Murphy v. Royal

What happened

Patrick Dwayne Murphy, a Creek citizen, was convicted of murder in an Oklahoma state court and sentenced to death. He argued that he should have been tried in federal court because he is an Indian and the offense occurred in Indian country, within the Creek Reservation. Murphy and the State agreed that the offense occurred within the Creek Reservation if Congress had not disestablished it.

The Tenth Circuit's panel opinion issued on August 8, 2017. On November 9, 2017, it denied rehearing and reissued the opinion nunc pro tunc to the original filing date, with a concurrence by Chief Judge Tymkovich. It concluded: "We conclude the Reservation remains intact and therefore the crime was committed in Indian country."

The court reviewed a series of statutes the State cited, including the Curtis Act of 1898 and the Original Allotment Agreement of 1901, and found they changed tribal governance but did not erase the Creek Reservation's borders. It noted that the State conceded "not one of the eight statutes contains particular language that disestablished the Creek Reservation." It sent the case back with instructions to grant habeas relief. It added that "the decision whether to prosecute Mr. Murphy in federal court rests with the United States," and that decisions about the Creek Reservation's borders "remain with Congress."

Chief Judge Tymkovich wrote that en banc review is not appropriate when a panel opinion faithfully applies Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court heard the case as Sharp v. Murphy. Its docket shows that on July 9, 2020 the judgment was adjudged to be affirmed in a per curiam opinion, with Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting and Justice Gorsuch taking no part.

Good to know. The Supreme Court affirmed in 2020 in a one-sentence order, "for the reasons stated in McGirt v. Oklahoma."

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