Supreme Court Oklahoma Decision

[GreyhoundFan]

It's been a busy news day. I don't know if anyone else saw this: "Supreme Court says much of eastern Oklahoma remains Indian land"

Quote

The Supreme Court said Thursday that a large swath of eastern Oklahoma remains an American Indian reservation, a decision with implications for nearly 2 million residents and a victory for tribal rights.

The land at issue contains much of Tulsa, the state’s second-largest city. The question for the court was whether Congress officially eliminated the Creek Nation reservation when Oklahoma became a state in 1907.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the court said that Congress “has not said otherwise” and that the land promised to the Creek Nation is still a reservation.

“If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so. Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law,” wrote Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who was joined by the court’s liberal justices.

“To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right.”

For Oklahoma’s criminal-justice system, the ruling means that federal officers, not state officials, have the authority to prosecute major crimes committed by tribal members. Less certain is how the decision affects the authority of state and city leaders when it comes to imposing taxes, zoning laws and other regulations.

Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter and leaders of five tribal groups issued a joint statement after the ruling indicating they have made “substantial progress toward an agreement” to submit to Congress and the Justice Department that would put in place a “framework of shared jurisdiction.”

“We have a shared commitment to maintaining public safety and long-term economic prosperity for the Nations and Oklahoma,” according to the statement from Hunter and the Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole nations.

Lawmakers in Washington would have to pass legislation, for instance, for state officials to continue prosecuting crimes involving tribal members in the area affected by the court’s ruling.

The case was brought by Jimcy McGirt, who was convicted in state court of molesting a child. Because the crime occurred on the land in question, McGirt said that state courts have no jurisdiction and that the federal government would have to prosecute.

Oklahoma and the federal government contended that laws passed between 1890 and 1907 gave the state jurisdiction over the land. The state said that there are thousands of similar cases and that a ruling in favor of McGirt would not only throw the criminal-justice system in turmoil but also disrupt taxing powers and other municipal jurisdictions.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. agreed, warning in his dissent Thursday that the state’s ability to prosecute crimes “will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out.”

“On top of that, the Court has profoundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma. The decision today creates significant uncertainty for the State’s continuing authority over any area that touches Indian affairs,” wrote Roberts, who was joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Brett M. Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas.

The court also resolved a second similar case argued last term. In that case, Gorsuch recused himself because he had participated in it as a judge on the appeals court in Colorado. Apparently deadlocked, the justices took the new case and Thursday overturned the state convictions of both McGirt and Patrick Murphy.

The majority held that only Congress, not the court, has the authority to modify treaty agreements and change reservation boundaries.

“The opinion is a strong, clear and important statement that limits the court’s role in diminishing tribal rights,” said Sarah Krakoff, a professor of American Indian law at the University of Colorado’s law school.

The decision, she said, “reflects the better aspects of what is otherwise an incredibly fraught and negative history for tribes in this country.”

At oral argument in May, Gorsuch, who in the past has shown a keen interest in Native American law, questioned the “parade of horribles” that the state advanced.

Ian H. Gershengorn, McGirt’s attorney, said in a statement Thursday that the court’s ruling reaffirmed that “when the United States makes promises, the courts will keep those promises.”

“Congress persuaded the Creek Nation to walk the Trail of Tears with promises of a reservation — and the Court today correctly recognized that this reservation endures.”

The case is McGirt v. Oklahoma.

 

I'm surprised Twitler hasn't started screaming about trying to fire Gorsuch.

Predictably, Ted Cruz responded in a stupid and hyperbolic fashion: