McGirt v. Oklahoma Background Materials

Merits Briefs:

Petitioner’s Brief

Respondent’s Brief

2020 03 20 McGirt Joint Motion for Divided Argument and Enlargement of Time

Amicus Briefs in Support of Petitioner:

2020 02 11 Amicus Brief Brad Henry et al

2020 02 11 Amicus Brief Historians Legal Scholars Cherokee Nation

2020 02 11 Amicus Brief National Ass’n Criminal Defense Lawyers

2020 02 11 Amicus Brief National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center et al

2020 02 11 Amicus Brief NCAI

2020 02 11 Amicus Brief of Muscogee Creek Nation

18-9526tsacFormerUnitedStatesAttorneys

Amicus Briefs in Support of Respondent:

2020 03 20 Amicus Brief of United States

2020 03 20 Environmenal Fderation of Oklahoma, et al, Amicus Brief

2020 03 20 Int’l Municipal Lawers and Nat’l Sheriffs’ Assn Amicus Br

2020 03 20 States’ Amicus Br

2020 03 20 Tulsa Merits Amicus Brief

Oklahoma District Attorneys Amicus Brief

Cert Stage Materials:

mcgirt-cert-petition.pdf

appendix.pdf

oklahoma-brief-in-opposition.pdf

Guardianship Case out of Nebraska [ICWA]

Here.

You have to love a court that starts the opinion so clearly:

The federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the Nebraska Indian Child Welfare Act (NICWA) provide specific procedures and requirements that apply in certain proceedings involving the custody and adoption of and termination of parental rights to Native American children. This case requires us to decide whether those procedures and requirements apply in a case in which a maternal grandmother sought to establish a guardianship for an Indian child over the objection of her daughter, the child’s mother. After interpreting the relevant statutory language, we conclude that the guardianship proceeding at issue was governed by ICWA and NICWA. In addition, we find that the grandmother did not make the showing required by ICWA and NICWA. We therefore reverse the order of the county court establishing the guardianship and remand the cause with directions to vacate the guardianship, dismiss the petition, and return custody to the child’s mother.

Citizen Potawatomi Nation and Muscogee (Creek) Nation Intervene in Oklahoma Gaming Compact Suit

Here are the updated materials in Cherokee Nation v. Stitt (W.D. Okla.):

21 Citizen Potawatomi Nation Motion to Intervene

21-1 Complaint in Intervention

23 Muscogee (Creek) Nation Motion to Intervene

23-1 Complaint in Intervention

28 DCT Order Granting Motions to Intervene

Prior posts here.

New Fletcher Paper, “Textualism’s Gaze”

Available on SSRN, here.

Here is the abstract:

In recent years, perhaps because of the influence of Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court appears to place greater emphasis on texts than ever before. “We’re all textualists now,” Justice Kagan declared in 2015. But it is one thing to say a court will prioritize the text. It is another thing to choose which text is to be prioritized.

Follow the textualism of constitutional interpretation and one sees judges prioritize the public understanding of the privileged white men in power at the time of the framing of the constitutional text. Follow the textualism of federal statutory interpretation and one sees judges prioritize the text exclusively, and if the judges engage with the legislative history of the statute they will engage with the public understanding of the legislators who enacted the law, again, largely privileged white men. The victory of textualism is not necessarily in the outcomes, but in significantly narrowing the scope of evidence available to interpret the text, in some cases to almost nothing but the bare words of the statute. Women, persons of color, and other marginalized persons and entities are almost never relevant to the textualist’s gaze.

The narrow focus of the textualist’s gaze also warps how Indian law matters are decided. The judiciary rarely considers how the governments and people most affected by the text — Indian tribes and individual Indians — understand the meaning of the text. The judiciary, whether it intends to or not, considers Indians and tribes as extraneous to the interpretive process.

U. Chi. Law Review Podcast on the Murphy/McGirt Cases

Here is “Briefly 3.10 – Is Half of Oklahoma Tribal Land?”

From the site:

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we are discussing two cases pending before the Supreme Court, which will determine whether roughly half of the land in Oklahoma is actually an Indian Reservation . We’re joined by Elizabeth Reese, a Bigelow Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School, and Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Professor of Law and Director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center at Michigan State University College of Law. Music from bensound.com.

Oklahoma SCT Holds Tax on Video Game Machines Used at Cherokee Casinos is Preempted by Federal Law

Here is the opinion in Video Game Technologies v. Rogers County Board of Tax Roll Corrections.

Here is a related opinion involving machines at the Creek casinos, Video Game Technologies v. Tulsa County Board of Tax Roll Corrections.

SCOTUS Grants Cert in McGirt v. Oklahoma [Creek Reservation Boundaries Criminal Appeal]

Here are the cert stage materials in McGirt v. Oklahoma:

mcgirt-cert-petition.pdf

appendix.pdf

oklahoma-brief-in-opposition.pdf

Friday’s order list here.

News coverage here and here.