Supreme Court

SCOTUSBlog Recap of Arizona v. Navajo Nation Oral Argument

March 21, 2023March 21, 2023Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Justices appear divided over Navajo Nation’s water rights.”

Background materials on the case are here.

*According to the U.S., this area is entitled only to the water that the Navajos can find there.*

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Challenge to Spokane Tribe Water Agreement

March 20, 2023Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s order list.

The denied petition is Sulgrove v. Spokane Indian Tribe.

Lower court materials here.

SCOTUSBlog Preview of Arizona v. Navajo Nation

March 17, 2023Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “As drought persists in the west, justices to consider Navajo Nation’s rights to Colorado River.”

Background materials on the case are here.

Jacob Jurss on ICWA and Brackeen

February 24, 2023Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Counterpoint: Tribal rights, futures must not be plundered again” in the Minnesapolis Star-Tribune.

SCOTUS Sets Oral Argument Dates for Navajo and LDF Cases

February 7, 2023Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Arizona v. Navajo will be argued on March 20, 2023.

LDF v. Coughlin will be argued on April 24, 2023.

Emily Harwell on the Effects of McGirt

January 31, 2023Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Emily N. Harwell has published “Judicial Discretion Across Jurisdictions: McGirt’s Effects on Indian Offenders in Oklahoma” in the Cornell Law Review. PDF.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

Here is the abstract:

Oklahoma’s exercise of criminal jurisdiction over crime committed on tribal reservations remained unchecked until 2020. In McGirt v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court held that the Muscogee Creek Nation’s reservation had in fact never been disestablished and remains in existence today. In doing so, the Court restored criminal prosecution authority to tribal and federal courts. McGirt received praise throughout the United States from tribal nations and federal Indian Law practitioners for Justice Gorsuch’s strong affirmation of the Muscogee Creek’s sovereignty over its reservation and the honoring of treaties made between the United States and the Muscogee Creek Nation. Similarly situated tribes in Eastern Oklahoma including the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw have already joined the Muscogee Creek Nation in asserting the changes that McGirt brings.

In the wake of this change, legal and political discussion has centered around practical matters: Does the Tribe have adequate resources for managing criminal jurisdiction within its reservation? Will the increase in cases overload the federal court system? The question of how the change in prosecutorial authority will affect Native American criminal defendants has yet to be asked, though. This Note assesses the effects of McGirt on the sentencing of Native Americans who commit crimes on a reservation in Oklahoma. Oklahoma state court judges exercise discretion in areas of sentencing different from federal court judges. Existing empirical studies suggest federal sentencing produces harsher, lengthier sentences than state courts. By comparing Oklahoma and federal court sentencing data, this study attempts to answer whether McGirt‘s celebration of tribal sovereignty is simultaneously a devastating blow to Native American criminal defendants committing crimes on tribal reservations in Oklahoma.