"The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity. Over time, Congress has diminished that reservation. It has sometimes restricted and other
times expanded the Tribe’s authority. But Congress has never withdrawn the promised reservation. 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. 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. 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 judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma is Reversed."
I do applaud that thinking; I hope it sets a precedent that can be used more widely. I hope they apply it more widely to things they don't necessarily ideologically agree with. Civil society needs more honesty and dedication to keeping your word, even when that is painful. That might lead to people thinking more carefully about where they stand and what they say as well.
> Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law
And yet "adverse possession" allows my neighbor to keep a slice of my yard, because he build the fence shortly before I bought the house (while it was unoccupied!) and I assumed it was proper after I moved in, and now that I've had a survey done and realized his fence is 5' off target, it's too late because he officially owns it!
I understand the difference, but I feel like it would be more proper to say "Unlawful acts performed long ago, are hardly ever enough to amend the law."
> In a joint statement, the state, the Creek Nation and the other four of what is known as the “Five Tribes” of Oklahoma said they were making “substantial progress” toward an agreement on shared jurisdiction that they would present to the federal government. The other tribes are the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole.
So I wonder whether more of Oklahoma could be affected.
And what about other states? I vaguely recall that the Mohawk have claimed a large chunk of New York.
Wait, so congress can throw away promises at its whims that was supposed to last until perpetuity? And SC will be fine with that as long as promise was thrown away explicitly?
What Gorsuch's opinion does directly imply is that the "promise" to the Creek can be revoked by Congress at any time, i.e. it's hardly a "promise" at all.
>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.
Interesting logic. Now do Roe v Wade. Are they going to overturn that too because it allows the injustice of the murder of millions of unborn Americans? Probably not. Funny how Stare Decisis goes out the window when it's an issue the justices care about, yet conveniently reapply it when present day utility outweighs historical injustice.
Just a couple notes here from a person of tribal descent (I am Wasq'u, a tribe in the PNW), for those trying to make sense of it.
This ruling, as I understand it, resolves a narrow technicality—but that technicality has potentially enormous implications.
The Court has only decided that the federal [EDIT: state! sorry!] government has no prosecutorial jurisdiction against citizens of the so-called "Five Civilized Tribes" in about half of OK—this is what the press means when it calls this territory "Indian reservations." They did not decide things like: Do the tribes get the taxes from people living in Tulsa? Do non-natives have to abide by rules of the respective nations? Does the tribal government have the ability to reclaim land through land-for-trust? And so on.
Further narrowing the ruling, my understanding is that this only applies when all persons involved in the crime (e.g., the victim) are also tribal citizens.
But, this ruling does open the door to a lot of those types of questions. It is possible we see several cases related to the sovereignty of these nations over the next few years, possibly greatly expanding the scope of the jurisdiction of the tribal governments.
"The Court has only decided that the federal government has no prosecutorial jurisdiction against citizens of the so-called "Five Civilized Tribes" in about half of OK"
The issue at hand was state government prosecutorial jurisdication, not federal. From the article:
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.
Yeah I was wondering what exactly was meant by "reservation".. in my experience you can't, as an outsider (non-native), just go, and live on the reservation. So unless it's unlike any reservations in my state then there must have been something I was missing.
> The Court has only decided that the federal government has no prosecutorial jurisdiction against citizens
Did I misunderstand what the case was about? I thought the case was that the state government has no jurisdiction and only the federal government has jurisdiction.
Or maybe I'm confused because that's what the previous (4-4 deadlock) case was about and this one is actually bigger.
Ruling found that state government does not have prosecutorial jurisdiction, the federal government does and could still choose to prosecute the individual at the root of this case in federal court.
Do you know if this means that the land on which buildings are built could be taxed by the tribes?
I live in the desert in CA and here most buildings built on Indian reservations pay a yearly leasing fee.
It would be such a huge power shift for the tribal nations. It's one of those things that could ripple through the system or hit some stone wall I'm unaware of. Really interested to know what will happen.
> This ruling, as I understand it, resolves a narrow technicality
That is literally all of the SCOTUS rulings. It's petty listening to bright minds discuss minute details. The fact that technicalities have far reaching effects is a sign that the system is broken.
We have to recognize how much we screwed over the Native Americans. We took away their prime land on the East coast. We gave them some shitty land in Oklahoma that we didn't think we would ever want. We made them walk there in the "Trail of Tears", and lots of them died along the way. Then we decided to screw them out of the land in Oklahoma after all, but didn't go though the process properly because we didn't think it mattered.
