Supreme Court rules eastern half of Oklahoma is tribal land

The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Jimmy McGirt, a member of the Muscogee Nation who was convicted of raping a 4-year-old child in 1997. McGirt argued that the case should not have been in the jurisdiction of Oklahoma courts because the incident happened on tribal land. In most cases, crimes that take place on tribal land fall under the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

The state argued that ruling in favor of McGirt would result in “cleaving Oklahoma in half.” The state’s attorneys claimed that the Creek Nation’s historic territory is not a reservation and argued that siding with McGirt would be the “largest judicial abrogation of state sovereignty in American history.”

The Muscogee Nation acknowledged that it was not involved in the “genesis” of McGirt’s case, but the tribe told the court that the state’s argument left them feeling their reservation was “under direct attack.” The tribe said the state was “exaggerating” its claims about Oklahoma’s jurisdiction being cut in half, claiming the state had been overextending its reach since the 19th century.

“To the extent they hold any water, the State’s posited consequences stem from the fact that both executive branch and state officials actively sought to undermine Congress’s determination that the Nation’s government and territory would endure,” the tribe told the court.

Gorsuch wrote that the government must be held to its agreements even if it results in Oklahoma losing jurisdiction over significant portions of its land.

“Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law,” Gorsuch wrote. “Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.”

Gorsuch said the land has been reserved for the tribe since the 19th century and that it must remain “Indian country.”

“Under our Constitution, States have no authority to reduce federal reservations lying within their borders. Just imagine if they did,” Gorsuch wrote. “A State could encroach on the tribal boundaries or legal rights Congress provided, and, with enough time and patience, nullify the promises made in the name of the United States. That would be at odds with the Constitution, which entrusts Congress with the authority to regulate commerce with Native Americans, and directs that federal treaties and statutes are the ‘supreme Law of the Land.'”

Gorsuch said that states are the “very neighbors who might be least inclined to respect” tribal authority and maintained that federal agreements must not be bent to the whims of each state.

In the dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the ruling would give tribal courts authority of land that includes the city of Tulsa and a population of mostly non-native people.

“Not only does the Court discover a Creek reservation that spans three million acres and includes most of the city of Tulsa, but the Court’s reasoning portends that there are four more such reservations in Oklahoma. The rediscovered reservations encompass the entire eastern half of the State — 19 million acres that are home to 1.8 million people, only 10%–15% of whom are Indians,” he wrote.

“Across this vast area, the State’s ability to prosecute serious 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, ranging from zoning and taxation to family and environmental law,” he wrote, adding, “None of this is warranted.”

Roberts wrote that “a huge portion of Oklahoma is not a Creek Indian reservation.” He claimed Congress dissolved these reservations prior to Oklahoma becoming a state.

After the ruling, U.S. Attorneys Timothy Downing, Brian Kuester, and Trent Shores released a statement about working with tribal leaders on public safety issues.

“As Oklahoma’s United States Attorneys, we are confident tribal, state, local, and federal law enforcement will work together to continue providing exceptional public safety under this new ruling by the United States Supreme Court,” they said.

[Read more: Supreme Court rules Manhattan district attorney can obtain Trump tax returns]