Here is the complaint in Seneca-Cayuga Nation v. Drummond (N.D. Okla.):
McGirt v. Oklahoma
Tenth Circuit Oral Argument Audio in Hooper v. City of Tulsa
Velchik and Zhang — An Empirical Examination of Restoring Reservation Status in Oklahoma
Michael K. Velchik & Jeffery Y. Zhang have published “Restoring Indian Reservation Status: An Empirical Analysis” in the Yale Journal on Regulation. PDF
I posted about this excellent article a while back when it was in draft form.
Tenth Circuit Briefs in United States v. Murphy [yes, that Murphy]
Mr. Murphy prevailed against Oklahoma in the Supreme Court following the McGirt decision, but was immediately prosecuted and convicted by the United States. He is now challenging the federal government’s delay.
Oklahoma Federal Court [with New Mexico Judge] Dismisses Cherokee Citizens Claims against Oklahoma on State Court Exhaustion Grounds
Here are the materials in Pickup v. District Court of Nowata County (N.D. Okla.):
24 District Attorneys Motion to Dismiss
71 Clerk Edwards Motion to Dismiss
72 Clerk Newberry Motion to Dismiss
143 Tribes Motion to File Amicus Brief
Emily Harwell on the Effects of McGirt
Emily N. Harwell has published “Judicial Discretion Across Jurisdictions: McGirt’s Effects on Indian Offenders in Oklahoma” in the Cornell Law Review. PDF.
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.
Oklahoma SCT Materials in Wren v. Yates
Related case here.
Interior Prevails in Post-McGirt Dispute with Oklahoma over Mining Regulation Jurisdiction
Here is the order in State of Oklahoma v. Dept. of the Interior (W.D. Okla.):
Oklahoma SCT Holds States Court Possess Jurisdiction to Enforce Protection Orders between Indians inside Indian Country
Here are the materials in Milne v. Hudson:
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.