Half of Oklahoma ruled reservation land by Supreme Court

Half of Oklahoma is Native American reservation land, the Supreme Court decided in a ruling Thursday. Tribe members living in the territory will be subject to federal – instead of state – criminal law, and will be exempt from certain state obligations.

Carlos Barria/Reuters
A view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, June 30, 2020. More than 1.8 million people live in the Oklahoma reservation land now affirmed by the Supreme Court. The court's Thursday ruling could affect the four other Native American tribes in the state.

The United States Supreme Court on Thursday recognized about half of Oklahoma as Native American reservation land and overturned a tribe member's rape conviction because the location where the crime was committed should have been considered outside the reach of state criminal law.

The justices ruled 5-4 in favor of a man named Jimcy McGirt and agreed that the site of the rape should have been recognized as part of a reservation based on the historical claim of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation – beyond the jurisdiction of state authorities.

Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court's four liberals in the majority.

The ruling means that for the first time much of eastern Oklahoma is legally considered reservation land. More than 1.8 million people live in the land at issue, including roughly 400,000 in Tulsa, Oklahoma's second-largest city.

Tribe members who live within the boundaries are now set to become exempt from certain state obligations such as paying state taxes, while certain Native Americans found guilty in state courts may be able to challenge their convictions on jurisdictional grounds. The tribe also may obtain more power to regulate alcohol sales and expand casino gambling.

The ruling could affect the other four of the "Five Tribes" in Oklahoma: the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole tribes.

The ruling voided Mr. McGirt's sentence of 1,000 years in prison but he could face a new trial in federal court rather than state court.

Under U.S. law, tribe members who commit crimes on tribal land cannot be prosecuted in state courts and instead are subject to federal prosecution, which sometimes can be beneficial to defendants. Reservations were established beginning in the 19th century after U.S. authorities expelled Native Americans from their traditional lands.

Mr. McGirt, 71, has served more than two decades in prison after being convicted in 1997 in Wagoner County in eastern Oklahoma of rape, lewd molestation, and forcible sodomy of a 4-year-old girl. Mr. McGirt, who did not contest his guilt in the case before the justices, had appealed a 2019 ruling by a state appeals court in favor of Oklahoma.

Mr. McGirt is a member of the Seminole Nation. The crime occurred on land historically claimed by the Creek Nation.

At issue was whether the Muscogee (Creek) Nation territory where the crime was committed should be considered a Native American reservation or whether Congress eliminated that status around the time Oklahoma became a state in 1907.

Oklahoma argued that the Creek Nation never had a reservation. But even if one existed, the state and President Donald Trump's administration argued it long ago was eliminated by Congress.

The justices weighed a complex historical record that started with the forced relocation by the U.S. government of Native Americans, including the Creek Nation, to Oklahoma in a traumatic 19th century event known as the "trail of tears."

A reservation is land managed by a tribe under the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs and generally exempt from state jurisdiction including taxation.

This story was reported by Reuters.

Editor’s note: As a public service, the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage. It’s free.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.