This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-much-of-eastern-oklahoma-remains-indian-land/2020/07/09/7bdc42d4-c1e2-11ea-9fdd-b7ac6b051dc8_story.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_homepage

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Supreme Court says much of eastern Oklahoma remains Indian land Supreme Court says much of eastern Oklahoma remains Indian land
(30 minutes later)
The Supreme Court said Thursday that a large part of eastern Oklahoma remains an American Indian reservation, a decision with implications for nearly 2 million residents.The Supreme Court said Thursday that a large part of eastern Oklahoma remains an American Indian reservation, a decision with implications for nearly 2 million residents.
The land at issue contains much of Tulsa, the state’s second-largest city. The question for the court was whether Congress officially eliminated the Creek Nation reservation when Oklahoma became a state in 1907.The land at issue contains much of Tulsa, the state’s second-largest city. The question for the court was whether Congress officially eliminated the Creek Nation reservation when Oklahoma became a state in 1907.
In a 5-to-4 decision, the court said that Congress “has not said otherwise” and that the land promised to the Creek Nation is still a reservation.In a 5-to-4 decision, the court said that Congress “has not said otherwise” and that the land promised to the Creek Nation is still a reservation.
“If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so. Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law,” wrote Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who was joined by the court’s liberal justices.“If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so. Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law,” wrote Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who was joined by the court’s liberal justices.
“To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right.”“To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right.”
The case was brought by Jimcy McGirt, who was convicted in state court of molesting a child. Because the crime occurred on the land in question, McGirt said that state courts have no jurisdiction and that the federal government would have to prosecute.The case was brought by Jimcy McGirt, who was convicted in state court of molesting a child. Because the crime occurred on the land in question, McGirt said that state courts have no jurisdiction and that the federal government would have to prosecute.
Oklahoma and the federal government contended that laws passed between 1890 and 1907 gave the state jurisdiction over the land. The state said that there are thousands of similar cases and that a ruling in favor of McGirt would not only throw the criminal justice system in turmoil, but also disrupt taxing powers and other municipal jurisdiction. Oklahoma and the federal government contended that laws passed between 1890 and 1907 gave the state jurisdiction over the land. The state said that there are thousands of similar cases and that a ruling in favor of McGirt would not only throw the criminal justice system in turmoil but also disrupt taxing powers and other municipal jurisdictions.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. agreed, warning in his dissent Thursday that the state’s ability to prosecute crimes “will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out.”Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. agreed, warning in his dissent Thursday that the state’s ability to prosecute crimes “will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out.”
“On top of that, the Court has profoundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma. The decision today creates significant uncertainty for the State’s continuing authority over any area that touches Indian affairs,” wrote Roberts, who was joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Brett M. Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas.“On top of that, the Court has profoundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma. The decision today creates significant uncertainty for the State’s continuing authority over any area that touches Indian affairs,” wrote Roberts, who was joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Brett M. Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas.
At oral argument, Gorsuch, who in the past has shown a keen interest in Indian law, questioned the “parade of horribles” that the state advanced. At oral argument in May, Gorsuch, who in the past has shown a keen interest in Indian law, questioned the “parade of horribles” that the state advanced.
Ian H. Gershengorn, McGirt’s attorney, said the concerns were overblown and should not factor into the court’s study of the law and treaty.Ian H. Gershengorn, McGirt’s attorney, said the concerns were overblown and should not factor into the court’s study of the law and treaty.
“Congress knows how to do this, and the job to fix any consequences if the court perceives them is with Congress,” he said.“Congress knows how to do this, and the job to fix any consequences if the court perceives them is with Congress,” he said.
The court on Thursday also resolved a second similar case argued last term.The court on Thursday also resolved a second similar case argued last term.
The case is McGirt v. Oklahoma.The case is McGirt v. Oklahoma.