Gorsuch called Wednesday`s decision “a bleak result for different tribes in different states,” but said its impact could still be limited by individual treaties and laws passed by Congress. For example, in 1832, in Worcester v. Georgia, the Court ruled that the “laws of Georgia cannot have force” on the territory of the Cherokee Nation – although the Court somewhat reversed this rule in the 1960s and 1970s. Stitt has previously clashed with tribal leaders over his desire to renegotiate tribal gaming contracts, which he says are expiring. Federal and state courts have ruled against Stitt in the gambling dispute. Wednesday`s decision affects Oklahoma and could be extended to other states. About 20 states that have tribal reservations could seek new authority to exercise criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Native Americans against Native Americans on Native American lands. Under McGirt, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation can now exercise criminal, civil, regulatory, tax and judicial jurisdiction — as defined by tribal and federal laws — over more than three million acres in Oklahoma, where state jurisdiction will now be limited. In addition, other Native American nations in Oklahoma may exercise similar governmental authority over their newly recognized reservations.
In 1959, in Williams v. Lee, the Court ruled that Indian nations and their citizens have the power and right to “make their own laws and be governed by them.” Then, in 1973, the court ruled that a state cannot levy its income tax on a tribal citizen who lived on a reservation and worked in McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments to decide the scope of its landmark decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma – but not to cancel it. What is taken into account is a question of competence. After the broadcast, the Oklahoma Cherokee Nation Twitter account sent Stitt an indirect message. McGirt is particularly important given the impact and impact that has already occurred and will result. Before Wednesday`s arguments, we look at what happened after the 2020 decision and why the state of Oklahoma resisted the court`s initial decision.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court`s Liberal bloc on Wednesday, as he did in 2020, in favor of Native American interests, but his expanded conservative majority meant he was in the minority this time. The majority rejected Oklahoma`s arguments and the Solem Step Two and Three Dissent and found that these arguments were irrelevant because the legal wording clearly did not refute the reservation. The Court implemented the promises of the U.S. Treaty and ruled that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation had never been dissolved. “At the other end of the path of tears, there was a promise,” he wrote, joined by the liberal wing of the court, then composed of four members. “Forced to leave its ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation was assured that its new lands would be forever safe in the West. For example, a few days after the McGirt decision, Oklahoma`s attorney general and five major Oklahoma tribes announced that they had reached an agreement in principle on the future of criminal and civil cases. But after the decision, at least three of these Indian nations rejected the interim agreement in principle. Instead, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation chose to defend its newly recognized reservation and the legal authority that accompanied McGirt`s recognition. “To be clear, the Court today concludes that Indian lands on the territory of a state are part of a state, not separate from a state,” Kavanaugh wrote in a decision that Native American law scholars called a major departure from longstanding precedents. In his motion for review, Mr.
O`Connor asked the Supreme Court to address two issues: the question of prosecuting non-Indians and whether McGirt should be overturned. However, McGirt Court explicitly ignored the last two stages of the Solem test. Applying a textualist approach, Justice Gorsuch began and concluded his analysis by examining the explicit language of relevant congressional legislation. The majority found no explicit or clear statement from Congress that it intended to dissolve the Creek reservation. In fact, as Justice Gorsuch concluded, the opposite is true, and the relevant legislation shows that Congress has no intention of changing the boundaries of the reservation. While tribal lawyers argue the law is clear, Oklahoma`s attorney general, governor and many conservative lawmakers say the McGirt decision has caused a crisis in Oklahoma where criminals go unpunished following the court`s decision. Now that McGirt recognizes that so much land is properly Native American land, the Supreme Court`s precedent means that Oklahoma and its Native American nations and peoples will have to negotiate and resolve many legal issues, or will have to advocate and legislate on those issues in the decades to come. But Chuck Hoskin Jr., the chief of the Cherokee Nation, said that unlike previous governors, Stitt was not willing to work with the tribes. Justice Gorsuch noted that the decision applies only to the Creek in this case because “the tribe`s contracts must be reviewed on their own terms, and the only issue before us is Creek.” REPUTATION: What McGirt v. SCOTUS` Oklahoma means for Native tribes “The state`s interest in protecting victims of crime includes both Indian and non-Native American victims,” Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court. “His final conviction is his last,” Hill said.
“You can`t challenge that with McGirt`s Law.” In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court in McGirt v. Oklahoma ruled that for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act (MCA), 3 million acres, including most of the city of Tulsa, is a Creek reservation. Chuck Hoskin, chief of the Cherokee Nation, said this latest call from Oklahoma`s governor is another attempt to undermine tribal sovereignty, which is made “neither with the facts nor the law on its side.” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority that the boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Reservation – as defined in the Creek Nation`s 1866 Treaty with the United States – remain intact. Overnight, it was recognized that the Creek Reserve covers more than 3 million acres. More than 1.8 million Oklahomans discovered they lived on an Indian reservation, including 400,000 people in Tulsa. The entire region is now legally “Indian Country”. But on Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the state also has the power to prosecute him. The tribes welcomed the McGirt decision as an acknowledgement of their sovereignty. The Supreme Court rejected Oklahoma`s request in January to repeal it entirely. Justice Gorsuch, who normally belongs to the court`s most conservative bloc, instead voted with the court`s three liberals.