Here:
Lower court materials here.
McGirt v. Oklahoma
Nicholas Stamates on White Collar Crime in the City of Tulsa after McGirt and Castro-Huerta
Nicholas Stamates has posted “The Aftermath of McGirt and Castro-Huerta: Problems and Possible Solutions relating to White Collar Crime in the City of Tulsa,” recently published in the Texas Tech Law Review, on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
The Supreme Court ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma drastically changed the legal jurisdiction of most of the state of Oklahoma under federal law. In 2017 the 10th Circuit held in Murphy v. Royal that the Oklahoma Enabling Act of 1906 never disestablished the reservations of the Five Civilized Tribes and the Supreme Court would concur with that opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma which means that the Major Crimes Act and other federal and tribal laws relating to Indians now apply in Eastern Oklahoma, including the City of Tulsa, and not Oklahoma law in applicable cases. In doing so, the Supreme Court inadvertently created a white-collar crime jurisdictional nightmare but one that has many solutions that enshrine tribal sovereignty and corporate responsibility among Tulsa based businesses. These solutions include state and tribal compacts, congressional legislation and proactive measures by Tulsa corporations such as “McGirt forms” that list Indian status of involved parties under federal law in case of a crime, choice of law provisions in contracts for civil suits in Tribal Courts so that corporations know what to expect and can shape the outcome of a case and working with local law schools so that new hires are prepared for the post McGirt and Castro-Huerta landscape.
Oklahoma Federal Court Orders Immediate Release of Native Convict from State Custody
Here are the materials in Graham v. White (N.D. Okla.)
Tenth Circuit Decides Hooper v. City of Tulsa . . . Hooper 7, Tulsa 0
Here is the opinion in Hooper v. City of Tulsa.
Tenth Circuit Rejects Habeas Petition from Prisoner Asserting McGirt-Type Claims
Here is the opinion in McGill v. Rankin.
Available brief here:
We don’t post many of these post-McGirt prisoner cases, but this is exemplary of the numerous rejected habeas petitions filed by prisoners claiming to be Indian and convicted of crimes inside of Indian country. This person was convicted of a crime in 2001. This was his fifth habeas petition, filed in 2023, and the first raising McGirt-related claims. This footnote is as close as these late habeas petitioners get to relief:
We note that another Oklahoma prisoner also successfully made the same argument as Mr. McGirt, which the Supreme Court recognized in its decision. See McGirt, 140 S. Ct. at 2460 (“While Oklahoma state courts have rejected any suggestion that the lands in question remain a reservation, the Tenth Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion.” (citing Murphy v. Royal, 875 F.3d 896, 907-09, 966 (10th Cir. 2017)). In Murphy, we issued a writ of habeas corpus after agreeing with the petitioner that he should not have been tried in state court but instead “should have been tried in federal court because he is an Indian and the offense occurred in Indian country.” 875 F.3d at 903.
It’s not much, eh? Remember Oklahoma in 2017-18?
Maybe yes (maybe?) on the pending prosecutions, but not so much the existing convictions, eh? Hmmmm.
Oklahoma SCT Briefs in Stroble v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
Supplemental Briefs on Standing in Hooper v. Tulsa
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Finds Ottawa and Miami Reservations Remain Extant
Here are the materials in State of Oklahoma v. Brester:
Seneca-Cayuga Sues Oklahoma Officials over Reservation Boundaries Post-McGirt
Here is the complaint in Seneca-Cayuga Nation v. Drummond (N.D. Okla.):
Update: Here is the complaint in Eastern Shawnee Tribe v. Drummond:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.