
U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation - threatofrain
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-court-oklahoma/us-supreme-court-deems-half-of-oklahoma-a-native-american-reservation-idUSKBN24A2BE
======
ISL
I found the conclusion compelling. I haven't yet had enough time this morning
to read the dissent thoughtfully.

[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf)

"The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity. Over
time, Congress has diminished that reservation. It has sometimes restricted
and other times expanded the Tribe’s authority. But Congress has never
withdrawn the promised reservation. As a result, many of the arguments before
us today follow a sadly familiar pattern. Yes, promises were made, but the
price of keeping them has become too great, so now we should just cast a blind
eye. We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it
must say so. Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor,
are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the
most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and
failing those in the right.

The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma is _Reversed_."

~~~
knodi123
> Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never
> enough to amend the law

And yet "adverse possession" allows my neighbor to keep a slice of my yard,
because he build the fence shortly before I bought the house (while it was
unoccupied!) and I assumed it was proper after I moved in, and now that I've
had a survey done and realized his fence is 5' off target, it's too late
because he officially owns it!

I understand the difference, but I feel like it would be more proper to say
"Unlawful acts performed long ago, are hardly ever enough to amend the law."

~~~
schmichael
What you're referencing is probably a "prescriptive easement" and is legal
(depending on your jurisdiction).

If your jurisdiction does not have "adverse possession" or "prescriptive
easement" laws, you can probably tear that fence down or do whatever else you
want with it. (IANAL and please just talk to your neighbors first!)

None of this is related, either legally or in spirit, with the sentence you
cited. The cited statement refers to an unlawful act, over time, attempting to
override the law. In most (all in the US?) jurisdictions a law regarding
prescriptive easements or adverse possession probably makes your neighbor's
actions legal. The entire point of this ruling is that congress never passed a
similar law to make this sort of action legal.

~~~
kelnos
I agree with you on the legal aspects, but the mind-bending bit is that the
neighbor's actions -- at the time -- were _not_ legal (because no, it is not
legal to build structures on someone else's property without their
permission), but because it was left to sit that way for some period of time,
the _result_ of those actions -- a de facto redrawing of property lines -- has
become the new legal status. Which, honestly, sounds completely bonkers to me.

~~~
wbl
Otherwise you could wake up and discover that a structure you built 30 years
ago on land you thought was yours now isn't. The adverse possession law exists
to prevent surprises like that.

~~~
basilgohar
I can understand this perspective, but that also means someone else's rights
have been trampled over, even if long ago. What's needed is something that
prevents this from even happening in the first place.

~~~
jessaustin
Not everything in life is perfect. The law isn't either, but it's reasonable
to attempt to deal with imperfect situations.

------
antics
Just a couple notes here from a person of tribal descent (I am Wasq'u, a tribe
in the PNW), for those trying to make sense of it.

This ruling, as I understand it, resolves a narrow technicality—but that
technicality has potentially enormous implications.

The Court has _only_ decided that the federal [EDIT: state! sorry!] government
has no prosecutorial jurisdiction against citizens of the so-called "Five
Civilized Tribes" in about half of OK—this is what the press means when it
calls this territory "Indian reservations." They did _not_ decide things like:
Do the tribes get the taxes from people living in Tulsa? Do non-natives have
to abide by rules of the respective nations? Does the tribal government have
the ability to reclaim land through land-for-trust? And so on.

Further narrowing the ruling, my understanding is that this only applies when
all persons involved in the crime ( _e.g._ , the victim) are also tribal
citizens.

But, this ruling does open the door to a lot of those types of questions. It
is possible we see several cases related to the sovereignty of these nations
over the next few years, possibly greatly expanding the scope of the
jurisdiction of the tribal governments.

~~~
curiousgal
> _This ruling, as I understand it, resolves a narrow technicality_

That is literally all of the SCOTUS rulings. It's petty listening to bright
minds discuss minute details. The fact that technicalities have far reaching
effects is a sign that the system is broken.

~~~
ianai
I almost think they “like” to word things in this way so they can side step
the larger ramifications of their decisions to certain people.

It feels frustrating to those outside the law. But that’s always been true of
the law, as far as I’ve read.

Also remember that our legal system is a direct inheritance of the English
legal system we separated from in the 1700s. There’s actually more history to
our laws than to our country. So to some extent the years of buildup
contributing to confusion stem back pretty far into the past. We would have a
lot of work ahead of us to reinvent the quirkiness out of the system.

~~~
rayiner
It helps if you realize that the English legal system developed as an
alternative to trial by combat:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat).
The point isn't to empower judges to make decisions that have the best
"ramifications" "to certain people." It's to reach a decision that _people who
violently disagree_ about those "ramifications" are nonetheless forced to
accept the result because it was reached in accordance with agreed-upon rules.

That's why so many decisions come down to careful parsing of words and
"technicalities." A case that reaches the Supreme Court will usually have
generated intense controversy about what is _the more desirable result._ Thus,
the focus is on reaching a decision that _people can 't argue with_ because of
scrupulous adherence to rules and doctrines.

------
jake_morrison
We have to recognize how much we screwed over the Native Americans. We took
away their prime land on the East coast. We gave them some shitty land in
Oklahoma that we didn't think we would ever want. We made them walk there in
the "Trail of Tears", and lots of them died along the way. Then we decided to
screw them out of the land in Oklahoma after all, but didn't go though the
process properly because we didn't think it mattered.

It's insulting to hear people talk about them as not having "initiative" or
being somehow responsible for being poor. When they resisted being screwed, we
sent in the US Army to kill them, then kept them under control.

Reconciling this after all these years is going to be tough, but acknowledging
it is a first step. Giving them back the land is disruptive, but giving them a
few billion dollars is pretty easy. It would be interesting to see a VC fund
focused on Native Americans building businesses. Or some real educational
funding in Oklahoma. It would be a lot better than what the Republicans are
doing to the state. All they want to is protect the rich and the oil industry.

~~~
berryjerry
I find your use of "we" interesting because you clearly identify as part of
the group that committed those acts hundreds of years ago. How long should a
child be responsible for the crimes of their fathers? As an example, assume
your father killed someone and stole $1000 dollars from them. You never knew
about this didn't choose for him to do this but now someone is coming after
you saying you must pay them $1000. You find out it's all true, your father
did murder and steal $1000 and you indirectly and unknowingly benefited from
that. Should you legally be forced to pay back that $1000 dollars? But the
person is dead, should you have to pay that dead person's son $1000? Should
you and any siblings have to divide that sum up and pay back the $1000
collectively? Let's say you have already spent every dime you have on meals
out. Should you go to jail because you can't pay back the $1000 your father
stole? I think these agreements which weren't honored are equal to theft but
how long down the line must you pay for the crime of being born in that
situation and pay others that were born into the opposite side of the theft.
Even with as close a relation as a father, I find it hard to believe that a
child should be responsible for their parents wrong doing. But now assume that
not only were you not related to that person who stole $1000, you simply don't
have the heritage that the murdered man has. Now assume that hundreds of years
have passed and now someone is still asking to collect that $1000 from you. I
find it very difficult to find the moral obligation to pay back that money
when the people who were the actual victims are long dead, the people who
committed the theft are long dead, and there is no connection between your
actions and the theft. Voluntary payments I would be all for but using tax
money which is essentially taken by force, as if you don't pay taxes you will
go to jail, that kind of thing seems very wrong. I would not blame a child for
their father's sins.

~~~
stormbrew
This analogy falls apart rather quickly when you recognize that the north
american indigenous population still suffers greatly under legal systems built
on the treaties that weren't even honored while the descendants of those who
perpetrated great crimes against them collectively constitute the greatest
mass of wealth in the history of the world while also pretending to have done
nothing wrong.

Re-do your analogy but now it's that your dad killed someone and stole the
deed to his land, found oil on it, and is now one of the richest people in the
world and the person he killed's kid is now on the street begging for cash and
tell me again how little you owe that kid who's father's land gave you your
trust fund and your college education.

