Know your vote. Take a look at your sample ballot now!

McGirt v. Oklahoma

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
McGirt v. Oklahoma
Term: 2019
Important Dates
Argument: May 11, 2020
Decided: July 9, 2020
Outcome
Reversed
Vote
5-4
Majority
Neil Gorsuch • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan
Dissenting
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Samuel Alito • Brett Kavanaugh • Clarence Thomas


McGirt v. Oklahoma is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on May 11, 2020, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), the state's court of last resort for criminal matters.

The case concerned whether Oklahoma state courts had jurisdiction to try a citizen of the Creek Nation for criminal matters. On July 9, 2020, the court reversed the OCCA's decision in a 5-4 ruling, holding that under the Indian Major Crimes Act, lands reserved for the Creek Nation in eastern Oklahoma constituted Indian Country. As a result, the state of Oklahoma could not legally try a Creek citizen for criminal conduct in state court.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

Oral argument for McGirt v. Oklahoma was initially scheduled for April 21, 2020. However, the U.S. Supreme Court announced on April 3 that it was postponing the eight oral arguments originally scheduled during its April sitting. In a press release, the court said the delay was "in keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19."[2] COVID-19 is the abbreviation for coronavirus disease 2019. On April 15, the court announced it had rescheduled the case for May 11, 2020.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: In 1997, a jury in Wagoner County District Court found Jimcy McGirt guilty of three counts of sex crimes. He was sentenced to 500 years in prison and life in prison without parole. McGirt appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), which denied his petition for review. McGirt appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the Oklahoma courts lacked jurisdiction to hear his case because of his membership in the Seminole/Creek Nations of Oklahoma and because the alleged crimes occurred in Indian Country.[3][4]
  • The issue: "Whether Oklahoma courts can continue to unlawfully exercise, under state law, criminal jurisdiction as 'justiciable matter' in Indian Country over Indians accused of major crimes enumerated under the Indian Major Crimes Act—which are under exclusive federal jurisdiction."[5]
  • The outcome: The court reversed the OCCA's decision in a 5-4 ruling, holding that under the Indian Major Crimes Act, lands reserved for the Creek Nation in eastern Oklahoma constituted Indian Country. As a result, the state of Oklahoma could not legally try a Creek citizen for criminal conduct in state court.[1] Justice Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas each filed dissenting opinions.


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • July 9, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' (OCCA) decision.
    • May 11, 2020: The court heard oral argument.
    • April 3, 2020: The court postponed its April sitting. Oral arguments in McGirt v. Oklahoma were initially scheduled for April 21, 2020.
    • December 13, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • April 17, 2019: Jimcy McGirt, the petitioner, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • February 25, 2019: The OCCA affirmed the Wagoner County District Court's order denying McGirt's petition for post-conviction relief.

    Background

    In 1997, a jury in Wagoner County District Court found Jimcy McGirt guilty of one count of first degree rape by instrumentation, one count of lewd molestation, and one count of forcible sodomy. He was sentenced to 500 years in prison for the first two counts and life in prison without parole for the third count. McGirt appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's court of last resort for criminal matters. The court denied McGirt's petition for review.[3]

    On April 17, 2019, McGirt petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. In his petition, McGirt argued the Wagoner County District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear his case because: (1) McGirt is a member of the Seminole/Creek Nations of Oklahoma, (2) the crimes for which he was convicted allegedly occurred in Indian Country, and (3) the crimes "are enumerated within the Indian Major Crimes Act."[4]

    Indian Country

    18 U.S.C § 1151 defines Indian Country as:[6]

    “

    (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation,

    (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and

    (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.[7]

    		”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[5]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether Oklahoma courts can continue to unlawfully exercise, under state law, criminal jurisdiction as "justiciable matter" in Indian Country over Indians accused of major crimes enumerated under the Indian Major Crimes Act—which are under exclusive federal jurisdiction.[7] ”

    Outcome

    In a 5-4 opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, holding that under the Indian Major Crimes Act, lands reserved for the Creek Nation in eastern Oklahoma constituted Indian Country.[1]

    Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, and joined in part by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas also filed a separate dissenting opinion.

    Opinion

    Justice Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion that the lands set aside for the Creek Nation in eastern Oklahoma constitute a reservation, or Indian Country, under the Indian Major Crimes Act (MCA). Gorsuch wrote that only Congress had the authority to change or disestablish (i.e., dissolve) a reservation, and had not done so in this case; that allotment, or the parceling of land into individually owned lots, did not disestablish the Creek reservation; and that the eastern half of Oklahoma is not exempt from the MCA.[1]

    “ Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word. ... But, in seeking to defend the state-court judgment below, Oklahoma has put aside whatever procedural defenses it might have and asked us to confirm that the land once given to the Creeks is no longer a reservation today. ...


    Under our Constitution, States have no authority to reduce federal reservations lying within their borders. ... Likewise, courts have no proper role in the adjustment of reservation borders. ...

    The relevant statute expressly contemplates private land ownership within reservation boundaries. Nor under the statute’s terms does it matter whether these individual parcels have passed hands to non-Indians. To the contrary, this Court has explained repeatedly that Congress does not disestablish a reservation simply by allowing the transfer of individual plots, whether to Native Americans or others. ...

    Now, the State points to historical practices and demographics ... to prove disestablishment. ... But Oklahoma does not point to any ambiguous language in any of the relevant statutes that could plausibly be read as an Act of disestablishment. Nor may a court favor contemporaneous or later practices instead of the laws Congress passed. As Solem explained, “[o]nce a block of land is set aside for an Indian reservation and no matter what happens to the title of individual plots within the area, the entire block retains its reservation status until Congress explicitly indicates otherwise.” 465 U. S., at 470 (citing United States v. Celestine, 215 U. S. 278, 285 (1909)). ...

    In conjunction with the MCA, §1151(a) not only sends to federal court certain major crimes committed by Indians on reservations. Two doors down, in §1151(c), the statute does the same for major crimes committed by Indians on “Indian allotments, the Indian titles of which have not been extinguished.” ...

    The MCA applies to Oklahoma according to its usual terms: Only the federal government, not the State, may prosecute Indians for major crimes committed in Indian country.[7]

    		”
    —Justice Gorsuch[1]

    Dissenting opinion

    Chief Justice Roberts

    Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas joined except as to footnote 9.

    The chief justice argued that Congress disestablished (i.e., dissolved) the Creek reservation in Oklahoma in the 19th century, leading up to Oklahoma's statehood. He also wrote that the correct interpretation of precedent affirmed the reservation's disestablishment, meaning Oklahoma had the right to prosecute McGirt.[1]

    The chief justice wrote:

    “ A huge portion of Oklahoma is not a Creek Indian reservation. Congress disestablished any reservation in a series of statutes leading up to Oklahoma statehood at the turn of the 19th century. The Court reaches the opposite conclusion only by disregarding the “well settled” approach required by our precedents. ...


    A century of practice confirms that the Five Tribes’ prior domains were extinguished. The State has maintained unquestioned jurisdiction for more than 100 years. ... And until a few years ago the Creek Nation itself acknowledged that it no longer possessed the reservation the Court discovers today. ... As the Tribes, the State, and Congress have recognized from the outset, those “reservations were destroyed” when “Oklahoma entered the Union.” ...

    As the Creek, the State of Oklahoma, the United States, and our judicial predecessors have long agreed, Congress disestablished any Creek reservation more than 100 years ago. Oklahoma therefore had jurisdiction to prosecute McGirt. I respectfully dissent.[7]

    		”
    —Chief Justice Roberts[1]

    Justice Thomas

    Justice Thomas filed a separate dissenting opinion. He wrote separately to argue that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the lower court's ruling.[1]

    Justice Thomas wrote:

    “ I write separately to note an additional defect in the Court’s decision: It reverses a statecourt judgment that it has no jurisdiction to review. ... We lack jurisdiction to review the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision, because it rests on an adequate and independent state ground. ...


    I agree with THE CHIEF JUSTICE that the Court misapplies our precedents in granting petitioner relief. Ante, at 6–38 (dissenting opinion). But in doing so, the Court also overrides Oklahoma’s statutory procedural bar, upsetting a violent sex offender’s conviction without the power to do so. The State of Oklahoma deserves more respect under our Constitution’s federal system. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.[7]

    		”
    —Justice Thomas[1]

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[8]



    Transcript

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Supreme Court of the United States, McGirt v. Oklahoma, decided July 9, 2020
    2. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Press release from April 3, 2020," accessed April 3, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Jimcy McGirt v. Oklahoma, decided February 25, 2019
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed December 16, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Questions presented: McGirt v. Oklahoma," accessed December 16, 2019
    6. ↑ Legal Information Institute, "18 U.S. Code § 1151.Indian country defined," accessed December 16, 2019
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed May 18, 2020
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=McGirt_v._Oklahoma&oldid=9117286"