On Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered a ruling which affirmed the jurisdiction of tribal reservations in eastern Oklahoma. The decision has caused some confusing interpretations; including, but not limited to, reports that “Oklahoma territory was given back to Native American tribes.” Stipulation evaluated claims relating to the aforementioned report and found them lacking context and NEUTRAL-BIASED.
Context
On July 9, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) announced their a ruling in the McGirt v. Oklahoma case. The case involved the appeal of a 1996 criminal conviction of Jimcy McGirt. McGirt, who is a member of the Seminole Nation, was convicted by the State of Oklahoma for sex crimes against an underage victim and was sentenced to 500 years in prison without the option of parole.
The petitioner, now 71, claims that he was erroneously prosecuted because the State did not have jurisdiction to do so. In his petition for review (appeal) McGirt wrote his “single issue is whether state courts can maintain jurisdiction over Indians accused of major crimes in Indian Country, ignoring federal statutes, precedent decisions of this Court, the Tenth Circuit and even state district and appellate court decisions that give exclusive federal jurisdiction for Indians accused of major crimes in Indian Country.”
More Background
Though the legal relations between the United States, Native American tribes, and state governments is not easily discernible, the central thrust of this case is relatively straightforward.
Since at least the 1830s, the US has tried to make amends for the abhorrent treatment of Native American tribes. Following decades of pillaging, forced resettlement, kidnapping, the Trail of Tears, and other acts, the US granted Native American tribes millions of acres of land in the western United States. Part of the agreement to these tribes were that members and the tribes themselves were given special statuses.
For this case, the relevant status granted that “major” crimes committed on Native American reservations, and by Native Americans, would be in the jurisdiction of Federal prosecutors. While the jurisdiction changes depending on a number of factors, there are three important aspects. They are the severity of the crime, the location of the crime, and the affiliation status of the perpetrator.
Back To SCOTUS
So the Supreme Court took up this question. That is, if a major crime is committed by a member of a Native tribe, on reservation land, who has jurisdiction? Does jurisdiction belong to the Federal government, as it has been for centuries? Does jurisdiction fall within the state’s purview; or does it belong to the relevant Native American tribe?
Before I concluded with the Court’s decision, it is important to brief you on the arguments. Oral arguments and final briefs were submitted to SCOTUS in May of this year. You can listen to both arguments here.
The respondents, the state of Oklahoma, argued that throughout time “Congress clearly meant to disestablish the Creek reservation because it stripped the tribe of its jurisdiction in eastern Oklahoma, its authority and property.” Essentially, they argued that because tribes had previously sold off parts of their land, effectively all land in eastern Oklahoma did not belong to them. Thus, crimes committed “on” tribal land did not qualify for the aforementioned status.
On the reverse, the petitioner’s counsel argued that even if certain land was sold from Native tribes to non-Native entities, land initially granted to Native tribes still belongs to them until/unless Congress officially annuls their status. As such, the alleged crime (and subsequent punishment) of McGirt should have been decided by a Federal agency.
SCOTUS Ruling
As alluded to before, the Court reversed McGrit’s denial of relief from the Oklahoma court, and maintained that “land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains “Indian country.”” The decision was a narrow 5-4 ruling. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagen, and Gorsuch were in the Majority; Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh were in the Minority. Justice Gorsuch wrote the Court’s Majority opinion; the Dissenting opinion was authored by Chief Justice Roberts. Both opinions, as well as the Court’s syllabus can be found here.
On the surface, the Court simply affirmed that land granted to Native American tribes still belongs to them. But further, they implicitly held that individuals belonging to a recognized Native American tribe, who commit major crimes on reservation territory, shall not be prosecuted by the State nor the Native American tribe, but instead by the Federal government.
In end, and most crucial to the reports, the Court did not give back Oklahoma territory to any Native Americans. No land changed hands and the status of the land remains the same.
Who Reported It?
The reports that “Oklahoma territory was given” back mostly came from reactionary, less-refined outlets. Specifically, some outlets would adorn a misleading headline and then add proper context in the body. While not all of the following outlets are considered for our ABS, they are good representation of the point:
How Biased Is The Report?
Any outlet who runs a headline or story that alludes to or explicitly says a variation of “The Supreme Court Gave Away Oklahoma Land” is untrue, but shall remain the affirmative report in this Stipulation. Those that clearly distinguish that the status of the land remains unchanged shall run counter to this Stipulation. Keywords that will distinguish whether this report is biased or unbiased may included “remains” and “returns,” respectively. Thusly, the report received an ABS of -20.43, making it NEUTRAL-BIASED.