~~~
tremon
_tell me again how little you owe that kid_

That's actually not that hard to do, both from a legal and a moral standpoint.
Legally, the "you" in your analogy has never committed an unlawful act and is
therefore not personally beholden to any restitution to the victim's side. It
is the purveyance of a well-functioning justice system to provide adequate
restitution for victims of crimes, but that does not extend to a personal
obligation on people that had no part in said crime.

Morally, the story is a bit more convoluted but your premise falls back to the
theory of original sin: that people can be personally held responsible for
their heritage. In the past two-thousand years it has been proven a very
powerful argument because it "feels" right, but at its core it is still a
rejection of the individualist premise that all people are born equal. And I'm
still on the side that believes all people should be born equal, even though
that stance seems less and less prevalent nowadays. Once you start arguing for
collective punishment of past crimes, it's very hard to argue your case
without at the same time defending the same practice throughout many wars in
history, and now explicitly outlawed in the Geneva Conventions.

~~~
stormbrew
Original sin is the idea that a dude ate an apple some number of thousands of
years ago and an all powerful (and allegedly all knowing) being got grumpy at
him for it for some reason and now we all suffer for his intransigence.

In fact, the concept of original sin requires that we exist in a state of
punishment for that sin permanently, not that we continue to benefit from it
by, again, existing in the wealthiest civilization that has ever existed on
this planet.

This is again a poor analogy, framing us as victims of an aggressor who wants
something from us that we cannot give.

As for the geneva conventions, please note that colonial relations to
indigenous people violated just about every single one of the geneva
conventions. Forced resettlement, biological warfare, collective punishment,
the destruction of non-military targets -- it is not "collective punishment"
to expect there to be at least a moderate reparation for crimes committed.
What is even the point of the concept of "war crimes" if you can get away with
them just because "oh it's been too long".

------
zetazzed
From the actual opinion: "Oklahoma replies that its situation is different
because the affected population here is large and many of its residents will
be surprised to find out they have been living in Indian country this whole
time. But we imagine some members of the 1832 Creek Tribe would be just as
surprised to find them there."

Damn, nice shade, Gorsuch!

[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf)

~~~
koheripbal
The entire city of Tulsa is there - literally millions of non-native Americans
live in this area.

Congress will have no choice but to make a law breaking the promise and
repatriating the land out of Native American hands.

~~~
jeffdavis
What are the consequences to people in Tulsa who aren't tribe members?
Landowners who aren't tribe members? Can the tribe expel them and confiscate
the land?

~~~
astrange
Nothing. The tribe members lost that land with the Dawes Act before Oklahoma
was a state.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Act)

------
threatofrain
> The ruling means that for the first time much of eastern Oklahoma is legally
> considered reservation land. More than 1.8 million people live in the land
> at issue, including roughly 400,000 in Tulsa, Oklahoma’s second-largest
> city.

McGirt v Oklahoma (9 July 2020) pdf:

[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf)

~~~
_bxg1
Very interesting. Is this the first time a major city has fallen within a
reservation?

~~~
9wzYQbTYsAIc
And, either way, what are the implications to non-tribe citizens and non-tribe
governments?

~~~
cm2187
And how do you even define a tribe citizen? Is there like an ID card? Is it a
DNA test? Does Elizabeth Warren qualify?

~~~
monocasa
The tribes have their own mechanisms for identifying citizens like any other
jus sanguinis nationality. The specifics depend on the tribe in question.

~~~
YetAnotherNick
How does this work with government? Or let's go into one specific question,
can I start my own tribe?

~~~
judge2020
The Bureau of Indian Affairs has a process for being recognized as a tribe[0],
and the criteria is at 25 CFR § 83.11 [1].

0: [https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/ofa](https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/ofa)

1:
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/83.11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/83.11)

~~~
protomyth
Look up the saga of the Little Shell Tribe for a modern look at recognition.

------
kebman
Being part Sami I think it's fascinating to read about the system of
reservations in the USA. I'm not sure about minority rule, but I'm clearly in
favour of saving the unique cultures and ethnicities from dying out.

After many years of persecution in Northeren Europe—including forced
assimilation often called "Norwegianization" or "Swedification," and near
extinction in Russia—we've finally gotten some recognition as a nation of our
own, at least in the Nordics. We have our own parliament (Sámediggi) and flag,
for instance, and enjoy semi-autonomous leadership in "our" historical regions
(called Sápmi) in close cooperation with the governments of Finland, Norway
and Sweden. As such it acts more like a subset of the respective governments
of the Nordics.

Now, both the finnic and germanic populations are also indigenous to the
Nordics together with the finno-ugric Samis, so in that sense it's a bit
different from the native population of the USA, where the other nations are
almost all of immigrant descent. On the other hand, just like the Native
Americans, Samis are in the clear minority in Northeren Europe, with only
about 100.000 members, some of whom can't even speak their own language due to
the assimilation policies (like me, although I do know a few words). Thus our
culture and unique way of life is indeed in danger of extinction. For that
reason alone I think it's important to at least recognize the ethnicity, and
perhaps save it from the "tooth of time" as it were. Perhaps especially since
most Samis today enjoy a modern lifestyle, and only very few live the
traditional nomadic lifestyle of reindeer herding. If I'm not mistaken, the
same is true for the Native Americans. In any case I'm happy we can finally
enjoy peace and democracy with one another.

All the best, from Norway! <3

~~~
mytailorisrich
Reservations were not created out of generosity, quite the opposite.

~~~
kebman
I'm sorry if it seemed like I made that assumption. I certainly didn't mean
to. There were attempts at similar things in the Nordics, and certainly Russia
displaced many local tribes in its hunt to stamp out any ethnical uniqueness
through-out Russia, under Communism, for the gain of assimilation. We see
similar tendencies today in China, although there seems to be a sort of uneasy
acceptance of the minorities there. Well, if you disregard the not-so secret
re-education camps... Anyway, a great movie about the difficult adaptation to
Scandinavian modernity among Samis, and the prejudice towards them, is the
Swedish movie _Sami Blood._ Highly recommended!

------
abeppu
> The ruling voided McGirt’s sentence of 1,000 years in prison but he could
> face a new trial in federal court rather than state court.

Not changed by this ruling, but it strikes me as really odd that you can
sentence someone to prison for that long, or that you would bother. Why not
just say life in prison? If your state is 103 years old, saying anything about
the next 1000 years seems ... lacking in credibility.

