casii
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,461 
|
Post by casii on Jul 9, 2020 16:45:39 GMT
"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a large chunk of eastern Oklahoma remains an American Indian reservation, a decision that state and federal officials have warned could throw Oklahoma into chaos.
The court's 5-4 decision, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, means that Oklahoma prosecutors lack the authority to pursue criminal cases against American Indian defendants in parts of Oklahoma that include most of Tulsa, the second-largest city."
I have a LOT of family in OK and a lot of former classmates. I'm seeing nothing from anyone on social media yet. Admittedly, most of mine are around OKC and then in Caddo, Grady and Kiowa counties, so not that Eastern swath.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 9, 2020 16:48:50 GMT
PolarGreen12, you got any thoughts on this? On the face of it, it sounds like a huge problem. Can tribal authorities prosecute Native defendants, if civil authorities are banned from it? They may have to set up a whole separate justice system. I’m assuming the immunity would only apply to members of the affected tribes, not tribal members from elsewhere in the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by PolarGreen12 on Jul 9, 2020 16:53:04 GMT
I’m confused I thought it had always already been this way.
My understanding with reservation land was any crime committed on that land was up to the tribe to determine punishment.
ETA. Oh I see they are saying the land prior to Oklahoma becoming a state will still count at tribal land. Not just what is currently reservation land. Well that changes things. So Tulsa is now considered Creek reservation land.
I see now where the chaos comes in. That makes no sense from several standpoints. Because then two justice systems are governing the same territory. When it’s in reservation land it is only Creek citizens and creek council. Saying a Creek citizen can basically be on any land in eastern OK and commit a crime and not be held accountable by city government is scary to be honest. But in reading at the end of the article it looks like they’d be tried on the federal level. ? I’m still a bit confused.
|
|
|
|
Post by peatlejuice on Jul 9, 2020 17:18:48 GMT
ETA. Oh I see they are saying the land prior to Oklahoma becoming a state will still count at tribal land. Not just what is currently reservation land. Well that changes things. So Tulsa is now considered Creek reservation land. I see now where the chaos comes in. That makes no sense from several standpoints. Because then two justice systems are governing the same territory. When it’s in reservation land it is only Creek citizens and creek council. Saying a Creek citizen can basically be on any land in eastern OK and commit a crime and not be held accountable by city government is scary to be honest. But in reading at the end of the article it looks like they’d be tried on the federal level. ? I’m still a bit confused. I'm reading it the same way as you- that Creek tribal members can only be tried at the federal level, under tribal/federal laws and jurisdiction, for any crimes they commit. The state has no authority or ability to hold Creek citizens accountable for crimes at the state level, but they do hold jurisdiction over eastern OK for non-tribal individuals. Personally, I'm very opposed to this ruling, but I'd need more time to really put my thoughts on why in written word, so maybe I'll be back later to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by PolarGreen12 on Jul 9, 2020 17:36:57 GMT
ETA. Oh I see they are saying the land prior to Oklahoma becoming a state will still count at tribal land. Not just what is currently reservation land. Well that changes things. So Tulsa is now considered Creek reservation land. I see now where the chaos comes in. That makes no sense from several standpoints. Because then two justice systems are governing the same territory. When it’s in reservation land it is only Creek citizens and creek council. Saying a Creek citizen can basically be on any land in eastern OK and commit a crime and not be held accountable by city government is scary to be honest. But in reading at the end of the article it looks like they’d be tried on the federal level. ? I’m still a bit confused. I'm reading it the same way as you- that Creek tribal members can only be tried at the federal level, under tribal/federal laws and jurisdiction, for any crimes they commit. The state has no authority or ability to hold Creek citizens accountable for crimes at the state level, but they do hold jurisdiction over eastern OK for non-tribal individuals. Personally, I'm very opposed to this ruling, but I'd need more time to really put my thoughts on why in written word, so maybe I'll be back later to do that. It doesn’t mention the city level. I wonder how this applies to traffic crimes, break ins, burglary. Etc. |
|
|
|
Post by stampnscrap1128 on Jul 9, 2020 17:41:59 GMT
As if Oklahoma isn't in a massive clusterfuck already with covidiots who refuse to wear masks, huge increases in positive Covid test results, inept and corrupt politicians (especially Inhofe and Governor Shit for Brains). This will no doubt cause all sorts of confusion and more delays in justice. I don't live in that part of Oklahoma but what affects one part of the state will often affect the whole state.
|
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,658
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Jul 9, 2020 17:53:52 GMT
I don't know? But The Choctaw Nation has its own justice system and police force. The Choctaw Nation is a sovereign nation. OKC is in the Chickasaw Nation. Then there are much smaller tribes. I don't know how this is going to work?
ETA: OKC is not in the Chickasaw Nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Jul 9, 2020 18:11:15 GMT
PolarGreen12, you got any thoughts on this? On the face of it, it sounds like a huge problem. Can tribal authorities prosecute Native defendants, if civil authorities are banned from it? They may have to set up a whole separate justice system. I’m assuming the immunity would only apply to members of the affected tribes, not tribal members from elsewhere in the country. They are not immune, at least not in a no one can prosecute manner. It will be up to tribal authorities to pursue prosecution— my understanding is that ultimately goes through federal courts. Thou meh no doubt this will cause a period of chaos both for already disposed of cases and cases currently in the the system. |
|
|
|
Post by hopemax on Jul 9, 2020 18:19:03 GMT
This isn't a ruling for justice / no justice. A visit to the website of the Muscogee (Creek) shows they have a system of criminal justice the same as the US does. They have a district court, a supreme court, an attorney general. The big deal is that this is affirmation that tribal lands granted by treaty remain tribal lands even if the State ignored the treaty and built a large city on top of it. The State of Oklahoma had no authority to shrink the size of tribal lands.
