SCOTUS Holds Creek Reservation is Indian Country

Here is the opinion:

McGirt Opinion

Briefs here.

In a separate order, the Court affirmed Sharp v. Murphy:

Murphy Order

Rebecca Nagle Repudiating Oklahoma’s Factual Claims in McGirt/Murphy

Here is “Oklahoma’s Suspect Argument in Front of the Supreme Court — The state claims that affirming a reservation in eastern Oklahoma could lead to thousands of state criminal convictions being thrown out. But that argument doesn’t seem to be based on facts” from the Atlantic.

The briefs are here.

McGirt v. Oklahoma Background Materials

Oral Argument Transcript:

Oral Argument Transcript

Merits Briefs:

Petitioner’s Brief

Respondent’s Brief

Petitioner’s Reply

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

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.

Okla. SCT Holds Adoption without Consent is Not Termination of Parental Rights under ICWA

Here is the opinion in In re G.D.J.

An excerpt:

¶36 Section 1912 of the ICWA requires the use of a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof, for certain purposes, in a proceeding to terminate parental rights. As discussed above, our statutes prohibit a trial court from taking any action that results in a termination of the parent-child relationship in a proceeding to determine a minor child eligible for adoption without the consent of a natural parent. Therefore, a “clear and convincing” standard of proof is all that is necessary in such a proceeding. The higher standard of proof is relevant to the specific determination, the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian, is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. The hearing on the petition for adoption, which has not occurred in the present case, will be a proceeding which may result in the termination of a parent-child relationship, and is the only proceeding in which the court may grant a final decree of adoption. At the hearing on the petition for adoption, evidence relevant to matters included in subsection (f) of Section 1912 must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” in order to support a determination that parental rights should be terminated, including the testimony of an expert witness. Continue reading