~~~
evgen
It is perverse, but there is a method to the madness. Some sentencing
mitigations or parole decisions are based upon length of sentence. Someone who
is given a 20 year sentence may be eligible for parole when, for example, 1/4
of the sentence has been served. By setting the sentence to a ridiculous
length it is effectively denying any possibility for parole without directly
stating that the sentence is to served without any chance for parole.

~~~
seebetter
They already do this in LA. Get sentenced to 120 days in jail but due to
overcrowding you’d do 5-10 days in jail.

Soon local politicians will require you only to do 1% of jail time so you’ll
be sentenced to a 100 years in jail for a misdemeanor. This already exists in
the California bail system where you pay 1% of astronomically high bails (eg
$60,000 bail for 1st time misdemeanor, like if they change a court date and
fail to inform you).

------
thekingofh
I had the pleasure of driving through and visiting Oklahoma a decade or so
ago. Some people don't like the rural states, but it felt so serene out there.
We stopped at a shaved ice place off of some random exit and just sat there on
the hood staring out at the plains. There's not much out there but it felt so
peaceful. It felt like home.

~~~
asdff
I had a different feeling. It wasn't empty in the sense that the desert is,
which is very pleasant and beautiful, but scarred with industrialized
agriculture, and silos stretching out into the infinite surrounding. The fact
that there was absolutely nothing at all as far as the eye can see, no
mountain or woods, just field upon industrial field with no farm house or town
in sight, felt extremely isolating and uncomfortable. A feeling of having no
bearings, no difference in any direction; no idea where to run.

The small towns felt disturbing. Tulsa felt disturbing. The lack of minorities
out in public was painfully glaring. It was all so very patriotic and
dystopian. The unsettling overbearing flatness on the featureless terrain
dominated my perspective of the area. Not for me, and I couldn't leave soon
enough.

~~~
crispyporkbites
> The lack of minorities out in public was painfully glaring.

What does this mean?

~~~
tropdrop
My own experience: having had a good portion of my childhood (after
immigration) in a Rocky Mountain West state, I moved to Chicago for school.
The first time I came back to visit for Christmas, I was _blown away_ by how
white the area was, and that I had never noticed before! Suddenly all of the
childhood struggles I had with people quietly judging me fell into place
(little things: assuming promiscuity, passing me over for a leadership
position for someone less qualified, etc). That Christmas, the only person of
color I saw was the guy behind the grocery's store's sushi counter, who was -
wait for it, Japanese. It left me deeply disturbed, excited to come back to
Chicago and excited to leave that state permanently.

------
subsubzero
Interesting implication that Tulsa is now inside of a reservation. Growing up
I thought reservations were located on tiny parcels of land but in some
western states that is not the case. In Arizona about 25% of the state is
tribal land, with neighboring state New Mexico having about 10% of its land as
reservations.

------
sytelus
The story is quite stunning. So a child molester convicted in 1997 and in
prison for 20 years wants to get out of jail. So he seems to have hired some
extra ordinary attorney who simply couldn’t find any way to get him out. And
one day he finally hits upon this idea of land supposed to be tribal land 100s
of years ago! The brilliant idea, indeed. And now half of the state will
suddenly become tribal land because of this one guy trying to get out and this
one lawyer who dug this out.

------
tathougies
We need to end the reservation system. No good will come of this system in the
long term. We can end it either by making the reservations explicitly new
nations (either fully independent or with protectorate status, like Micronesia
or Palau), or they need to be integrated fully into the United States.

In the long run, separate countries in one system does not really work (and
yes, the states and feds are overlapping jurisdictions), but Indians have a
much more special status under the law. Race based preferences never end well,
even if they seem nice to begin with.

Why? Because it is scary that you can actually have governments make laws that
Americans may become subject to when those governments have very few duties
under American law to respect American rights. Of course, we do not expect
other countries to follow American law, but reservations are not set up as
other countries. Moreover, the law is strange in that a tribal member in a
part of Oklahoma is now due special criminal treatment due to their ancestry,
rather than be subject to the laws of Oklahoma.

That is not okay. Either a border needs to be set up, or the tribal
governments need to be cast aside or at least become subject to the same kinds
of restrictions the states are. Yes, this will require a constitutional
amendment, but frankly, special treatment of Native Americans is a relic of a
bygone era, much like slavery.

~~~
taken_username
Who should decide to have a border or the other option that you are proposing?
I guess if you want to be fair, you need to let the Native American nations to
decide, and what if they decide to create multiple nations in the middle of
the not-any-more-united States?

~~~
tathougies
> I guess if you want to be fair, you need to let the Native American nations
> to decide, and what if they decide to create multiple nations in the middle
> of the not-any-more-united States?

The United States should decide... either as a constitutional amendment or as
a popular vote. If the tribes have input, that should be taken into account.
But it's not like Native Americans have any more right to exist than any other
person born in the United States.

In general, states can enforce their borders, but it's safe to say that the
Native Americans failed at that considerably, and those wars have concluded
and the USA has firmly won. This is not a value judgement, or a statement of
what should have happened. It is simply observation.

Ultimately, the tribal system is a compromise to make things work as they are
now. But, in the long term, this is never going to work out. Like I said,
there is nothing good to come of this. At some point, some generation will
have to bite the bullet and allow separation or pressure integration. This
system we've created which encourages pseudo separation and shies away from
integration really can't work out in the long run. It will lead to
factionalism, in-fighting and eventually war or genocide.

A better solution would be to put in place incentives for Indians to leave the
reservations and integrate with American society, with the eventual goal to
privatize native lands or to make them public like any other land. Again...
the system we have now, to hold land into perpetuity will not work.

Ultimately, tribal belonging is currently tied to how 'pure' one's blood is.
This is the last vestige of racial preference in this country. These sorts of
things invariably lead to bad outcomes in the long run.

Is it sad that cultures die? Yeah, perhaps, but cultures have always died.
Thus is the way of the world. As each one dies, more will be formed. Oh well,
times change.

------
cgb223
> The ruling means that for the first time much of eastern Oklahoma is legally
> considered reservation land. More than 1.8 million people live in the land
> at issue, including roughly 400,000 in Tulsa, Oklahoma’s second-largest
> city.

So does this effectively create two different rules of law over the same
land...?

Like how does this work?

~~~
ggggtez
It probably will come down to further court cases, but likely, yeah half of
Oklahoma will be subject to Oklahoma state law, and half will be subject to
tribal law. That's no different than a state being neighbor to a different
state with looser/different laws.

Probably they'll work out a compromise like: tribal government pays Oklahoma
fees to have them run infrastructure as they have been, and the State forwards
tax money to the tribal governments. That seems like the most logical short
term solution, essentially status quo.

But the main change will be that tribal lands may now have more power to
change local laws (such as ignoring laws against selling alcohol on sundays,
etc).

~~~
enkid
It's actually a lot more complicated than that. Tribal law is mostly for intra
tribal criminal cases, and does not have jurisdiction over people who aren't
members of the tribe or when a crime is committed outside a reservation. So,
going from having a relatively small portion of a state, where most people
were probably part of a tribe to having have a state in that status makes
thinks very complicated for law enforcement. It's not like the tribes just
randomly took over half of Oklahoma and established a new state. For most
people, Oklahoma will still have jurisdiction over them.

[https://medium.com/@WillandCoch/the-tribal-court-system-
what...](https://medium.com/@WillandCoch/the-tribal-court-system-what-
jurisdiction-does-it-have-39ef83616967)

------
Imnimo
One thing I'm unclear about is this: "If Congress wishes to withdraw its
promises, it must say so." The question in the case, as I understand it, was
whether previous acts of Congress had in fact dissolved the reservation. Could
Congress, if they wanted to, pass a resolution saying, "Actually, such-and-
such bill from 100-some years ago dissolved the reservation." Or can they only
say, "Starting today, the reservation is dissolved."