It's insulting to hear people talk about them as not having "initiative" or being somehow responsible for being poor. When they resisted being screwed, we sent in the US Army to kill them, then kept them under control.
Reconciling this after all these years is going to be tough, but acknowledging it is a first step. Giving them back the land is disruptive, but giving them a few billion dollars is pretty easy. It would be interesting to see a VC fund focused on Native Americans building businesses. Or some real educational funding in Oklahoma. It would be a lot better than what the Republicans are doing to the state. All they want to is protect the rich and the oil industry.
As an Okie and a tribal member, the situation is far more complex than what the news/wikipedia can describe. But I think that's mentioned here a lot- the news never does anything justice. The Indians do get billions handed out all the time -ihs.gov.
One of the fundamental issues I see in Oklahoma is the lack of rule of law. I'm not thrilled we're releasing child molesters (that's who filed the suit), but I suppose starting somewhere is good.
As for VC funding, I'd love to see more of that. I do computer vision/nlp for a living, and I've had to leave the state due to lack of work. It's cheap, there are smart people, but they all leave after school.
I find your use of "we" interesting because you clearly identify as part of the group that committed those acts hundreds of years ago. How long should a child be responsible for the crimes of their fathers? As an example, assume your father killed someone and stole $1000 dollars from them. You never knew about this didn't choose for him to do this but now someone is coming after you saying you must pay them $1000. You find out it's all true, your father did murder and steal $1000 and you indirectly and unknowingly benefited from that. Should you legally be forced to pay back that $1000 dollars? But the person is dead, should you have to pay that dead person's son $1000? Should you and any siblings have to divide that sum up and pay back the $1000 collectively? Let's say you have already spent every dime you have on meals out. Should you go to jail because you can't pay back the $1000 your father stole? I think these agreements which weren't honored are equal to theft but how long down the line must you pay for the crime of being born in that situation and pay others that were born into the opposite side of the theft. Even with as close a relation as a father, I find it hard to believe that a child should be responsible for their parents wrong doing. But now assume that not only were you not related to that person who stole $1000, you simply don't have the heritage that the murdered man has. Now assume that hundreds of years have passed and now someone is still asking to collect that $1000 from you. I find it very difficult to find the moral obligation to pay back that money when the people who were the actual victims are long dead, the people who committed the theft are long dead, and there is no connection between your actions and the theft. Voluntary payments I would be all for but using tax money which is essentially taken by force, as if you don't pay taxes you will go to jail, that kind of thing seems very wrong. I would not blame a child for their father's sins.
It's certainly something to think about when so much today revolves around giving the government even more power and control, all the way down to what we can say.
The Cherokees made up a large portion of the "Trail of Tears". The saddest part is they were largely fully "assimilated" into the "American" culture at the time. Most were fully "Christianized", spoke English, they translated many church hymns into their native language, built towns, and lived in houses. All like the "white man". Then they were asked to give up their guns and property and start marching.
From the actual opinion: "Oklahoma replies that its situation is different because the affected population here is large and many of its residents will be surprised to find out they have been living in Indian country this whole time. But we imagine some members of the 1832 Creek Tribe would be just as surprised to find them there."
> 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.
Being part Sami I think it's fascinating to read about the system of reservations in the USA. I'm not sure about minority rule, but I'm clearly in favour of saving the unique cultures and ethnicities from dying out.
After many years of persecution in Northeren Europe—including forced assimilation often called "Norwegianization" or "Swedification," and near extinction in Russia—we've finally gotten some recognition as a nation of our own, at least in the Nordics. We have our own parliament (Sámediggi) and flag, for instance, and enjoy semi-autonomous leadership in "our" historical regions (called Sápmi) in close cooperation with the governments of Finland, Norway and Sweden. As such it acts more like a subset of the respective governments of the Nordics.
Now, both the finnic and germanic populations are also indigenous to the Nordics together with the finno-ugric Samis, so in that sense it's a bit different from the native population of the USA, where the other nations are almost all of immigrant descent. On the other hand, just like the Native Americans, Samis are in the clear minority in Northeren Europe, with only about 100.000 members, some of whom can't even speak their own language due to the assimilation policies (like me, although I do know a few words). Thus our culture and unique way of life is indeed in danger of extinction. For that reason alone I think it's important to at least recognize the ethnicity, and perhaps save it from the "tooth of time" as it were. Perhaps especially since most Samis today enjoy a modern lifestyle, and only very few live the traditional nomadic lifestyle of reindeer herding. If I'm not mistaken, the same is true for the Native Americans. In any case I'm happy we can finally enjoy peace and democracy with one another.
