A flurry of motions has come in. Here is the motion to dismiss a criminal complaint on the Cherokee reservation in State of Oklahoma v. Nichols (Tulsa County Dist. Ct.):
Here is the motion to dismiss in a case involving a Creek reservation crime where the defendant marked “I” on the racial identity box, State of Oklahoma v. Williams (Tulsa County Dist. Ct.):
And here is the motion to dismiss in State of Oklahoma v. Shaffer (Tulsa County Dist. Ct.), where the defendant was unenrolled at the time of the crime and is now seeking enrollment at Cherokee:
Monday, October 12 | 4 PM | ZOOM
McGirt V. Oklahoma: Understanding the Implications of the Recent Supreme Court Decision Across Native America
In celebration of Indigenous Peoples’ Day, Emory University Professor of English Craig Womack (Creek) chairs a panel discussion titled McGirt V. Oklahoma: Understanding the Implications of the Recent Supreme Court Decision Across Native America.
Sarah Deer (Creek), University of Kansas Department of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies; Barbara Creel (Jemez Pueblo), University of New Mexico School of Law; and Andrew Adams III (Creek), Muscogee Creek Nation Supreme Court; and Professor Womack will explore the implications of the decision regarding the Creek Nation for Oklahoma tribal nations and other parts of Indian Country.
ZOOM registration link for this webinar: https://emory.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_fY3DxgwFTw-SDJDB_owEbA
This lecture is made possible through the generous financial support of the Hightower Lecture Fund and is co-sponsored by the Native American and Indigenous Students Initiative, the Michael C. Carlos Museum, and the School of Law Health Law, Policy & Ethics Project.
And, yes, we know the Marshall Project headline is inaccurate, but High Country News (publishing in tandem with M.P.) did it better: “How the Supreme Court upended a century of federal Indian law.”