Because Federally Recognized Indian tribes have a unique political status in the United States, the lines between which laws apply and under what jurisdiction tend to get blurred. Federal Indian Law dictates that tribes are recognized as “domestic-dependent nations,” a term that gives tribes the status of self-governance insofar as it does not interfere with federal law. This status determines laws that directly affect tribes, and sets precedence for decisions regarding tribes.
Recent court ruling McGirt v. Oklahoma has set the stage for what exactly constitutes sovereignty and its execution in Indian Country.McGirt v. Oklahoma was brought before the Supreme Court in 2020. The petitioner, Jimcy McGirt, was convicted of serious sexual crimes in the state of Oklahoma. McGirt, a member of the Seminole Tribe, was said to have committed these crimes in Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s reservation.
As established by the Major Crimes Act of 1885 (part of the Indian Appropriations Act), all serious crimes committed by federally recognized tribal members on Indian land must be prosecuted in federal court, and other crimes may be tried in tribal courts. In McGirt’s case, he was prosecuted in an Oklahoma state court. He contested this decision, arguing that due to his status as an Indian and the crime’s location on a reservation, the state lacked the jurisdiction to prosecute him. Once the case entered the Supreme Court, justices recognized the previous decision that Indian reservations were still established and had their own authority and sovereignty, and that authority did not go away with the creation of Oklahoma as a state. The crux of this case rested on whether or not Oklahoma courts had authority to override tribal courts. According to the 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court, the Cherokee, Choctaw, Muscogee, Chickasaw, and Seminole nations are recognized to have authority over their reservations. Because of this, if a member of a federally recognized crime commits that crime within the borders of the reservation, that person must either be tried on the tribal or federal level.
Justice Neil Gorsuch gave the majority opinion. “On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise. Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the West would be secure forever”… “The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity, this commitment turned out to be hollow, and the government is now once again trying to renege on its pledge. We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so.”
Despite the ruling, much controversy has still arisen from this decision. Of the most outspoken opponents is Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt. Stitt claims that as a direct result of the McGirt decision, violent criminals are being released from prisons and crime rates are going up. These claims are somewhat unfounded, but several other politicians are echoing Stitt’s concerns.
Tribal authorities, on the other hand, see this decision as a landmark of sovereignty for tribes in Oklahoma. In response to the decision, Muscogee Nation states,“The Supreme Court today kept the United States’ sacred promise to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of a protected reservation. Today’s decision will allow the Nation to honor our ancestors by maintaining our established sovereignty and territorial boundaries. We will continue to work with federal and state law enforcement agencies to ensure that public safety will be maintained throughout the territorial boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.”
Justice Gorsuch’s writing echoes the feeling of many Native Americans. Through the Trail of Tears, Native people were guaranteed some recompense for their suffering. The decision upholds that, and by extension, upholds the sovereignty of the tribes.