Is Congress empowered to clarify the meaning of its own past statements? Or
once the text leaves Congress, only the courts can say what that text means,
and if the courts disagree with Congress, then Congress can only remedy that
going forward?

~~~
Gene_Parmesan
Congress writes the laws. Courts interpret them. Congress can't simply say "oh
actually back then we meant this other thing," as that would be completely
nullifying the power of the Courts. Yes, they can make an amendment that
changes/clarifies the meaning of an existing law, and that might sound like
the same thing, but doing that requires the formality of the process -- in
particular, bringing it to a vote.

~~~
cheerlessbog
Aren't retroactive laws a thing?

~~~
arkis22
Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article
I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

~~~
adrr
That only applies to criminal matters and only in terms of punishment.
Congress could decriminalize drugs and make it retroactive for people who have
yet to be convicted or charged.

~~~
mcny
Sorry for stupid question but I'd imagine this ruling means the State of
Oklahoma (and therefore all counties and cities/towns in Oklahoma) never had
the authority to bring criminal cases against _those_ Native Americans in
tribal lands?

Would action of Congress mean any such criminal convictions stand? If yes,
would that be a violation of the Constitution of the United States?

------
hirundo
Does anyone know the status of private land, not belonging to tribe members,
now considered within the reservation? Can it be confiscated by the tribe?

~~~
ozten
Here is Washington state, sometimes tribal land is leased to non-natives for
99 years. Will definitely be interesting to see what happens, but it is quite
possible that "property tax" could be moved over into a land leasing fee.

~~~
icelancer
This is how it works in Arizona as well. I think it's pretty standard.

------
fmajid
Sometimes Supreme Court justices will surprise you. Justice Gorsuch is from
the American West, and has proven to be a strong and consistent advocate for
Native American rights in the Supreme Court, just as Justice Scalia was for
the Fourth Amendment.

~~~
shpongled
This comment just demonstrates your political biases, that's all. I don't know
why you would be surprised that Gorsuch or Scalia would be in favor of
freedoms for the people.

~~~
sonofaplum
None of the other conservatives on the court agreed with the decision, so it's
reasonable to be surprised. Alito is probably the current judge closest to
Scalia and he dissented, so it's reasonable to be surprised. Why would you
assume political bias?

------
irrational
Are all the other treaties going to be reviewed? What percentage of the USA
would become reservation land if all the treaties were honored? If it was >50%
would we still call them reservations?

~~~
jcwayne
It seems that what they've ruled is not that the treaty must be honored, but
that only the federal government gets to decide not to honor it. Absent a
specific decision to that effect, the treaty is still in force which limits
the state's authority.

------
sakopov
Here's a fun map to look at. [1] So, where do we draw the line?

[1]:
[https://www.bia.gov/sites/bia_prod.opengov.ibmcloud.com/file...](https://www.bia.gov/sites/bia_prod.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/assets/public/pdf/Indian_Land_Areas_Judicially_Established_1978_and_AI_Reservations.pdf)

------
toyg
It's so weird how sentences so significant are often "protecting" the rights
of terrible, terrible people:

 _> McGirt, 71, has served more than two decades in prison after being
convicted [...] of rape, lewd molestation and forcible sodomy of a 4-year-old
girl. McGirt [...] did not contest his guilt in the case_

I'd be interested in learning who was involved in McGirt's proceedings and
why. Did they mean to actually get this guy free (which, to be fair, at his
age could be a charitable act in itself), or did they just think it was as
good a chance as any to get this old treaty back on the table? There is a book
and a film in that story.

~~~
nabilhat
Everyone deserves a vigorous legal defense, even the most reprehensible. If
the accused or convicted are exempt from the rule of law, so are those who are
accused or convicted by mistake, corruption, or abuse of power. Competent and
committed legal defense for everyone defends the rule of law as it's applied
to all of us.

~~~
djohnston
Yep, but it also doesn't change that this particular person might be let free.
I think it's OK to feel a little ambivalent about this ruling.

~~~
tobylane
I think it’s not about his freedom, but one of the two courts that could
charge him have the death penalty. His legal case is about avoiding that.

~~~
jjeaff
He was already convicted and sentenced to 1,000 years. So I don't think the
death penalty was on the table.

~~~
jldugger
What would the tribal law sentence be for the same crime?

------
mixologic
As an aside.. whats up with that file photo Reuters is using? Is that somebody
naked in front of the supreme court wearing just a fanny pack?

~~~
chirau
Lol. That is what I initially thought as well, but it turns out it's a lady
wearing a nude colored dress.

------
grizzles
Ok City is just down the road from Tulsa. Guess this means Liz Warren was born
on a Native American reservation.

------
heatm
The genesis of this case (it started with Murphy) is an amazing and wonderful
story.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/05/us/05bar.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/05/us/05bar.html)
... and for more depth, check this excellent podcast series:
[https://crooked.com/podcast-series/this-land/](https://crooked.com/podcast-
series/this-land/) Full disclosure -- I knew and worked with the attorney who
discovered the original issue. She was also a geologist, so she checked on the
mineral rights to see if she could develop a jurisdiction claim.

~~~
toyg
_> It started with Murphy_

What do you mean? Murphy is reported as a murder, whereas McGirt is a rape. Do
you mean that McGirt's defense adopted the strategy Murphy introduced...?

~~~
heatm
Sorry if I wasn't clear, the initial jurisdiction (state vs federal) issue
started with Murphy, a murder case. When the Murphy jurisdiction issue began
to achieve significant legal traction, McGirt adopted the same strategy. The
SCOTUS reviewed the Murphy case with only 8 Justices, didn't issue a decision
(they probably voted 4:4 in conference), and used the McGirt case (with 9
Justices) to decide the jurisdiction issue. The links in my comment provide a
lot more info, it's a remarkable narrative. If the initial Murphy attorney had
not first been a geologist (and then a mineral rights litigator) the whole
situation probably would never have surfaced.

------
jtlienwis
"Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never
enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen
and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing
those in the right." Courts need to apply the above to Article 1, Section 10
of the US Constitution, as well as the 10th and 2nd amendment.

~~~
shpongled
I agree, it's far past time to remove California's unconstitutional gun laws.

~~~
efreak
Doesn't that only apply to the federal government?

~~~
shpongled
The Constitution? No, it applies to states as well. The SC has also explicitly
ruled that the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment makes the Bill of
Rights applicable to the states.

------
rotskoff
I follow court news pretty closely and was genuinely curious about this
decision. Here is a brief description of what I understand the decision to
mean (I am not an expert by any means). Under the federal "Major Crimes Act"
(MCA) members of various Native American tribes are _not_ subject to state
prosecution for crimes committed in "Indian territory". This case was brought
by McGirt, a member of the Creek Nation, who challenged his conviction based
on the original treaty establishing the Creek reservation in eastern Oklahoma.
The headline is a bit misleading: for purposes of the MCA, eastern OK is now
considered a part of the Creek Nation. This means McGirt must be convicted
with the reservation's justice system or in federal court. It also has the
consequence (discussed extensively in Roberts' dissent) that many existing
convictions could potentially be vacated. It will be interesting to see how
the Creek nation works with Oklahoma to address these changes.

