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.

Oklahoma Tax Commission Reverses Administrative Law Judge, Holds McGirt Doesn’t Offer Tax Immunities to Tribal Members because of Castro-Huerta (kinda)

Here is the opinion:

Prior opinion here.

The tax man has spoken

Muscogee (Creek) Nation SCT Orders Remand in Speedy Trial Appeal after Defendant Held for 248 Days

Here is the opinion in Vandecar v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation:

Tenth Circuit Briefs in Hooper v. City of Tulsa

Here:

Lower court materials here.

SCOTUSBlog Opinion Analysis of Castro-Huerta

Here is my “In 5-4 ruling, court dramatically expands the power of states to prosecute crimes on reservations.“

Prior post with opinion here.

Anyone remember Lily Ledbetter?

SCOTUS Holds Oklahoma Has Concurrent Criminal Jurisdiction over Non-Indian on Indian Crime in Indian Country

Here is the opinion in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta.

Briefs and stuff 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.

Oklahoma’s “Indian Status” Cert Petition

Here are the materials in Oklahoma v. Wadkins:

Lower court materials here.

SCOTUSBlog Recap of Castro-Huerta Oral Argument

Here is “With historical promises in mind, justices weigh state criminal jurisdiction in Indian country.”

Previews of the case are here.

Background materials are here.

Preview of Tomorrow’s Argument in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta

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?“

NonDoc: “SCOTUS to hear state’s McGirt challenge in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta“

Boston Review (by Mary Kathryn Nagle and Emma Lower): “What Will It Take to End Violence Against Native Women?“

Yes, Spirit is set to argue for the defense. . . .