendants.
Increases need for coordination among tribal, federal, and state law enforcement.

Topics: tribal land status, criminal prosecutions in Oklahoma, tribal sovereignty, Tulsa jurisdiction

Summary

Background

Jimcy McGirt is a man convicted in Oklahoma state court of serious sexual offenses. He argued his crimes took place on land the United States long ago promised to the Creek Nation, and therefore the federal government, not the State, had exclusive authority to try him under federal law. The Creek Nation joined to defend its treaty interests. Oklahoma courts rejected McGirt, but the federal Tenth Circuit reached the opposite outcome, and the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether those old treaties still create an Indian reservation for criminal law purposes.

Reasoning

The Court examined the treaties, statutes, and history and concluded Congress did in fact establish a reservation for the Creek. The majority explained that only Congress can disestablish a reservation and that later laws, allotment, or long-standing state practice did not clearly show Congress intended to end the reservation. Because the Major Crimes Act applies to crimes by Indians in "Indian country," the Court held that McGirt's offenses occurred on reservation land and that Oklahoma therefore lacked jurisdiction. The Court reversed the state-court judgment.

Real world impact

The ruling moves certain prosecutions of Native people in a large part of northeastern Oklahoma—including much of Tulsa—into federal or tribal courts. It applies only to specified major crimes by Indians; most state prosecutions of non-Indians will not be affected. The decision may prompt many jurisdictional and procedural challenges to past convictions and will likely require coordination among tribal, federal, and state authorities; Congress could still change the legal landscape.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices dissented. The Chief Justice argued that the statutes and the state's long practice show the reservation was disestablished at statehood and warned of major disruption to convictions and governance. Justice Thomas added that the Court lacked authority to review the state court decision because of an independent state procedural bar.