McGirt v. Oklahoma

What happened

In the 1832 Treaty, the United States guaranteed "the Creek country west of the Mississippi" to the Creek Indians. In 1833 it fixed boundaries for a "permanent home to the whole Creek Nation of Indians" in what is now Oklahoma and promised a patent in fee simple for the land. An 1856 treaty promised that "no portion" of the Creek lands would ever be embraced or included within, or annexed to, any Territory or State. An 1866 treaty reduced the land, but Congress restated that the remainder would "be forever set apart as a home for said Creek Nation."

Jimcy McGirt, an enrolled member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, was convicted by an Oklahoma state court of three serious sexual offenses committed on land described in those treaties as the Creek Reservation. He argued that Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction because the land is "Indian country" under the federal Major Crimes Act, so any new trial must be in federal court.

The Supreme Court, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch, agreed. It held that "land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains 'Indian country.'" Only Congress can diminish or disestablish a reservation, and it must clearly say so. The Court wrote that Congress "has since broken more than a few of its promises to the Tribe," and that the Creek Reservation persists nonetheless. Chief Justice Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, and by Justice Thomas except as to one footnote.

The opinion adds that Oklahoma and its tribes "can work successfully together as partners," and Congress remains free to supplement its statutory directions about the lands in question at any time.

Good to know. This ruling addressed the Creek Reservation only.

Summarized with AI assistance from 4 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error