~~~
CivBase
They guy has already served 20 years for a crime which he originally plead
guilty for. He was convited for raping a four year old girl.

Why he is challenging it now and by contesting the court's authority rather
than his own guilt? Does he expect to be found not guilty under the Cree
Nation?

------
onetimemanytime
I understand the to the winner go the spoils...lose a war, regardless of who
declared or started it and there goes your land. Human history...but I also
think that treaties made at the time should be honored. Apparently Congress
can unilaterally change the treaties, as per another SCOTUS decision in
[https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/187us553](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/187us553)

 _In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and upheld
the Congressional action. The Court rejected the Indians ' argument that
Congress' action was a taking under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment. Justice Edward D. White reasoned that matters involving Indian
lands were the sole jurisdiction of Congress. Congress therefore had the power
to "abrogate the provisions of an Indian treaty," including the two-million
acre change. Justice John M. Harlan concurred in the judgment._

~~~
room500
If Congress cannot, who can?

I think treaties _must_ be able to be reneged. And since Congress is signing
the treaties, they should also have the power to renege.

Now there might be consequences for those actions (the counterparty might
attack you, your allies may no longer trust you, etc) and those consequences
are what keeps treaties stable.

The issue here is that the other party (Native Americans) has no power to
enforce the treaty... But IMO, that is a public outrage issue and not a
Constitutional issue.

~~~
onetimemanytime
Isn't a treaty signed and agreed upon both sides? Why should one side
unilaterally change the agreed one ?

------
bublyboi
“ McGirt, 71, has served more than two decades in prison after being convicted
in 1997 in Wagoner County in eastern Oklahoma of rape, lewd molestation and
forcible sodomy of a 4-year-old girl. McGirt, who did not contest his guilt in
the case before the justices, had appealed a 2019 ruling by a state appeals
court in favor of Oklahoma.”

------
8bitsrule
Many reservations were affected by the allotment of 'excess land', and by
tribal members selling their allotments (by wile or by intimidation), which
led to the 'checkerboarding' of ownership. In recent decades, multiple tribes
have had programs to recover their lands by purchase.

"The Dawes Act of 1887 created the most Native American checkerboarding. The
act was intended to bolster self-sufficiency and _systematically fracture
native cultures_ , giving each individual between 40 acres (16 ha) and 160
acres (65 ha)." [0] [emphasis mine]

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboarding_(land)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboarding_\(land\))
[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Act)

------
nsajko
This just talks about the case with the rape, but there was also one with a
murder that SCOTUS decided on the same day, and it was based on the same
question of whether the reservation still exists:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGirt_v._Oklahoma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGirt_v._Oklahoma)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp_v._Murphy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp_v._Murphy)

Can somebody explain why is it that in "Sharp v. Murphy" only Thomas and Alito
dissented, while in "McGirt v. Oklahoma" Roberts and Kavanaugh dissented, too?

~~~
afthonos
My guess is that it's because it was a _per curiam_ decision, meaning the
majority felt that it didn't need a lot of elaboration. The reason for _that_
is probably that _given_ _McGirt v. Oklahoma_ , _Sharp v. Muphy_ was an
obvious ruling.

In other words, Roberts and Kavanaugh disagreed with _McGirt_ , but once
_McGirt_ was precedent, _Sharp_ followed immediately. Thomas is known for
thinking precedent doesn't matter and should therefore be (mostly) ignored, so
his dissent is not surprising to me, though I didn't read it. Likewise, I
didn't read Alito's, so I don't know what his reasoning was.

------
ngneer
Highly recommend "The Five Civilized Tribes" by Grant Foreman to better
understand the period, as well as "A Traveler in Indian Territory" to add some
color. The OHS or Oklahoma Historical Society has a wealth of information,
too.

------
akerro
European here: what does it mean economically, geographically and for the
local ecosystem?

~~~
travmatt
It means Congress is shortly going to renege on yet another treaty they made
with a Native American tribe.

------
peter_d_sherman
>"The decision means that for the first time much of eastern Oklahoma is
legally considered reservation land. More than 1.8 million people live in the
land at issue, including roughly 400,000 in Tulsa, Oklahoma’s second-largest
city."

[...]

>"Unless changes are made, tribe members who live within the boundaries would
now become exempt from certain state obligations such as paying state taxes,
while certain Native Americans found guilty in state courts would be able to
challenge their convictions on jurisdictional grounds."

------
bmurray7jhu
I suspect that Congress will consider repealing the Major Crimes Act with
respect portions of Oklahoma. Congress has already done so for other
reservations in several states. See 18 U.S.C. § 1162.

------
hn_throwaway_99
Was looking through the comments hoping I would find some discussion about how
this would affect things like property rights and title insurance for affected
land, but I didn't see anything. I realize what was at issue in this case was
jurisdictional priority, but still, if the court is arguing half of Oklahoma
is "tribal land", what does it mean for people who theoretically own parts of
that land?

------
supernova87a
By the way, has anyone else noticed that Gorsuch takes a much more
conversational writing tone in his opinions? He uses contractions like
"can't", "doesn't", "it's", etc.

I'm am not sure yet whether I like it or will get used to it. But it is
noticeably more informal than the other justices.

------
Koshkin
As a general note,

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Indian_L...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Indian_Lands_of_Federally_Recognized_Tribes_of_the_US%2C_June_2016.pdf)

------
dkarl
I realize this is a petty concern compared to the repeated and compounded
violations of the rights of Native Americans, but I can't help wondering if
the unsettled questions related to this ruling will make it impractical for
Tesla to choose Tulsa as a factory site.

------
tripzilch
> The ruling voided McGirt’s sentence of 1,000 years in prison but he could
> face a new trial in federal court rather than state court.

Is this a joke?? Does the US "justice" system really mete out sentences of
1000 years in prison?

------
kaiku
Anyone interested in historical Indian law cases that didn't set good
precedent might be interested in reading In the Courts of the Conqueror: The
10 Worst Indian Law Cases Ever Decided, by Walter Echo-Hawk.

------
pyuser583
I don’t know how to feel about this. I would be nice if there was good
warning.

Even worse is the “for purposes of the MCA” which means it may or not be state
territory for other purposes.

We need to know who is in charge so they can be held accountable.

I’ve lived near plenty of reservations and they are very different places.
Some have very good government services, and relations with non-tribal
authorities. Others, not so much.

The idea of telling a tribal authority: “surprise you’re responsible for
criminal laws of half a state” puts a ton of pressure on tribal authorities,
and even more pressure on tribal members to hold them accountable.

I’m not for or against this decision. I’m saying the small print and details
matter a lot. And “small print” is an area where tribal relations often go
bad.

I hope this works out. It has great potential- for bad and good!

------
pgcj_poster
This is a good start. Next they should return Indiana and Hawaii.

~~~
sakopov
Why not just dismantle the whole country?

