Oklahoma SCT Holds States Court Possess Jurisdiction to Enforce Protection Orders between Indians inside Indian Country

Here are the materials in Milne v. Hudson:

Majority Opinion

Concurring Opinion — Gurich

Concurring Opinion — Darby

Concurring Opinion — Combs

Appellant Brief

District Court Order

Motion to Dismiss

Carter and Rotman on Surface Mining Regulation After McGirt

Sam Carter and Robin Rotman have posted “Resurfacing Sovereignty: Who Regulates Surface Mining In Indian Country After McGirt?,” forthcoming in the Montana Law Review, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

Following the decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), there has been a surge of litigation from the State of Oklahoma seeking to clarify the scope of the McGirt holding. While the Supreme Court of the United States was clear that the holding in McGirt was limited to criminal jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act, it has sparked subsequent litigation regarding the scope of tribal authority. The pending case of State of Oklahoma v. United States Department of the Interior, which concerns surface mining regulation in Indian Country in Oklahoma, will test the application of McGirt outside of the criminal context. To this end, our article makes three recommendations: (1) in litigation concerning tribal lands, tribes should be a necessary party for litigation to proceed; (2) Congress should invest in pathways for tribes to build the capacity to create and manage their own programs, and (3) when tribal self-determination is encouraged and jurisdictional boundaries are clear, tribes can retain agency over their energy future and are less susceptible to the social harms that have been associated with the development of energy projects.

Tenth Circuit Briefs in Hooper v. City of Tulsa


Lower court materials here.

Student Scholarship on McGirt and Aboriginal Title

Clare Blumenthal published “‘We Hold the Government to Its Word’: How McGirt v. Oklahoma Revives Aboriginal Title” in the Yale Law Journal.

Here is the abstract:

This Note analyzes for the first time how McGirt v. Oklahoma could revive aboriginal-title land claims against the United States and create an opening for Land Back litigation. It argues that McGirt directs lower courts to enforce aboriginal title’s congressional-intent requirement strictly and renews the relevance of an overlooked case from 2015, Pueblo of Jemez v. United States. In Pueblo of Jemez, the Tenth Circuit unknowingly demonstrated how insisting on clearer proof of congressional intent to extinguish title would implement McGirt’s holding and remove the jurisdictional bars—sovereign immunity and preclusion—that have prevented aboriginal-title litigation.