> The ruling voided McGirt’s sentence of 1,000 years in prison but he could face a new trial in federal court rather than state court.
Not changed by this ruling, but it strikes me as really odd that you can sentence someone to prison for that long, or that you would bother. Why not just say life in prison? If your state is 103 years old, saying anything about the next 1000 years seems ... lacking in credibility.
I had the pleasure of driving through and visiting Oklahoma a decade or so ago. Some people don't like the rural states, but it felt so serene out there. We stopped at a shaved ice place off of some random exit and just sat there on the hood staring out at the plains. There's not much out there but it felt so peaceful. It felt like home.
Interesting implication that Tulsa is now inside of a reservation. Growing up I thought reservations were located on tiny parcels of land but in some western states that is not the case. In Arizona about 25% of the state is tribal land, with neighboring state New Mexico having about 10% of its land as reservations.
The story is quite stunning. So a child molester convicted in 1997 and in prison for 20 years wants to get out of jail. So he seems to have hired some extra ordinary attorney who simply couldn’t find any way to get him out. And one day he finally hits upon this idea of land supposed to be tribal land 100s of years ago! The brilliant idea, indeed. And now half of the state will suddenly become tribal land because of this one guy trying to get out and this one lawyer who dug this out.
We need to end the reservation system. No good will come of this system in the long term. We can end it either by making the reservations explicitly new nations (either fully independent or with protectorate status, like Micronesia or Palau), or they need to be integrated fully into the United States.
In the long run, separate countries in one system does not really work (and yes, the states and feds are overlapping jurisdictions), but Indians have a much more special status under the law. Race based preferences never end well, even if they seem nice to begin with.
Why? Because it is scary that you can actually have governments make laws that Americans may become subject to when those governments have very few duties under American law to respect American rights. Of course, we do not expect other countries to follow American law, but reservations are not set up as other countries. Moreover, the law is strange in that a tribal member in a part of Oklahoma is now due special criminal treatment due to their ancestry, rather than be subject to the laws of Oklahoma.
That is not okay. Either a border needs to be set up, or the tribal governments need to be cast aside or at least become subject to the same kinds of restrictions the states are. Yes, this will require a constitutional amendment, but frankly, special treatment of Native Americans is a relic of a bygone era, much like slavery.
> 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.
So does this effectively create two different rules of law over the same land...?
One thing I'm unclear about is this: "If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so." The question in the case, as I understand it, was whether previous acts of Congress had in fact dissolved the reservation. Could Congress, if they wanted to, pass a resolution saying, "Actually, such-and-such bill from 100-some years ago dissolved the reservation." Or can they only say, "Starting today, the reservation is dissolved."
Is Congress empowered to clarify the meaning of its own past statements? Or once the text leaves Congress, only the courts can say what that text means, and if the courts disagree with Congress, then Congress can only remedy that going forward?
Does anyone know the status of private land, not belonging to tribe members, now considered within the reservation? Can it be confiscated by the tribe?
Sometimes Supreme Court justices will surprise you. Justice Gorsuch is from the American West, and has proven to be a strong and consistent advocate for Native American rights in the Supreme Court, just as Justice Scalia was for the Fourth Amendment.
Are all the other treaties going to be reviewed? What percentage of the USA would become reservation land if all the treaties were honored? If it was >50% would we still call them reservations?
It's so weird how sentences so significant are often "protecting" the rights of terrible, terrible people:
> McGirt, 71, has served more than two decades in prison after being convicted [...] of rape, lewd molestation and forcible sodomy of a 4-year-old girl. McGirt [...] did not contest his guilt in the case
I'd be interested in learning who was involved in McGirt's proceedings and why. Did they mean to actually get this guy free (which, to be fair, at his age could be a charitable act in itself), or did they just think it was as good a chance as any to get this old treaty back on the table? There is a book and a film in that story.
[+] [-] ISL|5 years ago|reply
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
"The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity. Over time, Congress has diminished that reservation. It has sometimes restricted and other times expanded the Tribe’s authority. But Congress has never withdrawn the promised reservation. 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. 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. 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 judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma is Reversed."
