SCOTUS Goes Off The Reservation In Oklahoma Case

Oklahoman

A U.S. Supreme Court decision Thursday regarding tribal sovereignty had the potential to cause havoc with criminal cases, and perhaps others, across eastern Oklahoma. Tribal and state leaders, to their credit, are intent on that not happening.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court said the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s reservation was not terminated when Oklahoma became a state. The tribe had argued that the United States promised in a 1866 treaty that a reservation would be “forever set apart as a home” and protected by any subsequently created state.

The court agreed, saying flatly, “The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity.” More

Even Chief Justice Roberts questions the majority of opinion of supposedly conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch. Here

19 Comments on SCOTUS Goes Off The Reservation In Oklahoma Case

  1. I read the article and I am amazed. This is right up there with decisions like Roe v. Wade where the court found an unwritten law.
    I do have a question – does this mean that Gorsuch and the fab four liberals just created a new Autonomous Zone that covers most of eastern OK? If there is no official reservation, and there isn’t any indian law enforcement …

    5
  2. The entire western world has gone stark raving mad.

    Just watch, this’ll be yet another idiotic trend.

    15
  3. I’m beginning to think that Gorsuch isn’t quite the constructionist that we took him to be. This could get scary.

    13
  4. Maybe Tulsa will become the new Las Vegas, with all the casino’s the Indians plan on opening. 🤔 I see dollar signs for somebody in this decision, people in Washington just don’t do things on account of their health.

    9
  5. Of course the libs decided to screw with OK, it’s the only state in which Obozo didn’t win a single county.

    If everything is being rolled back to status quo on law enforcement in the Indian Territory, it’s a good thing there is still a recreation of Judge Parker’s gallows in Fort Smith. Hang em four or five at a time and see how they like that sort of justice.

    7
  6. IMO will not change any current land boundaries, property rights et al. It will more than likely result in the government paying the Choctaws a multi-billion settlement for “treaty” violation, which in turn will result in an upswing in folks claiming to be Choctaw to reap some of the financial money, Elizabeth Warren will be first in line. The only drawback would be if the BIA is put in charge, since they do such a “great” job currently of “managing” the tribes’ business.

    2
  7. The Supreme Court’s history of dealing with domestic treaty law has been eclectic at best, though mostly deciding against honoring the language of the treaties on those rare occasions when they agree to hear an Indian treaty case.

    This decision will likely cause a storm of treaty related lawsuits throughout the country. At the SCOTUS level, I wouldn’t bet on consistency in decisions.

    Apparently, based on this decision and decisions over the past 8 years or so, they have chosen to hear cases that they knew would be divisive, which SCOTUS has tended to avoid in the past — something to do with legitimacy.

    I think Chief Justice Roberts decided that, rather than avoiding potentially legitimacy eroding decisions, the Court would take on polarizing cases and he would use his swing vote to simply “balance” the decisions between the Left and the Right. There is balance. Both sides hate SCOTUS.

    3
  8. In the issues regarding this SCOTUS, God doesn’t seem to
    follow the old claim that he “takes care of fools and drunks”.

    1
  9. another viewpoint very worth reading…
    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1281446122435735554.html
    [snip]

    “Jonodev Chaudhuri, ambassador of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and a former chief justice of the tribe’s Supreme Court, said the argument about legal havoc in the state was overblown.”
    “‘All the sky-is-falling narratives were dubious at best,’ Chaudhuri said. ‘This would only apply to a small subset of Native Americans committing crimes within the boundaries.'”
    “‘This case didn’t change ownership of any land. It didn’t impact the prosecutions of non-Indians in any way.'”

    1
  10. Am I the only person that thinks the US Gooberment should not make promises it’s not meaning or willing to keep? Sure, they should have settled this matter a hundred years ago but, just like people who have been in this country illegally for 30 years, things sure get tougher to straighten out if you put them off.

    1
  11. This goes farther even than just Tulsa and the Creeks, it includes the other tribes as well in Oklahoma. So pretty much half or more of Oklahoma is now living on Indian Reservations. So that should mean we shouldn’t be required to pay state or federal income tax, property taxes, business taxes or sales tax. Shouldn’t have to follow speed limits, state laws, or city ordinances. Actually it should make mayors, county commissioners, etc. illegal.
    Are all the white people going to have to forfeit their property?

    Indians do have Marshalls, some that are cross deputized, just like some county deputies are cross deputized. All the rest though are illegal. Indians don’t have jails, so where they going to put the criminals?

    Tulsa is about to mandate masks, all Indians living there need to tell them SCOTUS just made that illegal to fine them, they have no authority on a reservation.

    1
  12. I’ve been listening to and reading lawyers, Indians and politicians all day about this in Oklahoma. All of them seem to be all over the place. Most do seem to agree that it only applies to Indians and how they’re tried. However, that still doesn’t address the issue if an Indian can be fined, ticketed, arrested or have to follow state laws. Most are saying it has nothing to do with property, not really understanding that one.
    Tribes are all saying they will work with state and local officials on how to try Native Americans.

    Hey somebody is always getting something, so I could care less about all that other stuff, does it mean since I’m a card carrying member they have to give me all my federal, state and local taxes back?

    2
  13. @MJA – I have always enjoyed this meme of yours, you need to start moving the Sponge Bob head around according to WHO writes the majority opinion against our country.

    Notice it will NEVER get to Thomas and Alito

    1
  14. So all the sudden the US government court decides government should KEEP promises made generations ago?
    Yeah, it makes me suspicious…

Comments are closed.