Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Supreme Court rules half of Oklahoma is Indian Reservation
#1
Any armchair lawyers want to opine if this means anything for Hawaii?

 Supreme Court Rules Large Swath of Oklahoma Is Indian Reservation

 The 5-4 decision could reshape criminal justice in eastern Oklahoma by preventing state authorities from prosecuting Native Americans.
 
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled thatmuch of eastern Oklahoma falls within an Indian reservation, a decision that could reshape the criminal-justice system by preventing state authorities from prosecuting offenses there that involve Native Americans.

The 5-to-4 decision, potentially one of the most consequential legal victories for Native Americans in decades, could have far-reaching implications for the people who live across what is now deemed “Indian Country” by the high court. The lands include much of Tulsa, Oklahoma’s second-biggest city.

The case was steeped in the United States government’s long history of brutal removals and broken treaties with Indigenous tribes, and grappled with whether lands of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation had remained a reservation after Oklahoma became a state.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a Westerner who has sided with tribes in previous cases and joined the court’s more liberal members, said that Congress had granted the Creek a reservation, and that the United States needed to abide by its promises.

“Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. “Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.”
Muscogee leaders hailed the decision as a hard-fought victory that clarified the status of their lands. The tribe said it would work with state and federal law enforcement authorities to coordinate public safety within the reservation.
“This is a historic day,” Principal Chief David Hill said in an interview. “This is amazing. It’s never too late to make things right.”

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts warned in a dissenting opinion that the Court had sown confusion in the state’s criminal justice system and “profoundly destabilized” the state’s powers in eastern Oklahoma.

“The State’s ability to prosecute serious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out,” Justice Roberts wrote. “The decision today creates significant uncertainty for the State’s continuing authority over any area that touches Indian affairs, ranging from zoning and taxation to family and environmental law.”

In a statement, Mike Hunter, Oklahoma’s attorney general, said the state and the Muscogee (Creek), Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole Nations were working on an agreement to present to Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice addressing jurisdictional issues raised by the decision.

“We will continue our work, confident that we can accomplish more together than any of us could alone,’’ he said.
The case concerned Jimcy McGirt, a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation who was convicted of sex crimes against a child by state authorities in the Nation’s historical boundaries. He said that only federal authorities were entitled to prosecute him.

Mr. McGirt argued that Congress had never clearly destroyed the sovereignty of the Creek Nation over the area. The solicitor general of Oklahoma took the opposite view, saying the area had never been reservation land.

In McGirt v. Oklahoma, the court ruled, 5 to 4, that much of eastern Oklahoma is an Indian reservation.
Reply
#2
these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law

I don’t believe it affects Native Americans other than how they are prosecuted under the law, in this case Native Americans who are arrested in that jurisdiction would be prosecuted under federal law.

Would Native Hawaiians prefer the federal courts handle their cases?  The federal 1893 overthrow looms large when grievances are presented, so I’m not sure they would find that an improvement.  What the Oklahoma ruling doesn’t do is establish an entity comparable to a Hawaiian Kingdom or Kingdom of Hawaii, or change actual land ownership.
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Reply
#3
The court only rules on the case at hand, in this case can a tribe member be tried for child molestation outside of a tribal or federal court. When he was convicted there was no doubt because the crime happened in state land.

As part of the court's ruling they had to determine that the treaty between the US and the Muscogee Nation that was signed in 1866 is still in place, therefore the crime happened on reservation land, and therefore he couldn't have been convicted.

This has effectively reinstated the treaty, while that does not affect property ownership it does open up a pandora's box that will fall outside the matter the court was hearing arguments on. In other words, people who woke up in Tulsa this morning in Oklahoma will be going to bed in the Muscogee Nation Indian Reservation. They are still in Oklahoma but they are also on the reservation.

More importantly, a precedent has been set.

I wouldn't start reconsidering any dinner plans one had in Tusla tonight just yet (a reservation reservation reservation).
Reply
#4
it does open up a pandora's box

I agree the ruling does open other legal questions, but I would describe it more as a can of worms.  Any filings, motions, or cases will move forward at the speed of worms crawling from an overturned can.  The critters in Pandora's Box move way faster than major court cases. 

Here in Hawaii, on island time, I wouldn't expect any sweeping changes from lawsuits in my lifetime.  Most likely legal, and illegal challenges will continue over projects like the TMT, hotels, wind farms, etc. 

I would like to see however, DHHL finally cough up those long awaited homesteads for the Native Hawaiian people.  If enough homes are built on Hawaiian Homeland property, perhaps we'll see those residents question state and national laws, and their enforcement.  Casinos anyone?
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Reply
#5
Federal law allows reservations to have casinos so long as "any other kind" of gambling is legal in the state. Does Hawaii have any form of legalized gambling? Bingo? Anything?
Reply
#6
Hawaii has several forms of legalized gambling: just try to start a business or build a home.
Reply
#7
You forgot "getting a permit".
Reply
#8
Does Hawaii have any form of legalized gambling?

Hawaii Supreme Court decisions, and whether or not those decisions will be enforced by those who supposedly  uphold the rule of law?  A lot of legal entities involved and included there.
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Reply
#9
With the "mandatory traveler registration", Hawaii has reached the point where a permit is required for almost anything.

The latest "legalized gambling" is: will they keep paying my unemployment claim.
Reply
#10
Stock market.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)