~~~
pgcj_poster
Ok

------
seemslegit
Uh, surely it doesn't mean the the people residing in the area in question can
go on committing what would be a crime under Oklahoma law... right ?

~~~
sophacles
I think it means that the borders of Oklahoma get more complex when you
consider the treaties that the US has entered into.

It's worth noting that according to the constitution, treaties have equal
weight to the constitution. Therefore this ruling seems to me a way of saying
"hey, maybe we should draw the maps according to the highest law in the land".

It has a bonus effect of signalling that the native people are actually people
for both punishment AND benefit. Traditionally the US is bad at acknowledging
the benefit side for folks with pigment (and doubling down on the punishment
side, but that's a different discussion).

~~~
seemslegit
That's all nice and well, but what does it mean for the 1.8 million non-
native-american people in that area, can one of them now rob another and not
be guilty of a crime ? Or does it mean every robbery/arson/murder there can
only be investigated by the FBI and charged in a federal court ?

~~~
sophacles
Well, fortunately from what I gather, this only applies to tribal members on
reservation land. So some of those 1.8 million will have it apply, and the
rest wont. I mean it's right there in the article and the ruling... but you
know, racist FUD is a better source I guess.

~~~
seemslegit
What racist FUD ? If the jurisdiction is territorial then how would state LEOs
be able to enforce state laws even against non-tribe members on that
territory, and if its limited to offences committed by tribe members there are
potential victims both native and non-native Americans that are being harmed
here - those who thought of themselves and their properties as being under
protection of Oklahama state law (and paid taxes for it) and suddenly find it
voided in some or all circumstances.

------
rajacombinator
How is this not bigger news? This is a crazy - in terms of impact, not logic -
ruling. Probably the biggest ruling since Obamacare if not before.

------
etxm
If the land encompasses the western border and parts of the northern and
southern border of Oklahoma, is it even _in_ Oklahoma anymore?

------
x87678r
I thought the US bought OK as part of the Louisiana purchase. Does this mean
France has to refund the price?

~~~
TulliusCicero
AFAICT, the ruling is based on the US' own agreement made after that purchase.

------
mac01021
What are the implications of this for non-tribe-members who live and have
business on the land in question?

~~~
rootusrootus
Unresolved. All they've really judged is the jurisdiction of the state
government over tribal members in this area of the state. It does not affect
non-tribal members. And it may also only apply to tribal members who have
committed crimes against other tribal members.

So the scope is very limited at this point, but it does open the door for more
interesting discussions.

------
mjjjokes
Is everyone purposely overlooking the fact that a rape conviction got
overturned? That's not good news

~~~
grej
If you believe the means weren't good, and that ends shouldn't justify means,
then you accept it as part of functioning due process, similar to Miranda
rights.

------
Diastatic
Now only if Hawaii had the same type of record of the unlawful overthrow and
forced annexation ...

------
partingshots
Do Native Americans not pay any tax at all? Or are they still obligated to pay
federal taxes.

------
tehjoker
Seems like all they did was say the feds get to punish native americans rather
than state officials. Where's the sovereignty?

Nearly all US presidents, including George Washington, led genocidal campaigns
that burned down entire towns or otherwise committed crimes against humanity
in the name of expanding the colonial lands of settlers.

------
coldtea
Half? Wasn't it all back in the day? Anyway, this is a step forward!

------
nwsm
The decision has no bearing on land ownership or governance, but will force
Oklahoma to tie up its historical loose ends.

EDIT: I originally incorrectly wrote "All they did was interrupt the trial of
an accused rapist." in addition to the above sentence.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
He was a bit more than "accused". He was convicted.

And, they didn't interrupt the trial. He's been in prison for more than two
decades for this crime.

~~~
dmix
> McGirt, 71, has served more than two decades in prison after being convicted
> in 1997 in Wagoner County in eastern Oklahoma of rape, lewd molestation and
> forcible sodomy of a 4-year-old girl. McGirt, who did not contest his guilt
> in the case before the justices, had appealed a 2019 ruling by a state
> appeals court in favor of Oklahoma.

The crime part seems largely insignificant to this ruling. It was mostly just
a proxy for a larger question at hand of who should have handled his case.

It's unlikely this guy will suddenly go free given his admission of guilt.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I didn't read this article as saying that he had admitted guilt. I read it as
saying that _for purposes of this case_ , he didn't contest his guilt. That
is, the basis of this case is not a claim that he is innocent; it's a claim
that the wrong court convicted him.

If I missed something, feel free to point it out...

~~~
dmix
That's a good point. You're right, he just wasn't challenging it, not that he
claimed guilt.

------
dqpb
> _Tribe members who live within the boundaries are now set to become exempt
> from certain state obligations such as paying state taxes_

What about everyone else? Shouldn't they pay taxes to the tribe?

~~~
robertlagrant
For what services?

~~~
3001
Stealing their land?

------
paradox242
"Forceful sodomy of a 4-year old girl"

Yeah, if this is true, can we just hang this guy already?

~~~
Zenbit_UX
Honestly I'm surprised he's still alive, pop culture has lead me to believe
that men who commit sexual crimes on children don't survive long in prison.
This is also one of the most heinous acts imaginable, what gives?

------
kaonashi
So crimes committed by Americans on reservation land are basically
unchargeable now?

~~~
efreak
Not chargeable by the state. This isn't new.

------
giantg2
So when are they going to get to all the other unlawful stuff the government
does?

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
when someone - like you - starts working for it. You are going to start,
right?

~~~
giantg2
I would if I believed in the system. The system has become an oligarchy where
the ruling class is not subject to rule of law. The system ignores blatant
violation of law by making frivolous excuses. For example, how can we allow
people to wait years for a trial when the constitution guarantees the right to
a speedy trial?

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
The system is the people. It only exists because people say they can't be
bothered. It's easier to convince yourself it won't work because the the
alternative is trying, and that takes effort. But that indifference permits
the system to continue, from the bottom up, allows it to grow cancerous and
metastasize.

The world you allow to happen us the world you get. The blame falls on you
this time. You get what you deserve if you let it.

~~~
giantg2
It falls on the collective. I do my part - I vote, write my representatives,
attend protests/counter-protests. The system will not change because it does
not work the way it is supposed to work. Your statement saying that the system
is the people is no longer true.

------
qserasera
Trump had a weird, forced rally in Tulsa during COVID and now half of
Okalahoma state is gone. I'm not that into conspiracies but is somewhat
notable.

------
calvinmorrison
"We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must
say so."

As with so many controversial court rulings like the ACA mandate case, our
courts keep getting put into the decision because of the massive failure that
congress is. Congress should either fulfill the promise or not, or whatever.
instead the judicial bodies end up making legal judgements with big
ramifcations that largely should be left to the legislative body.

~~~
war1025
> because of the massive failure that congress is

This is a conclusion I'm coming to more and more. It's easy to blame
Presidential overreach or Supreme Court overreach, but the Congress seems to
be steadily abdicating responsibility while still managing to get very little
of substance accomplished.

They are supposed to be the most powerful branch of government, but instead
they have deadlocked themselves into uselessness. In some ways we're probably
fortunate that the other two branches have picked up the slack, as much as we
(myself included) like to complain about it.

~~~
ISL
While in effect it is abdicating, in reality, Congress is spinlocked by
indecision.

There are deep divides between the branches of the electorate that have
brought the representatives to office, as the United States faces a number of
divisive issues. Those divides, and a preference for combat over compromise,
leave us deadlocked. The center is there for the first party that chooses to
leave its entrenchement.

When Congress reaches approximate agreement on an issue, particularly an
emerging one, it can move _fast_. See the passage of the PATRIOT Act or the
recent move to spend more than $1,000,000,000,000 on COVID-19 economic relief.

