The case at hand has to do with tribal law enforcement?
But this could set precedents in other areas. If much of Oklahoma is really legally considered an Indian reservation, that could have implications in other legal matters as well.
SO with McGirt, did anyone mention that McGirt was convicted of raping a 4-year-old?
He was challenging his conviction on the grounds that the Indian Tribe should’ve had jurisdiction.
So the Supreme Court just gave away half of a US State to protect a pedophile?
That is what the Federal Government does best.
Does this limit prosecution of crimes that take place at casinos?
possession used to be 9/10 s of the law...
to the victor, go the spoils.
i wonder how this will play out... i wonder what the odds in the casinos in oklahoma are running.
Going to be hard to prosecute that fraudulent Indian voting.
“The 3000 registered voters on the reservation cast 25000 votes for the Democrat candidate.”
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were two crappy picks. Which should have been obvious by their being touted by the RINO Establishment Federalist Society and the RINO 3/4s of our elected officials.
I am beginning to feel like I am a native American Indian. I’m beginning to feel a bit like E. Warren.
I’m a black native American lesbian female with a Hispanic surname and Indian hair due. What can I get for free?
If I understand this case correctly, an Indian committed a crime and was tried by the Oklahoma State Courts.
SCOTUS now says that is a no-no. The Indian must be tried by Indian Courts.
If that is the SCOTUS reasoning, then if a Foreigner commits are crime in the USA, do we have to send the Foreigner back to their country to be tried?
Of course! Why didn’t I think of that? Black Lives Matter... Put THEM on reservations. There’s a precedent for it. Confine black crime to black people. White crime to white people. Never the twain shall meet.
If all that land is truly Reservation land, does the state of Oklahoma have any right to tax it? I would think not.
But then....what about double jeopardy.
this is just a very small step away from the court deciding that the land must be “returned to its rightful owners” (which the court will characterize as the Indian tribes). if the laws of your state don’t apply (or can’t be enforced) in your town, then there’s no remaining sovereignty in a practical sense
and your land ownership/title is recognized, upheld, and supposedly defended by your state and its sovereignty, power to enforce its laws
for instance, there’s a state law against trespassers walking across your lawn. there’s a state law against squatters moving into your house without your permission. these are state laws. now that the state of Oaklahoma can’t enfoce its laws in all of these cities, towns, communities, and regions, ... where does this leave your property rights?
we will find out soon, at least by the time of the next court decision
Does that mean the Cherokee get to start buying and selling slaves again?
The Federal Government needs to give the Confederate States their property back.
Relax. I live in Oklahoma. When the late Wilma Mankiller, God rest her soul, was Chief of the Cherokee nation, she removed the blood quantum requirement for Cherokees, so that she could get more government help for her people. (Most tribes have a requirement that in order to be a tribal member, you must have at least 25% Indian blood). So now, anyone with a tiny, provable amount of Cherokee blood -— and I mean tiny -— is entitled to be a member of the Cherokee Nation. So, overnight, a huge number of Oklahomans (as well as anywhere else in the U.S.) suddenly were considered Cherokee. And while many traditional American Indians vote democrat, Oklahoma is a politically red state, and most of its “Cherokees” are mostly white, and vote Republican. And that’s not going to change. (And BTW, a lot of democrats here, Indian or not, are new Trump converts, this time around).
How many square inches of America will be left after this takes its natural course?
Oddly enough, this is a ruling I would expect from a truly conservative court.
My logic is that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is the “dead raccoon under the back porch” of federal agencies. And neither the Democrats nor Republican liberals have been willing to deal with the it or any of the other legal cesspits within the government. They are too messy, take too much thought, and their degree of difficulty means that only conservatives have the brains and guts to tackle them.
But there is no way to treat the long infected wound than first to remove the old encrusted, dirty bandage covering it.
So what of this case? Simply put, even before this decision, half of OK was Indian territory in the law, however not enforced or applied. This decision just removes the old bandage and points this out.
To fix the problem is not the SCOTUS problem, but that of the congress and President.
And expect to see more of this in the future. Such decisions are neither left or right, but they are absolutely necessary to get US law back on track.
But neither conservative nor liberal commentators will notice.
What does the law say about it all?
Gorsuch writes that the Indian Reservation exists, by acts of Congress. The applicable laws by congress, in dealing with Indian tribes, are controlling.
Oklahoma claims, we are controlling cuz the reservation was given back to the state, but points to no actual law. Just common understanding.
Roberts writes the same thing. precedent shows we can do what we want to keep the peace. REGARDLESS of how the law reads.
Surprisingly, even Thomas goes with the precedent thing about “intent”.
I’m with Gorsuch on this. Written law is controlling. Congressional “intent” (remember “hanging chads”) is nothing. Vague law is no law at all. Words have meaning.
If I live on an Indian reservation am I now exempt from paying Federal income tax?