Oklahoma Federal Court Enjoins City of Henryetta from Exercising Criminal Jurisdiction over Indians in Indian Country

Here is the order in Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. City of Henryetta (E.D. Okla.):

Prior post here.

Oklahoma AG Opinion on State Authority over Tribal Hunting and Fishing

Here:

Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw Sue Oklahoma over Hunting and Fishing Rights Jurisdiction

Here is the complaint in Cherokee Nation v. Free (N.D. Okla.):

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

Here:

Briefs here.

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.):

Raqib Shaw

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.):