~~~
busterarm
Except this is demonstrably untrue.

The 115th (2017-2018)[1] Congress had both a Republican House and Senate and
it got extremely little done.

Our Congress is completely ineffective.

[1]:Fixed.

~~~
rhizome
How much activity do you expect from a party whose organizing principle is to
shrink government small enough to be drowned in a bathtub?

~~~
bluGill
Maybe shrink government?

You might not agree with the principle, but given they haven't done much
shrinking you cannot call it their principle.

~~~
krapp
It is their principle, they just prefer to shrink the parts of government they
disagree with ideologically. Which is why we have the biggest, most powerful
and most expensive military in human history but our healthcare and education
systems are a joke.

~~~
rayiner
On education, we spend among the most per student in absolute terms on K-12
and right at the OECD average as a fraction of the economy:
[https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/figures/images/figure-
cmd-3...](https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/figures/images/figure-cmd-3.svg)

As a portion of the economy, just our public spending on healthcare is higher
than the OECD average public spending:
[https://www.oecd.org/media/oecdorg/satellitesites/newsroom/4...](https://www.oecd.org/media/oecdorg/satellitesites/newsroom/48294761hd2011fr.png)

~~~
brandmeyer
This is a great example of the flaw of using averages in an unbalanced
society. Some wealthy districts spend far above the OECD average, while many
poor districts are grossly under-funded (and under-achieving).

~~~
rayiner
On a state-by-state level, rich districts do not spend more than poor
districts: [https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-
kids-...](https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-get-
fair-share/)

Obviously high-cost states spend more than low-cost states. But their
education spending is consistent with the size of their economies. Mississippi
has a GSP per capita of $35,000 and spends $8,700 per student. Italy, Spain,
and New Zealand have similar GDP per capita and also spend a similar amount
per student.

~~~
wutbrodo
Thank you, the claim that our educational outcomes are poor due to
underfunding is a huge pet peeve of mine.

Its really terrifying to see people confidently and passionately argue about
politics while pulling their "facts" from an alternate universe.

~~~
smegger001
I think it is in large part due bad spending priorities at schools. Several
years ago I lived small rural community and the school district passed a heavy
levee on homes to pay for a new football field and a far larger than needed
grandstand/bleachers and field lighting. Turns out the high schools roof was
needing replaced at the same time but they purposefully waited until they got
the levy for the field through first to put forward the one to repair the
school because they figured that they could get them both that way but could
not get the field after replacing the roof.

The highest paid government employees in most states are football coaches for
the state schools? Why? I thought schools job were to educate not cause brain
injuries in their students? Why pay millions of tax payer dollars earmarked
for education for someone to coach a game that injures the mental capacity of
the students. Why not hire more professors with that money? why not pay
teachers more or fix facilities buy material and equipment make teachers not
have to spend their own money on basic supplies?

~~~
wutbrodo
> The highest paid government employees in most states are football coaches
> for the state schools? Why? I thought schools job were to educate not cause
> brain injuries in their students? Why pay millions of tax payer dollars
> earmarked for education for someone to coach a game that injures the mental
> capacity of the students. Why not hire more professors with that money? why
> not pay teachers more or fix facilities buy material and equipment make
> teachers not have to spend their own money on basic supplies?

I used to feel this way too, but my understanding is that investing in sports
programs tends to _bring in_ more money for universities, on net. I don't
think it's accurate to consider it as trading off against academic investment.

At any rate, this is a bit tangential: American universities are the best in
the world, so the conversation is more about high school and lower, where our
educational outcomes lag by some metrics.

~~~
bluGill
This is high school. They don't need to attract students, they need to educate
the ones they have. Considering the risks football should not be in public
schools at all. Sure at university it pays for itself but that is a different
level with different conditions

------
blondie9x
Honestly after all the Native Americans went through, give them the whole
state at least. People in the United States speak and reflect often about the
atrocities of slavery. We need to equally reflect on and remember the
atrocities against Native Americans.

~~~
pathseeker
What do you mean "them"? You do realize that there were many different tribes
who had very drastically different interactions with the US, right?

~~~
Angostura
I believe the answer would be

> Native Americans.

Whether that encompasses multiple tribes or not, doesn't change that.

~~~
gowld
Giving the Florida Seminoles territory in Oklahoma (or giving land to an
Oklahoma tribe and calling that a ceding to Seminoles?) would be weird at
best.

------
0x8BADF00D
This is a really strange ruling. It also means that all prior convictions must
be overturned, as they happened on a reservation instead of the state of
Oklahoma.

------
asdf21
Dumb question... but can I still move to Tulsa?

------
NonEUCitizen
The numbers should really be 100% instead of 25% and 10%. Much has been stolen
from them.

~~~
abqio
No thank you. As someone who lives in one of those states this is a worrying
precedent.

 _Maybe_ if their laws didn't apply to me as a non citizen I would be ok with
this. As it is, I can be arrested for stopping at the wrong gas station with a
firearm in my car.

I have no choice but to pass through reservations on a regular basis. And I
have no input in the government that makes their laws. Nor any hope of ever
being heard. Yet those laws apply to me just the same.

~~~
manuelabeledo
> And I have no input in the government that makes their laws. Nor any hope of
> ever being heard. Yet those laws apply to me just the same.

That is also the reality of 40 million immigrants in the US.

~~~
_-david-_
Surely immigrants chose to come to the US. People in Tulsa didn't chose to be
in a Native reservation. They chose to be in Tulsa, Oklahoma, US.

~~~
manuelabeledo
I find this delightfully ironic.

Tulsa residents actually _chose_ to live in a land that happens to be a native
American reservation. They may not have known prior to this day, but the
Supreme Court was there to clarify it.

In fact, and given that the Supreme Court dismissed the state arguments about
laws passed around the early 20th century, it is not that these territories
are _now_ part of the reservation, they _always_ were.

Now, if you were to argue that there may be uncertainty and prejudice against
current Tulsa residents, because of the change of the status quo, I would say
that, again, this is the reality 40 million immigrants face in the US to this
day.

------
preommr
> Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s four liberals in the
> majority.

The US supreme court is a special kind of circus.

For the life of me, I can't remember any of the names of the justices on the
Canadian supreme court. Its extremely uneventful, and even if there have been
controversies, they were so minor or rare that I can't remember them.

The US on the other hand... The partisanship is so blatant and just accepted.

And not only that, the controversy.

I am still astounded that Kavanugh was approved after he started ranting
openly about clinton conspiracy theories, awkwardly asking people if they like
beer, and lying about common terms like "devil's triangle".

~~~
tyre
The United States has a different system of government from Canada so it's not
surprising that there are differences.

Given the primacy of our Constitution and the Supreme Court's role in
interpreting whether a law is consistent with our our Constitution, choosing
justices is a rather existential question.

~~~
bryanlarsen
What differences? The Supreme Court of Canada is in essence directly appointed
by the Prime Minister so is very vulnerable to politicization. The Supreme
Court is also responsible for interpreting whether a law is consistent with
our Constitution so it's just as existential.

