• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Volimar

volunteer forum janitor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
38,974
I'm a bit confused, this sounds good, but what is the practical effect of such a ruling for Oklahoma? How will criminal law in this area now be interpreted?


It's a bit up in the air right now, but when they won the circuit decision, the tribes pledged to work with Congress so it might not be as chaotic as it looks.
 

sangreal

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,890
As far as legal questions go, the decision was that the Court has observed the existing cooperation between the Tribes and state for the last few hundred years and had no good faith reason to assume that that cooperation would end.

But ultimately it's hard to imagine that in any future battles that arise the state has much jurisdiction.

the state still has jurisdiction over crimes where one of the parties isn't native
 

SilentPanda

Member
Nov 6, 2017
14,021
Earth
I'm a bit confused, this sounds good, but what is the practical effect of such a ruling for Oklahoma? How will criminal law in this area now be interpreted?

The Supreme Court siding with McGirt meant that an area home to 1.8 million people, including the entire city of Tulsa and its population of 400,000, would be a Native American reservation.

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 also affect the other four of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma: the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole tribes.

"The federal government promised the [Muscogee (Creek) Nation] a reservation in perpetuity," Gorsuch continued in the majority opinion.

"As a result, many of the arguments before us today follow a sadly familiar pattern. Yes, promises were made, but the price of keeping them has become too great, so now we should just cast a blind eye. We reject that thinking."

www.aljazeera.com

Supreme Court rules much of Eastern Oklahoma is tribal land

Landmark case upholds claim by Muscogee Nation the territory, now home to 1.8 million people, is Native American land.
 
Oct 27, 2017
45,540
Seattle
I'm a bit confused, this sounds good, but what is the practical effect of such a ruling for Oklahoma? How will criminal law in this area now be interpreted?

I think the broader impact is that SCOTUS believes the treaties behind the indigenous tribes and the United States are still viable/law. This will impact not just oklahoma, but any state that has tribal lands I think.
 

AuthenticM

Son Altesse Sérénissime
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
30,378
for picture reference on just how much of Oklahoma is now reservation land:

Boundaries_of_the_Five_Tribes_in_1866.jpg
I was going to ask for a map. Thank you.

So Tulsa is now officially on native american land?
 
Dec 31, 2017
7,130
The Supreme Court siding with McGirt meant that an area home to 1.8 million people, including the entire city of Tulsa and its population of 400,000, would be a Native American reservation.

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 also affect the other four of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma: the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole tribes.

"The federal government promised the [Muscogee (Creek) Nation] a reservation in perpetuity," Gorsuch continued in the majority opinion.

"As a result, many of the arguments before us today follow a sadly familiar pattern. Yes, promises were made, but the price of keeping them has become too great, so now we should just cast a blind eye. We reject that thinking."

www.aljazeera.com

Supreme Court rules much of Eastern Oklahoma is tribal land

Landmark case upholds claim by Muscogee Nation the territory, now home to 1.8 million people, is Native American land.
I think the broader impact is that SCOTUS believes the treaties behind the indigenous tribes and the United States are still viable/law. This will impact not just oklahoma, but any state that has tribal lands I think.


thanks for the clarification!
 

Mezentine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,000
Under our Constitution, States have no authority to re-duce federal reservations lying within their borders. Just imagine if they did. 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 authorityto regulate commerce with Native Americans, and directs that federal treaties and statutes are the "supreme Law of the Land." Art. I, §8; Art. VI, cl. 2. It would also leave tribal rights in the hands of the very neighbors who might be least inclined to respect them.

Likewise, courts have no proper role in the adjustment ofreservation borders. Mustering the broad social consensus required to pass new legislation is a deliberately hard busi-ness under our Constitution. Faced with this dauntingtask, Congress sometimes might wish an inconvenient res-ervation would simply disappear. Short of that, legislators might seek to pass laws that tiptoe to the edge of disestab-lishment and hope that judges—facing no possibility of elec-toral consequences themselves—will deliver the final push.But wishes don't make for laws, and saving the political branches the embarrassment of disestablishing a reserva-tion is not one of our constitutionally assigned prerogatives. "[O]nly Congress can divest a reservation of its land and diminish its boundaries." Solem, 465 U. S., at 470. So it's no matter how many other promises to a tribe the federalgovernment has already broken. If Congress wishes to break the promise of a reservation, it must say so.
Goddamn. Gorsuch basically saying "Don't try to hide behind us"
 

Hellwarden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
34,215
People will naturally talk about the other decisions more, but this is no small decision here.

Really good news.

Nice to get good news.
 

sangreal

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,890
Now that nearly half of Oklahoma has been rightfully deemed a reservation do they have the power to remove whatever Confederate monuments built on their land?

