Prior post with opinion here.
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.
Background materials on the case here.
SCOTUSBlog preview (by Fletcher): “In sequel to McGirt, justices will again review scope of state prosecutorial power in Indian country“
Atlantic (by Rebecca Nagle and Allison Herrera): “Where Is Oklahoma Getting Its Numbers From in Its Supreme Court Case?“
Boston Review (by Mary Kathryn Nagle and Emma Lower): “What Will It Take to End Violence Against Native Women?“
Supreme Court Merits Briefs:
Merits Stage Amicus Briefs Supporting Petitioner:
Merits Stage Amicus Briefs Supporting Respondent:
Cert stage materials in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta:
Lower court materials:
Also, the plea agreement in United States v. Castro-Huerta (N.D. Okla.):