McGirt v. Oklahoma
591 U. S. ____ (2020) (2020)
Rule of Law:
Once Congress establishes an Indian reservation, it remains 'Indian country' for purposes of federal criminal jurisdiction unless Congress explicitly enacts a statute indicating its intent to disestablish the reservation. The reservation status is not diminished by subsequent allotment of land, demographic changes, or a long history of state assertions of jurisdiction.
Facts:
- In the 1830s, the U.S. government entered into treaties with the Creek Nation, forcibly removing them from their ancestral lands east of the Mississippi River.
- In exchange, the treaties solemnly guaranteed the Creek Nation a new, permanent home in what is now Oklahoma, with defined boundaries and the right to self-government, free from the laws of any state or territory.
- An 1866 treaty between the U.S. and the Creek Nation reduced the size of these lands but explicitly reaffirmed that the remaining territory would be 'forever set apart as a home' for the Nation, referring to it as the 'reduced Creek reservation.'
- During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Congress enacted a series of laws that allotted communal tribal lands to individual Creek members, many of whom later sold their parcels to non-Indians.
- During this same period, Congress passed other laws that curtailed the Creek Nation's governmental authority, including abolishing its tribal courts.
- Jimcy McGirt, an enrolled member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, committed serious sexual offenses against a child within the historical boundaries of the Creek Reservation.
Procedural Posture:
- An Oklahoma state trial court convicted Jimcy McGirt of three serious sexual offenses and sentenced him to 1,000 years plus life in prison.
- McGirt filed an application for postconviction relief in Oklahoma state courts, arguing for the first time that the state lacked subject matter jurisdiction to prosecute him.
- McGirt contended that he is an enrolled member of the Seminole Nation and his crimes took place on the Creek Reservation, making the offenses subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court for criminal matters, rejected his jurisdictional argument and affirmed his conviction.
- McGirt filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which the Court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the land established as the Creek Reservation by 19th-century treaties remain 'Indian country' for the purposes of the federal Major Crimes Act, thereby precluding the State of Oklahoma from prosecuting an enrolled member of an Indian tribe for crimes committed on that land?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Gorsuch
Yes, the land remains 'Indian country' because Congress never explicitly disestablished the Creek Reservation. Once a reservation is established by treaty, it retains that status until Congress clearly indicates otherwise through statutory language. Neither the policy of allotment, which allowed individual parcels to be owned by non-Indians, nor congressional acts that diminished tribal self-governance are sufficient to show disestablishment. The Court rejected Oklahoma's argument that subsequent historical practices and demographic changes could achieve a 'de facto' disestablishment, holding that such extratextual evidence cannot overcome the plain terms of treaties and statutes. The government made a promise, and because Congress has not explicitly said otherwise, the Court must hold the government to its word.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Roberts
No, the land is not 'Indian country' because the Creek Reservation was disestablished by Congress through a series of statutes leading up to Oklahoma's statehood. The majority departs from the well-settled, multi-factor test which requires examining statutory text, contemporaneous understandings, and subsequent history. The cumulative effect of Congress's actions—systematically dismantling the tribal government, extinguishing the tribe's communal land title, establishing uniform laws for all residents irrespective of race, and incorporating tribal members into the new state—demonstrates a clear intent to disestablish the reservation. A century of unquestioned state jurisdiction, demographic shifts, and the shared understanding of all parties, including the Creek Nation itself, confirms this disestablishment. The majority's decision ignores this overwhelming evidence and will create profound and destabilizing consequences for the governance and criminal justice system in eastern Oklahoma.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No. Justice Thomas joined the Chief Justice's dissent but wrote separately to argue that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to review the case. He contended that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' decision rested on an adequate and independent state law ground—a state procedural bar against raising a claim on collateral review that could have been raised on direct appeal. Because the state court's judgment was based on this non-federal procedural ground, the Supreme Court had no power to review it.
Analysis:
This landmark decision powerfully reaffirms the principle of tribal sovereignty and the enduring force of treaties, holding that congressional promises to Native American nations cannot be erased by implication or historical practice. The ruling dramatically shifts the jurisdictional landscape in eastern Oklahoma, transferring prosecutorial authority for major crimes committed by Native Americans on reservation land from the state to the federal government. This has significant implications for thousands of past and future criminal cases and raises complex questions regarding civil jurisdiction, taxation, and regulation over an area that includes most of Tulsa and is home to nearly two million people. The case sets a high, text-focused bar for disestablishment claims, emphasizing clear statutory commands over contextual or historical arguments.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"