Living Law,
Living LandSupport land rights

Court case

Sharp v. Murphy

On July 9, 2020 the Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit in Sharp v. Murphy in one paragraph, for the reasons given in McGirt.

Citation
591 U.S. 977 (2020) (per curiam), No. 17-1107
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
2020
Nations
Muscogee (Creek) Nation
Treaty at issue
Creek treatiesnot yet checked against a source
Holding
Affirmed the Tenth Circuit for the reasons in McGirt, so the Creek Reservation was not disestablished for Major Crimes Act purposes.
Effect on land rights
advanced

What happened

Sharp v. Murphy was the companion to McGirt v. Oklahoma. Tommy Sharp, Oklahoma's interim warden, was the petitioner, and Patrick Dwayne Murphy was the respondent. The Court was reviewing a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Both cases turned on whether land the United States promised the Creek Nation in the 19th century remains a reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. As McGirt explains, Oklahoma state courts had rejected any suggestion that the lands remain a reservation, while the Tenth Circuit, in Murphy v. Royal, reached the opposite conclusion.

On July 9, 2020, the Court issued a per curiam order, an opinion issued in the Court's name rather than by one justice. It reads in full: "The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is affirmed for the reasons stated in McGirt v. Oklahoma." Justice Gorsuch took no part in the case, and Justices Thomas and Alito dissented.

McGirt, decided the same day, held that for purposes of the Major Crimes Act, land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains "Indian country." Justice Gorsuch wrote for a five-justice majority: "Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word."

Summarized with AI assistance from 3 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Well supported by the sources below.

  1. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is affirmed for the reasons stated in McGirt v. OklahomaSharp v. Murphy, 591 U.S. 977 (2020) (per curiam) (slip opinion)
  2. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.McGirt v. Oklahoma, No. 18-9526 (2020) (Legal Information Institute, Cornell)
  3. the Tenth Circuit has reached the opposite conclusionMcGirt v. Oklahoma, No. 18-9526 (2020) (Legal Information Institute, Cornell)

Research notes. The order itself states no facts; the narrative does not describe Murphy's crime or sentence because no opened source does. The reporter citation 591 U.S. 977 on the page was not confirmed (the slip order shows no page). Date July 9, 2020 matches the slip order. The Castro-Huerta sentence was removed as unsourced here.

Treaty or agreementRemoval treatyShapes from the 1899 federal record: approximate, not legal boundaries.

Who is doing the work

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Connections

Links marked “suggested” were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Doctrine applied 3

Concerns the instrument 2

Policy era 1

Nations named 1

Decided a dispute over 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/591/17-1107/legal text copy
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High
Notes
  • Some details not yet checked against a source

Correct this record