A New Poll Shows Old Media Resistance, and Nicolle Wallace Decides Which Country...
USAID You Want a Revolution?
Roy Cooper Dodges Tough Questions About His Deadly Soft-on-Crime Policies
Colorado Democrats Want to Trample First, Second Amendments With Latest Bill
Dan Patrick Was Right — Carrie Prejean Boller Had to Go
White House Religious Liberty Commission Member Removed After Hijacking Antisemitism Heari...
Federal Judge Blocks Pete Hegseth From Reducing Sen. Mark Kelly's Pay Over 'Seditious...
AG Pam Bondi Vows to Prosecute Threats Against Lawmakers, Even Across Party Lines
20 Alleged 'Free Money' Gang Members Indicted in Houston on RICO, Murder, and...
'Green New Scam' Over: Trump Eliminates 2009 EPA Rule That Fueled Unpopular EV...
Tim Walz Wants Taxpayers to Give $10M in Forgivable Loans to Riot-Torn Businesses
The SAVE Act Fights Ends When It Lands on Trump's Desk for Signature
Georgia Man Sentenced to Over 3 Years in Prison for TikTok Threats to...
Walz Administration Claims $217M in Fraud After Prosecutor Pointed to Billions
2 Pakistani Nationals Charged in $10M Medicare Fraud Scheme
Tipsheet

SCOTUS Cancels Part of Oklahoma, Decides It's Still an Indian Reservation

SCOTUS Cancels Part of Oklahoma, Decides It's Still an Indian Reservation
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

A large part of Oklahoma was just canceled. The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that millions of acres in eastern Oklahoma -- including Tulsa, the state's second-largest city -- are still part of an American Indian reservation.

Advertisement

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with a convicted rapist who argued that his 1997 rape conviction should be overturned because the state of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction. Neil Gorsuch sided with the liberal wing, ruling that Congress failed to disestablish the 1866 boundaries of the reservation. The decision is a can of worms, raising far more questions than it answers regarding the status of other criminal convictions, the state's ability to enforce regulations, and millions of U.S. citizens who now find themselves on tribal lands and possibly subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

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

But in a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that Congress was clear about its efforts to disestablish the boundaries of the reservation. 

"The court suggests that Congress sought to 'tiptoe to the edge of disestablishment,'” Roberts wrote. "Quite the opposite. Through an open and concerted effort, Congress did what it set out to do: transform a reservation into a state."

"In 1997, the State of Oklahoma convicted petitioner Jimcy McGirt of molesting, raping, and forcibly sodomizing a four-year-old girl, his wife’s granddaughter," Roberts wrote in the opinion joined by Justices Alito, Kavanaugh and Thomas. "McGirt was sentenced to 1,000 years plus life in prison. Today, the Court holds that Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute McGirt—on the improbable ground that, unbeknownst to anyone for the past century, a huge swathe of Oklahoma is actually a Creek Indian reservation, on which the State may not prosecute serious crimes committed by Indians like McGirt. 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."

Advertisement

USA Today reports that the state's solicitor general, Mithun Mansinghani, warned back in May that such a ruling might require the release of over 1,700 inmates.

"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," Chief Justice Roberts warns. "On top of that, the Court has profoundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma."

The dissenting justices go on to write that the decision destabilizes "the governance of Oklahoma," creating "significant uncertainty for the State's continuing authority over any area that touches Indian affairs." These areas include things like zoning, taxation, environmental and family law.  

The decision that will have a far-reaching impact for millions of Oklahomans was overshadowed by another Supreme Court ruling on Thursday that grants New York prosecutors access to eight years of President Trump's tax returns.

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement