McGirt v. Oklahoma

McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020): How the Supreme Court Reaffirmed Creek Nation Sovereignty and Signaled a Shift in Indian Land Rights

By Danielle Williams — January 28, 2022

On July 9, 2020, the Supreme Court decided, in its 5-4 ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020), that land reserved for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation by Congress in the 19th century was never disestablished, so it remained “Indian country.” This decision means the state of Oklahoma cannot pursue cases against American Indians for crimes allegedly committed on tribal land and affirmed that 3.25 million acres of Oklahoma belongs to the Creek Nation—exciting activists, tribal leaders, and other tribes fighting for land rights while alarming Oklahoma landowners.

In 1996, Jimmy McGirt, a citizen of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, was accused of raping, molesting, and sodomizing a four-year-old girl (Shapiro & Gonnerman). He was convicted on all counts and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole and two consecutive 500-year sentences by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA). McGirt argued that the OCCA lacked jurisdiction over his case under the 1885 Major Crimes Act, which grants federal, not state, jurisdiction over serious crimes committed by an Indian in Indian country. Because McGirt was arrested within the Creek reservation, the Major Crimes Act barred Oklahoma from prosecuting him. The state argued that eastern Oklahoma was exempt from the Act because the Creek reservation was disestablished when Oklahoma became a state. They claimed that later breaches of treaties with the Creek Nation indicated Congress intended to dissolve the reservation—or that no true reservation had ever existed.

In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court sided with McGirt, holding that “once a reservation is established, it retains that status until Congress explicitly indicates otherwise” (McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S.). The Court affirmed that Congress had “plainly… left the Tribe with significant sovereignty functions over the lands in question.” This decision upheld the Creek Nation’s 19th-century authority despite congressional abuses of treaty obligations. The ruling demonstrates a shift in the Court’s approach to Indian land rights, holding Congress accountable for promises made in treaties even after violations occurred.

McGirt v. Oklahoma is part of a broader trend of Supreme Court decisions granting more authority to reservations by relying on historic statutes and treaties. This case relied on the Treaties of 1832, 1833, and 1856 to confirm that Indian country is a dependent nation outside state jurisdiction (Schwartz). This marks a break from earlier rulings where the Court often curtailed tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians and imposed state control.

This ruling has significant implications for future cases. It may encourage higher and lower courts to grant broader Indian jurisdiction—even over non-Natives—raising concerns among property owners in former reservation territories. It could also lead to the overturning of prior decisions that stripped tribes of jurisdiction. While the full effects of this case are still unfolding, it clearly signals an enduring shift in how the Court approaches Indian land rights and federal obligations.

Works Cited

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. (2020)
Shapiro, David M., and Monet Gonnerman. “McGirt v. Oklahoma.” Harvard Law Review, 10 Nov. 2020, https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/11/mcgirt-v-oklahoma/
United States, Congress, Cong., Schwartz, Mainon A. This Land Is Whose Land?: The McGirt v. Oklahoma Decision and Considerations for Congress, Congressional Research Service, 2020, pp. 1–5. 116th Congress, 2nd session, document. LSB ; 10527.