Here:
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw Sue Oklahoma over Hunting and Fishing Rights Jurisdiction
Oklahoma Federal Court Declines to Dismiss Creek Nation Suit against City of Henryetta
Here are the new materials in Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. City of Henryetta (N.D. Okla,):
Prior post here.
Stitt v. City of Tulsa Cert Petition
Here:
Question presented:
Whether a state may exercise criminal jurisdiction over an Indian for conduct in Indian country absent a valid congressional grant of authority.
Lower court materials here.
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Decides Stitt v. City of Tulsa
Oklahoma District Court Decision Using Bracker Preemption Test to Validate State Criminal Jurisdiction
Here are the materials in State v. Long (McIntosh County D. Ct.):
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Confirms Wyandotte Reservation Boundaries Remain Intact
Here are what I think are the relevant materials in State of Oklahoma v. Fuller:
Michael Doran on Tribal Sovereignty and Preemption
Michael Dolan has published “Tribal Sovereignty and Preemption” in the Brooklyn Law Review. PDF
Here is the abstract:
In June of 2022, the US Supreme Court held in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta that a state may prosecute a non-Indian for a crime committed against an Indian within Indian country. That decision effectively overruled Worcester v. Georgia, an 1832 landmark case in which Chief Justice Marshall said that state law “can have no force” in Indian country. Although the conventional wisdom about Castro-Huerta sees the case as a radical departure from first principles of federal Indian law, this article argues that Castro-Huerta is the natural—although deeply deplorable—next step in a long line of Supreme Court cases expanding state governmental authority within Indian country. Additionally, this line of cases mirrors a separate line restricting tribal governmental authority within Indian country. Through a critical examination and reinterpretation of these two decisional lines, this article demonstrates how the Supreme Court over the last half century has systematically privileged state interests and the interests of non-Indian individuals over tribal interests. In so doing, the Court has arrogated to itself the political function, formerly exercised only by Congress, of defining tribal sovereignty. This article concludes with a call for Congress to reject the Court’s relentless subordination of Indian interests to non-Indian interests and to reassert its role in defining and defending a robust conception of tribal sovereignty.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!
Oklahoma Federal Court Declines to Overturn Non-Indian Conviction in General Crimes Act Case
Here are the relevant materials in United States v. Smith (N.D. Okla.):
Tanner Allread on SCOTUS’ Improper Use of Indian Removal Era Analysis in Modern Day Indian Law Cases
W. Tanner Allread has published “The Specter of Indian Removal: The Persistence of State Supremacy Arguments in Federal Indian Law” in the Columbia Law Review. PDF
Abstract:
In the 2022 case of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, the Supreme Court departed from one of the foundational cases in federal Indian law, Worcester v. Georgia. Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1832 opinion had dismissed state power over Indian Country. But in Castro-Huerta, the Court took precisely the kind of arguments about state power that Chief Justice Marshall rejected in Worcester and turned them into the law of the land—without any recognition of the arguments’ Indian Removal–era origins.
This Article corrects the Court’s oversight. Relying on rarely utilized archival sources, it provides a historical narrative of the development of what the Article terms the theory of state supremacy, first articulated by the southern state legislatures in the Removal Era to justify state power over Native nations and eradicate Native sovereignty. Even though Worcester rejected this theory, Supreme Court Justices and state litigants have continued to invoke its tenets in Indian law cases from the late nineteenth century to the present. Castro-Huerta, then, is just the latest and most egregious example. And the decision’s use of Removal-era arguments revives the specter of Indian Removal in the present day.
This Article reveals that the continued use of state supremacy arguments defies constitutional law and federal Indian affairs policy, produces an inaccurate history of Native nations and federal Indian law, and perpetuates the racism and violence that characterized the Removal Era. Ultimately, this Article seeks to counter future attacks on tribal sovereignty and combat the broader revival of long-rejected federalism arguments.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.