[+] [-] brobdingnagians|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knodi123|5 years ago|reply
And yet "adverse possession" allows my neighbor to keep a slice of my yard, because he build the fence shortly before I bought the house (while it was unoccupied!) and I assumed it was proper after I moved in, and now that I've had a survey done and realized his fence is 5' off target, it's too late because he officially owns it!
I understand the difference, but I feel like it would be more proper to say "Unlawful acts performed long ago, are hardly ever enough to amend the law."
[+] [-] mirimir|5 years ago|reply
Also, TFA notes:
> In a joint statement, the state, the Creek Nation and the other four of what is known as the “Five Tribes” of Oklahoma said they were making “substantial progress” toward an agreement on shared jurisdiction that they would present to the federal government. The other tribes are the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole.
So I wonder whether more of Oklahoma could be affected.
And what about other states? I vaguely recall that the Mohawk have claimed a large chunk of New York.
[+] [-] alasdair_|5 years ago|reply
Based on this logic, I'm sure that the USA will be paying for all that tea they dumped in the harbor any day now...
[+] [-] TheSpiceIsLife|5 years ago|reply
Such powerful writing by those we've vested great authority.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] millirem|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sytelus|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joecool1029|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ponker|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SmokeyHamster|5 years ago|reply
Interesting logic. Now do Roe v Wade. Are they going to overturn that too because it allows the injustice of the murder of millions of unborn Americans? Probably not. Funny how Stare Decisis goes out the window when it's an issue the justices care about, yet conveniently reapply it when present day utility outweighs historical injustice.
[+] [-] antics|5 years ago|reply
This ruling, as I understand it, resolves a narrow technicality—but that technicality has potentially enormous implications.
The Court has only decided that the federal [EDIT: state! sorry!] government has no prosecutorial jurisdiction against citizens of the so-called "Five Civilized Tribes" in about half of OK—this is what the press means when it calls this territory "Indian reservations." They did not decide things like: Do the tribes get the taxes from people living in Tulsa? Do non-natives have to abide by rules of the respective nations? Does the tribal government have the ability to reclaim land through land-for-trust? And so on.
Further narrowing the ruling, my understanding is that this only applies when all persons involved in the crime (e.g., the victim) are also tribal citizens.
But, this ruling does open the door to a lot of those types of questions. It is possible we see several cases related to the sovereignty of these nations over the next few years, possibly greatly expanding the scope of the jurisdiction of the tribal governments.
[+] [-] EE84M3i|5 years ago|reply
The issue at hand was state government prosecutorial jurisdication, not federal. From the article:
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.
[+] [-] Vysero|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mason55|5 years ago|reply
Did I misunderstand what the case was about? I thought the case was that the state government has no jurisdiction and only the federal government has jurisdiction.
Or maybe I'm confused because that's what the previous (4-4 deadlock) case was about and this one is actually bigger.
[+] [-] wonderwonder|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] NicolasGorden|5 years ago|reply
I live in the desert in CA and here most buildings built on Indian reservations pay a yearly leasing fee.
It would be such a huge power shift for the tribal nations. It's one of those things that could ripple through the system or hit some stone wall I'm unaware of. Really interested to know what will happen.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ddingus|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chiefalchemist|5 years ago|reply
It's bizarre that the headline could have read: Rape-related SC Decision Returns Land to Native American Tribe.
[+] [-] curiousgal|5 years ago|reply
That is literally all of the SCOTUS rulings. It's petty listening to bright minds discuss minute details. The fact that technicalities have far reaching effects is a sign that the system is broken.
[+] [-] jake_morrison|5 years ago|reply
It's insulting to hear people talk about them as not having "initiative" or being somehow responsible for being poor. When they resisted being screwed, we sent in the US Army to kill them, then kept them under control.
Reconciling this after all these years is going to be tough, but acknowledging it is a first step. Giving them back the land is disruptive, but giving them a few billion dollars is pretty easy. It would be interesting to see a VC fund focused on Native Americans building businesses. Or some real educational funding in Oklahoma. It would be a lot better than what the Republicans are doing to the state. All they want to is protect the rich and the oil industry.
[+] [-] boomersooner|5 years ago|reply
One of the fundamental issues I see in Oklahoma is the lack of rule of law. I'm not thrilled we're releasing child molesters (that's who filed the suit), but I suppose starting somewhere is good.
As for VC funding, I'd love to see more of that. I do computer vision/nlp for a living, and I've had to leave the state due to lack of work. It's cheap, there are smart people, but they all leave after school.