They don't own most of the land anymore. Could they outlaw the monuments from private property held by non-natives within the borders of the reservation? I don't think so - but also, they fought for the confederacy and are still mistreating the descendants of their slaves

Certainly not under this ruling which only applies to the MCA and likely a handful of civil laws that use the same language
 
Last edited:

CDX

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,477
Happy it was ruled this way. The absolute least the US can do is honor the past agreements they made with Native American tribes.


The Supreme Court siding with McGirt meant that an area home to 1.8 million people, including the entire city of Tulsa and its population of 400,000, would be a Native American reservation.

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.

So, the entire city of Tulsa is on Native American land. Genuinely curious, what does this mean for non-tribe members living on now Native American reservation land?
 

Kill3r7

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,634
Happy it was ruled this way. The absolute least the US can do is honor the past agreements they made with Native American tribes.




So, the entire city of Tulsa is on Native American land. Genuinely curious, what does this mean for non-tribe members living on now Native American reservation land?

They still have to obey US federal and state laws.
 

Lexad

"This guy are sick"
Member
Nov 4, 2017
3,064
What does this mean for people currently living in these areas that are not part of the tribes? Tulsa isn't exactly small
 

Basileus777

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,232
New Jersey
Sensationalist headlines are really fueling all this confusion and hysteria about "half of Oklahoma" being turned into an Indian territory. The main thing this is really about is that federal courts hold jurisdiction over cases involving tribe members in these areas, not that Oklahoma was stripped of its sovereignty over them otherwise.

It's a big deal for native american rights because it can protect them from predatory states and let them take things to more favorable federal courts.
 

Distantmantra

Member
Oct 26, 2017
11,263
Seattle
My tribe was forced into Oklahoma after being pushed out of Michigan during the Trail of Tears. We share a town in Oklahoma now with multiple tribes and none of them have reservation land. Sadly, this ruling doesn't help them as their town is outside that region. Oklahoma is fucked ip.
 

Rad Bandolar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,036
SoCal
I'm not overly familiar with any of this, but it seems like the Federal government asserted its supremacy when dealing with Native American matters, as reservations are under the jurisdiction of the Federal government and effectively wards of the state (Congress).

It reads to me that the Court basically said, "That's reservation land as promised by Congress, so the State's not involved in judicial matters affecting tribal members on reservation property."
 

sangreal

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,890
I'm not overly familiar with any of this, but it seems like the Federal government asserted its supremacy when dealing with Native American matters, as reservations are under the jurisdiction of the Federal government and effectively wards of the state (Congress).

It reads to me that the Court basically said, "That's reservation land as promised by Congress, so the State's not involved in judicial matters affecting tribal members on reservation property."
Yes, you have it right
 

Kill3r7

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,634
I'm not overly familiar with any of this, but it seems like the Federal government asserted its supremacy when dealing with Native American matters, as reservations are under the jurisdiction of the Federal government and effectively wards of the state (Congress).

It reads to me that the Court basically said, "That's reservation land as promised by Congress, so the State's not involved in judicial matters affecting tribal members on reservation property."

Correctz
 

Pau

Self-Appointed Godmother of Bruce Wayne's Children
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,896
I'm not overly familiar with any of this, but it seems like the Federal government asserted its supremacy when dealing with Native American matters, as reservations are under the jurisdiction of the Federal government and effectively wards of the state (Congress).

It reads to me that the Court basically said, "That's reservation land as promised by Congress, so the State's not involved in judicial matters affecting tribal members on reservation property."
I'm a bit confused by the terminology of "the state." Does it mean that the state of Oklahoma is not involved in judicial matters or that both the federal and state government are not involved?
 

Garlador

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
14,131
As a Native American initially from Oklahoma...

... Holy Cow. I never expected this.
 

III-V

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,827
This is awesome news. The native Americans lost in the genocide can never be returned, but at the very least we honor our word in this case.
 

Butane

Member
Nov 2, 2017
98
I had no idea that so much of OK was set aside for reservations. That's awesome.
It's actually more than that. That map is just including the five tribes most associated with Removal and the Trail of Tears. This is the actual map of lands held by native tribes:

1200px-Oklahoma_Tribal_Statistical_Area.svg.png

Also, I'm Chickasaw, so I've been celebrating all day.
 

Nepenthe

When the music hits, you feel no pain.
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
21,072
It's the fucking least we can do. I hope this sets a good precedent for the rest of the country.
 

Otakukidd

The cutest v-tuber
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,616
"Won't (residents) be surprised to learn that they are living on a reservation and that they are now subject to laws imposed by a body that is not accountable to them in any way?" Associate Justice Samuel Alito asked.

The fucking irony of this question.
 

Pet

More helpful than the IRS
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,070
SoCal
It's actually more than that. That map is just including the five tribes most associated with Removal and the Trail of Tears. This is the actual map of lands held by native tribes:

1200px-Oklahoma_Tribal_Statistical_Area.svg.png

Also, I'm Chickasaw, so I've been celebrating all day.
Ooh dang. :) Happy for y'all!