Here are the materials in State of Oklahoma v. Brester:

Here are the materials in State of Oklahoma v. Brester:

Here is the complaint in Seneca-Cayuga Nation v. Drummond (N.D. Okla.):

Update: Here is the complaint in Eastern Shawnee Tribe v. Drummond:
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.

Here:
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.
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
Complaint here.
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.
Here is the order in State of Oklahoma v. Dept. of the Interior (W.D. Okla.):
Briefs here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.