[+] [-] shoxty|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] berryjerry|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dfee|5 years ago|reply
Interesting sentiment. As someone who grew up in Tulsa, Oklahoma, I think you should go there and tell the people who live there your thoughts.
[+] [-] maxerickson|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jake_morrison|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sam36|5 years ago|reply
The Cherokees made up a large portion of the "Trail of Tears". The saddest part is they were largely fully "assimilated" into the "American" culture at the time. Most were fully "Christianized", spoke English, they translated many church hymns into their native language, built towns, and lived in houses. All like the "white man". Then they were asked to give up their guns and property and start marching.
[+] [-] loosetypes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zetazzed|5 years ago|reply
Damn, nice shade, Gorsuch!
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
[+] [-] threatofrain|5 years ago|reply
McGirt v Oklahoma (9 July 2020) pdf:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
[+] [-] kebman|5 years ago|reply
After many years of persecution in Northeren Europe—including forced assimilation often called "Norwegianization" or "Swedification," and near extinction in Russia—we've finally gotten some recognition as a nation of our own, at least in the Nordics. We have our own parliament (Sámediggi) and flag, for instance, and enjoy semi-autonomous leadership in "our" historical regions (called Sápmi) in close cooperation with the governments of Finland, Norway and Sweden. As such it acts more like a subset of the respective governments of the Nordics.
Now, both the finnic and germanic populations are also indigenous to the Nordics together with the finno-ugric Samis, so in that sense it's a bit different from the native population of the USA, where the other nations are almost all of immigrant descent. On the other hand, just like the Native Americans, Samis are in the clear minority in Northeren Europe, with only about 100.000 members, some of whom can't even speak their own language due to the assimilation policies (like me, although I do know a few words). Thus our culture and unique way of life is indeed in danger of extinction. For that reason alone I think it's important to at least recognize the ethnicity, and perhaps save it from the "tooth of time" as it were. Perhaps especially since most Samis today enjoy a modern lifestyle, and only very few live the traditional nomadic lifestyle of reindeer herding. If I'm not mistaken, the same is true for the Native Americans. In any case I'm happy we can finally enjoy peace and democracy with one another.
All the best, from Norway! <3
[+] [-] abeppu|5 years ago|reply
Not changed by this ruling, but it strikes me as really odd that you can sentence someone to prison for that long, or that you would bother. Why not just say life in prison? If your state is 103 years old, saying anything about the next 1000 years seems ... lacking in credibility.
[+] [-] thekingofh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] subsubzero|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sytelus|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tathougies|5 years ago|reply
In the long run, separate countries in one system does not really work (and yes, the states and feds are overlapping jurisdictions), but Indians have a much more special status under the law. Race based preferences never end well, even if they seem nice to begin with.
Why? Because it is scary that you can actually have governments make laws that Americans may become subject to when those governments have very few duties under American law to respect American rights. Of course, we do not expect other countries to follow American law, but reservations are not set up as other countries. Moreover, the law is strange in that a tribal member in a part of Oklahoma is now due special criminal treatment due to their ancestry, rather than be subject to the laws of Oklahoma.
That is not okay. Either a border needs to be set up, or the tribal governments need to be cast aside or at least become subject to the same kinds of restrictions the states are. Yes, this will require a constitutional amendment, but frankly, special treatment of Native Americans is a relic of a bygone era, much like slavery.
[+] [-] cgb223|5 years ago|reply
So does this effectively create two different rules of law over the same land...?
Like how does this work?
[+] [-] Imnimo|5 years ago|reply
Is Congress empowered to clarify the meaning of its own past statements? Or once the text leaves Congress, only the courts can say what that text means, and if the courts disagree with Congress, then Congress can only remedy that going forward?
[+] [-] hirundo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fmajid|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] irrational|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sakopov|5 years ago|reply
[1]: https://www.bia.gov/sites/bia_prod.opengov.ibmcloud.com/file...
[+] [-] toyg|5 years ago|reply
> McGirt, 71, has served more than two decades in prison after being convicted [...] of rape, lewd molestation and forcible sodomy of a 4-year-old girl. McGirt [...] did not contest his guilt in the case
I'd be interested in learning who was involved in McGirt's proceedings and why. Did they mean to actually get this guy free (which, to be fair, at his age could be a charitable act in itself), or did they just think it was as good a chance as any to get this old treaty back on the table? There is a book and a film in that story.
[+] [-] mixologic|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grizzles|5 years ago|reply