Oklahoma Supreme Court Decision

What was the case?

McGirt v. Oklahoma¹

What were the facts of the case?

In The Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation case, the defendant, an Indian, was charged, tried and convicted by the State of Oklahoma of three serious sexual offenses.  Following his conviction, the defendant argued that the State did not have jurisdiction over him because he was Indian and because the crimes took place on the Creek Reservation. The State argued that the lands on which the defendant’s crimes were committed were no longer Creek Reservation lands, alleging that the reservation had been diminished or disestablished despite being unable to offer evidence of any Act of Congress dissolving or disestablishing the reservation. The Court found that “for Major Crimes Act purposes, land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains “Indian country,” and reversed the lower court’s decision.

Why is this case important?

For many years, the State of Oklahoma has assumed that the original reservation lands of the five civilized tribes — Cherokee Nation, The Chickasaw Nation, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, were disestablished at statehood, asserting jurisdiction of criminal matters in these geographic areas.  Because of the July 9, 2020 Supreme Court decision finding that the reservations land had not been diminished or disestablished, there are now individuals who are Indian, who committed major crimes on these Indian lands, who now seek dismissal of their cases and/or reversal of their convictions. Moreover, this landmark case doesn’t just apply to the reservation lands of The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, but will also apply to the reservation lands of the other five tribes mentioned above, with criminal jurisdiction falling on the shoulders of the five tribes and  the federal government who will need to work collaboratively and expeditiously to ensure that defendants are held accountable for major crimes committed in Oklahoma Indian country.

What is the impact of this ruling on criminal offenses?

It is important to note that this case was not about whether a crime had been committed, or whether a defendant should be held accountable for the crimes they have committed. Not a single party to the Supreme Court case, nor any non-litigant interested parties filing amicus briefs with the Court claimed that the crimes committed by the defendant were not horrific. Nor did any party or non-litigant interest party assert that the defendant should not be punished or held accountable for his crimes. The defendant’s crimes were horrendous and horrific. The defendant should be held accountable for their crimes. This case was about whether a state government had criminal jurisdiction over an Indian defendant for a crime committed on Indian land. The Supreme Court found they did not.