Supreme Court Rules Large Area of Eastern Oklahoma Is Native American Land

[StillSleepy]

The Supreme Court has ruled today that a large section in eastern Oklahoma (could not find an actual specified size) is Native American land and as such Native Americans living therein are only under federal rather than state jurisdiction.

Supreme Court rules broad swath of Oklahoma is Native American land for purposes of federal criminal law [CNN]

Supreme Court Rules Large Swath of Oklahoma Is Indian Reservation [NYT]

 

[pgwenthold]

ustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed this concern during oral arguments, telling McGirt's lawyer, "What makes this case hard is that there have been hundreds, hundreds of prosecutions, some very heinous offenses of the state law. On your view, they would all become undone."

To which the answer is, good! The state had no right to do those prosecutions in the first place.

One of the most important functions of the courts is to protect the rights of the citizens and to prevent the government from overstepping it's authority. It doesn't matter how long it's been doing it, they never had the right in the first place.

 

[acbytesla]

To which the answer is, good! The state had no right to do those prosecutions in the first place.

One of the most important functions of the courts is to protect the rights of the citizens and to prevent the government from overstepping it's authority. It doesn't matter how long it's been doing it, they never had the right in the first place.

C'mon, there is more to it than that. There very well may be some very guilty people of some very heinous crimes who will escape justice and may be free to prey on others. That doesn't mean that this isn't the correct decision.

It should be noted that Ginsberg voted with the majority.

 

[pgwenthold]

C'mon, there is more to it than that. There very well may be some very guilty people of some very heinous crimes who will escape justice and may be free to prey on others.

Sure, but that doesn't give the state of Oklahoma the right to prosecute them, no more than they could prosecute those who commit crimes in Texas.

The government of Oklahoma had no authority to prosecute those people. They should have let the federal government do it instead. Yes, there will be guilty who go free, but that is the government's fault. They can't just move into the reservation and assert that they are in charge.

 

[acbytesla]

Sure, but that doesn't give the state of Oklahoma the right to prosecute them, no more than they could prosecute those who commit crimes in Texas.

The government of Oklahoma had no authority to prosecute those people. They should have let the federal government do it instead. Yes, there will be guilty who go free, but that is the government's fault. They can't just move into the reservation and assert that they are in charge.

I don't disagree. I also don't think it is wrong to at least acknowledge some of the consequences.

 

[pgwenthold]

I don't disagree. I also don't think it is wrong to at least acknowledge some of the consequences.

Acknowledged, but I don't have any problem with them at all. The government ****** up. I see this as no worse than letting a criminal go free because of an illegal search. Yeah, some guilty go free. Doesn't matter, you follow the rules. You get a search warrant, and you don't arrest people when you don't have jurisdiction. Talk about textbook case of government tyranny, I think it is when they arrest someone without having the authority to do it.

I acknowledged the consequence, but my response, as in my first comment, was good. Yes, a bunch of people are going to go free. Damn it, they should.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Did the tribe file an amicus brief or were they blindsided by this?

 

[StillSleepy]

There is a glaring problem about the (main) ruling, and that is that the grounds for this decision didn't actually come from trying to honor the treaty but rather Congress failing to override it.

 

[Brainster]

Apparently this ruling only applies to criminal cases involving Native American defendants. The Supreme Court has not given them Tulsa (which is part of the area affected).

ETA: This little detail might be of interest:

Forever, it turns out, did not last very long, because the Civil War disrupted both relationships and borders. The Five Tribes, whose members collectively held at least 8,000 slaves, signed treaties of alliance with the Confederacy and contributed forces to fight alongside Rebel troops.

They were traitors and the American equivalent of the Nazis? Fascinating!

 

[Brainster]

C'mon, there is more to it than that. There very well may be some very guilty people of some very heinous crimes who will escape justice and may be free to prey on others. That doesn't mean that this isn't the correct decision.

It should be noted that Ginsberg voted with the majority.

The case at hand involved a man convicted of raping his wife's 4-year-old granddaughter.

 

[Meadmaker]

I haven't read the ruling, and in this case I doubt I ever will. They're kind of hard to read, and you have to be kind of determined.

What I have found is that the media accounts of Supreme Court rulings are often wrong. Sometimes they are oversimplified. I have occasionally seen cases where the reports were the exact opposite of what the court says. Typical media accounts are: Who won? And then go on to explain why that is good or bad. In reality, who won is often far less important at that level than why they won.

