Following McGirt decision , need for tribal law and policy education on the rise
Story by Melanie WILDERMAN ~ Photos by Ted SATTERFIELD “[ The ] power that comes from tribal sovereignty has always been there and will always persist .”
These words from Clifton Cottrell , a postdoctoral fellow and lecturer in the Native American Studies program at OU , succinctly explain the heart of the Supreme Court ’ s 2020 decision in McGirt v . Oklahoma , a case that , despite being surrounded by a barrage of “ what if ?” speculation , was asking a simple question : Within the confines of the Major Crimes Act , does Indian reservation land established since the 19th century remain Indian country ?
The simple answer was “ yes .”
What followed was not as simple . However , within the complexity arises a new demand for education and training surrounding tribal law and policy .
The Case Summarized Ultimately , the McGirt case was about two things : First , what constitutes Indian country ? And second , jurisdiction — who has jurisdiction in criminal cases brought against Native Americans on Native American land ? And as Cottrell , an expert in federal Indian policy and economic development , explained , jurisdiction is one of the “ messiest ” areas in federal Indian policy .
Like many cases that go before the Supreme Court , the McGirt case history began decades before .
In 1997 , Jimcy McGirt , a citizen of the Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma , was found guilty in state court of three counts of sex crimes and sentenced to life in prison without parole . He first appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals , but his petition was denied review .
In 2000 , a different case involving another Native American man , Patrick Murphy , a member of the Muscogee ( Creek ) Nation , would become linked to McGirt . Murphy was convicted in state court of a murder that took place in Henryetta , which is in the boundaries of the original Muscogee reservation . He was sentenced to the death penalty and began a lengthy appeals process , arguing that the federal government , not Oklahoma , should have jurisdiction in his case because he was a tribal citizen and the crime took place in Indian country .
In 2017 , the federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Murphy , agreeing that he should have been prosecuted under federal jurisdiction . This decision would be helpful to McGirt ’ s next appeal .
In 2019 , McGirt appealed to the U . S . Supreme Court , arguing that a district court in Oklahoma did not have the authority to hear his case , because , as a Seminole citizen whose alleged crimes occurred in Indian country ( in this case , the Creek Nation reservation ), under the Indian Major Crimes Act the federal government has jurisdiction .
In July 2020 , the U . S . Supreme Court , overturned in favor of McGirt in a 5-4 opinion , with Justice Neal Gorsuch writing the majority opinion which noted
30 NormanMagazine . com | MAY / JUNE 2022