~~~
mamon
> The Supreme Court of Canada is in essence directly appointed by the Prime
> Minister

And that's the crucial difference: if a Supreme Court judge in Canada starts
misbehaving I guess Prime Minister can dismiss them just as easily. In the US
judges are appointed for life, so if the wrong person gets appointed that
choice will haunt us for a few decades.

~~~
bryanlarsen
The Prime Minister cannot dismiss judges.

------
crb002
I see this boosting U.S. Treasury demand. The decision affirms that the U.S.
keeps it's word.

------
blackrock
Incredible. Do the right thing America!

Let the Native Americans go. Let them be free. Give them back their lands.

You have enslaved them for far too long. You genocided them. Killed their
culture. Killed their language. Raped their women. Killed their men. Killed
their children. And now, the Covid virus is about to kill off the remaining
Navajo Tribe.

You must be a heartless monster, if you don’t feel any sense of sorrow, for
what is about to happen to the Navajos. They’re all about to die from the
virus. Their culture is about to disappear from this earth.

For all the hot air talk about foreign nations and their supposed cultural
genocide, well, you have one right here in your own backyard. And you have the
historical baggage that goes with it.

It’s time to let them finally be free. They have suffered long enough, for the
sake of America’s Manifest Destiny project!

Americans need to depopulate the Oklahoma territories, and return that land
back to the Native Americans. As wells as the Dakotas, and return that back to
the Sioux Tribes.

Americans already took all the good lands on the east and west coasts, by the
waters, and left the sh*t lands to the Native Americans. Do the right thing.
Prove it!

~~~
efreak
Let's get rid of the Normans while we're at it, and return England to the
Anglo-Saxons. Except they took it from the Romans, who took it from the
Britons and Picts. The details might be off, but my point stands: land
ownership is complicated; wars happened, and all the genocides and land
disputes going unrecognized for political reasons are only recently considered
issues that need restitution. I'm sure the Native Americans have their own
history of wars (admittedly, likely on a smaller scale) that pushed tribes to
live in different places (I wouldn't know, I'm a product of the California
school system, and while we learned about the natives in the missions, we
spent more time glorifying the missions with models than studying precolonial
American history)

------
spaginal
I wish the Supreme Court had this kind of attitude towards other questionable
decisions and actions by our Congress, namely the passage of the 16th
amendment.

------
fermienrico
Can someone explain why America has reservations? From what I know, Native
Indians had this land almost 2+ centuries ago. Why have a special, looks like
an autonomous, region and special treatment to people that are a few
generations down from when this happened?

How far back into the history should we go?

~~~
ceejayoz
> Can someone explain why America has reservations?

Because we signed treaties with the tribes, which are now semi-sovereign
entities as a result.

~~~
mytailorisrich
That's not 'why', that's 'how'.

I'm not American, so don't know the topic in details. I have found this
online:

" _The main goals of Indian reservations were to bring Native Americans under
U.S. government control, minimize conflict between Indians and settlers and
encourage Native Americans to take on the ways of the white man._ " [1]

[1] [https://www.history.com/topics/native-american-
history/india...](https://www.history.com/topics/native-american-
history/indian-reservations)

~~~
rolha-capoeira
Arguably, the treaties are not only "how" but also "why" us modern Americans,
detached from the times in which those reservations were established, should
uphold them, as they are lawful.

We could certainly look at why the treaties were signed, but the original
comment basically asked why we, modernly, should care.

~~~
mytailorisrich
The treaties, as legal instruments, partly explain why reservations still
exist, yes, but a treaty only survives if it isn't an impediment. I think it's
key to understand why they were created in the first place because that also
explains why they still exist: IMHO they still serve their purpose.

------
btilly
_Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never
enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen
and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing
those in the right._

I disagree with this reasoning.

As a counterexample I point you to squatters rights. If I live on your land
long and openly enough, my unlawful act will confer ownership of the land to
me. This principle is not only recognized in our courts, but the clarity that
it provides around ownership is a major foundation of our economic system. The
reason is that before ownership was clarified with this principle, our land
was covered by a mess of overlapping and contradictory claims to ownership of
the land. But with a clear owner, however established, that owner can now use
their ownership as collateral.

For a book-length treatment of that thesis I point you at
[https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-
Triumphs-E...](https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Triumphs-
Everywhere/dp/0465016154).

But this decision opens up the legal status of half of Oklahoma for debate,
while other tribes around the nation are going to be thinking about which
further claims they can now press.

If we continue to open up the course of reversing long-done ills, will we
start to ask whether West Virginia should not exist not as an interesting
academic question, but as a current legal one? See
[https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2011/01/west-
virgin...](https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2011/01/west-virginia-
weekend-is-the-state-itself-unconstitutional.html) for background on that.

~~~
lucasgonze
You're thinking of laches:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_\(equity\))

"Laches refers to a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or
moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, particularly in regard to
equity"

It doesn't apply because nobody is claiming tribal groups failed to protect
their interests. They haven't just been blowing off and watching TV all this
time.

~~~
btilly
I am not saying that this is a legal argument for how this case should have
been resolved.

I'm saying that this is a legal argument against the specific reasoning within
the decision. That reasoning being, _Unlawful acts, performed long enough and
with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law._ And yet here is a
well-established example where an unlawful act, performed long enough and with
sufficient vigor, does become enough to amend the law.

I picked you to respond to because of the several people pointing out in one
way or another that squatters rights (which, incidentally, has its own
doctrines separate from latches) does not actually apply as a way to resolve
this case.

~~~
jjeaff
When you take over land by squatting, you aren't "amending the law". You are
amending land records using the judicial system. So I don't think the
comparison holds up.

And considering that these Indian tribes have been fighting for their land
since the beginning, it also doesn't really meet the criteria of someone
squatting unnoticed on some land.

If someone just started building on your land right now, and you filed a
complaint and called the police and no one would come to help you remove them
legally for a decade, they aren't going to eventually just get title to your
land. Filing complaints and calling the police has disputed their claim.

------
newacct583
This is a terrible article, it just cites the facts of the decision, teases
the implication (OMG _half_ of OK!) and explains nothing. Here's a review
article about the same case from a while back which does a better job:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half-
land-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half-land-
oklahoma-could-be-returned-native-americans-it-should-be/)

The tl;dr is that, yes, indeed, half of Oklahoma is part of land reserved for
the Creek in a 1833 treaty. And almost two centuries of subsequent
jurisprudence and state development has (unsurprisingly) completely ignored
that with effectively no legal basis. Neither Congress nor the state of
Oklahoma has ever lifted a finger to try to make this right.

Basically, this is the Supreme Court saying that enough is enough, this can't
go on, and telling the relevant governments to get their shit together and
figure this out.

No, Injuns aren't coming for Tulsa.

~~~
binarymax
Do you realize the word you used is pejorative? Please be kind and show some
respect.

EDIT - a note about the sarcasm - it is NOT OK to use pejorative or racist
terms sarcastically.

~~~
asdf21
He's obviously mocking the use of the word... can people here not understand
context?

~~~
pantaloony
From long observation: no, one thing HN is remarkably bad at, even compared to
the rest of the web(!), is taking context into account. Usually that kind of
thing is deliberate trolling when it happens elsewhere, but here I can never
tell. It seems so sincere.

~~~
jfengel
It's pretty clear to me that it was sarcastic, but sarcasm reads really badly
on the Internet. In open forums, it's best avoided -- there are just too many
ways for it to go wrong. (Especially when not everybody is a native speaker,
which makes sarcasm even harder to recognize.)