At any rate, the court didn't rule that half of Oklahoma belonged to the Indians. Because I haven't read the opinion, I'm not sure exactly what it says. As best I can tell, the ruling said that once upon a time, Congress passed a law about who could prosecute Indians for what, and that law has never been repealed, so it's still in force.

The takeaway from this week's rulings really ought to be that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are not Trump's stooges.

 

[acbytesla]

The case at hand involved a man convicted of raping his wife's 4-year-old granddaughter.

I don't know the details of the case. I also tend to be very skeptical of those kind of cases. Not to say he did or didn't commit the crime.

 

[StillSleepy]

Apparently this ruling only applies to criminal cases involving Native American defendants. The Supreme Court has not given them Tulsa (which is part of the area affected).

ETA: This little detail might be of interest:



They were traitors and the American equivalent of the Nazis? Fascinating!

IIRC, it was more that they flip-flopped depending on which side had a stronger presence at the moment. This also leaves out the bit where the fact that they owned slaves was because they were "being taught how to be civilized" by Southerners (the idea being that red men were superior to black men but not white men). Slavery within the Five Civilized Tribes tended towards more of an indentured servanthood rather than chattel, to the ire of the whites doing the teaching. In fact, some of the tribes (the particular tribes escape me) allowed for slaves to not only purchase freedom but also membership into the tribe and then intermarry. When military presence on the region was low due to troops being needed elsewhere, there were one or two instances of breaks for the Mexican border.

 

[theprestige]

There is a glaring problem about the (main) ruling, and that is that the grounds for this decision didn't actually come from trying to honor the treaty but rather Congress failing to override it.

This isn't a glaring problem, or even a problem at all. It's not the court's job to try to honor the treaty. The court's job is to rule on the legalities. What would be a glaring problem is if the court ignored the separation of powers and arrogated to itself the proper authority of the legislature.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sure, but that doesn't give the state of Oklahoma the right to prosecute them, no more than they could prosecute those who commit crimes in Texas.

The government of Oklahoma had no authority to prosecute those people. They should have let the federal government do it instead. Yes, there will be guilty who go free, but that is the government's fault. They can't just move into the reservation and assert that they are in charge.

As you are probably noting, TX isn't a sovereign state like a reservation is.

My Great Great Grandmother was born in the OK Indian Territories. My bother recently went looking for ancestors and he emailed me a copy of the birth certificate. I don't think she was from any Indian tribes. There was always a rumor she was Blackfeet. But we can't see the Blackfeet were ever sent or ever migrated to The Indian Territories. Lots of other tribes ended up there.

I find this ruling especially interesting.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So I wonder if convicts are lining up to have their convictions overturned?

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm trying to come up with some sort of joke along the lines of "Oh, sure. They give Tulsa back to the Indians right after Trump infects it with coronavirus."

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I'm trying to come up with some sort of joke along the lines of "Oh, sure. They give Tulsa back to the Indians right after Trump infects it with coronavirus."

Trump Rallies - the New Pox Blanket!

 

[lomiller]

To which the answer is, good! The state had no right to do those prosecutions in the first place.

The federal government most likely would have declined. In the absence of a decision like this one there would be no reason for the federal government to accept that responsibility.

I could be convinced otherwise but with the information at hand don’t like this decision. AFAICT it does nothing to redress the fact that the land was stolen in the first place and in practice doesn’t look like it would function as anything other than a loophole to allow convicted felons to go free. It could also create situations where the Oklahoma has responsibility but no legal authority to enforce anything. It probably just ends up forcing congress to legislate away any remaining rights or outstanding claims the tribes may have to bring back some semblance of order.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The federal government most likely would have declined. In the absence of a decision like this one there would be no reason for the federal government to accept that responsibility.

I could be convinced otherwise but with the information at hand don’t like this decision. AFAICT it does nothing to redress the fact that the land was stolen in the first place and in practice doesn’t look like it would function as anything other than a loophole to allow convicted felons to go free. It could also create situations where the Oklahoma has responsibility but no legal authority to enforce anything. It probably just ends up forcing congress to legislate away any remaining rights or outstanding claims the tribes may have to bring back some semblance of order.

The five justices who voted for it probably don't like the decision.