"Gorsuch rejected the idea that the Creek Nation territory was not Indian land. "Under our Constitution, States have no authority to reduce federal reservations lying within their borders. Just imagine if they did," he wrote.
"A State could encroach on the tribal boundaries or legal rights Congress provided, and, with enough time and patience, nullify the promises made in the name of the United States. That would be at odds with the Constitution, which entrusts Congress with the authority to regulate commerce with Native Americans, and directs that federal treaties and statutes are the 'supreme Law of the Land,'" he wrote, adding that if that happened, "It would also leave tribal rights in the hands of the very neighbors who might be least inclined to respect them.""
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 9, 2020 19:31:08 GMT
I always find it fascinating how individual judges rule after being appointed on different types of cases. Gorsuch wrote the opinion, but it was the 4 liberal judges who voted with him and Chief Justice Roberts wrote the dissenting opinion along with the rest of the conservative judges. Roberts has been kind of all over the place this session- but has more often than not broke with the conservatives. Gorsuch is definitely proving to the independent jurist he promised as his rulings seem to be utterly uncorrelated to liberal/conservative. I recall a case when he was on the federal bench where he ruled strongly in favor of Native Americans' historic rights, so can't say this is a total surprise.
|
|
Montannie
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,486
Location: Big Sky Country
|
Post by Montannie on Jul 9, 2020 22:54:28 GMT
The interplay of federal-state-tribal jurisdiction is complex. I haven't read the decision, but likely should. Gorsuch has been an eye-opener. But he's a westerner, and I'd expect him to have a greater understanding of tribal issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by PolarGreen12 on Jul 10, 2020 2:53:33 GMT
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
|
Post by lizacreates on Jul 10, 2020 3:52:46 GMT
PolarGreen12 , you got any thoughts on this? On the face of it, it sounds like a huge problem. Can tribal authorities prosecute Native defendants, if civil authorities are banned from it? They may have to set up a whole separate justice system. I’m assuming the immunity would only apply to members of the affected tribes, not tribal members from elsewhere in the country. They are not immune, at least not in a no one can prosecute manner. It will be up to tribal authorities to pursue prosecution— my understanding is that ultimately goes through federal courts. Thou meh no doubt this will cause a period of chaos both for already disposed of cases and cases currently in the the system. Is it tribal or federal that will make the charging decision? Because my understanding is that federal still has jurisdiction, just not state. So in Jimcy McGirt’s case, his conviction has been overturned by the ruling. My assumption was he would then be charged by one of Oklahoma’s US Attys. I also assumed that those who were convicted in state court for crimes committed on Creek land that has just now been recognized can challenge their convictions and have their cases retried in federal court. That’s how I understood it, but now I’m not so sure. |
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Jul 10, 2020 3:56:53 GMT
They are not immune, at least not in a no one can prosecute manner. It will be up to tribal authorities to pursue prosecution— my understanding is that ultimately goes through federal courts. Thou meh no doubt this will cause a period of chaos both for already disposed of cases and cases currently in the the system. Is it tribal or federal that will make the charging decision? Because my understanding is that federal still has jurisdiction, just not state. So in Jimcy McGirt’s case, his conviction has been overturned by the ruling. My assumption was he would then be charged by one of Oklahoma’s US Attys. I also assumed that those who were convicted in state court for crimes committed on Creek land that has just now been recognized can challenge their convictions and have their cases retried in federal court. That’s how I understood it, but now I’m not so sure. I’m not sure. I’ll do some reading tomorrow. Tribal jurisdiction isn’t something I’ve really dealt with very much at all. I think the tribe could choose to exercise jurisdiction and prosecute cases but there does exist some federal authority, but I’m not very clear on the exact intersection of tribal and federal jurisdiction |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
|
Post by lizacreates on Jul 10, 2020 4:02:26 GMT
Is it tribal or federal that will make the charging decision? Because my understanding is that federal still has jurisdiction, just not state. So in Jimcy McGirt’s case, his conviction has been overturned by the ruling. My assumption was he would then be charged by one of Oklahoma’s US Attys. I also assumed that those who were convicted in state court for crimes committed on Creek land that has just now been recognized can challenge their convictions and have their cases retried in federal court. That’s how I understood it, but now I’m not so sure. I’m not sure. I’ll do some reading tomorrow. Tribal jurisdiction isn’t something I’ve really dealt with very much at all. I think the tribe could choose to exercise jurisdiction and prosecute cases but there does exist some federal authority, but I’m not very clear on the exact intersection of tribal and federal jurisdiction Thank you. I’ve never dealt with tribal issues at all so I have no experience in it. |
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,658
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Jul 10, 2020 6:32:55 GMT
This was from our Choctaw Chief
"I want everyone to know my official stance regarding the McGirt case that was ruled on by the US Supreme Court today so below is my official response:
The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma is extremely pleased by the Supreme Court’s decision on McGirt v. Oklahoma to uphold the Treaty boundaries of the Creek Nation. This decision is a win for the Treaty rights and boundaries of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, and Cherokee sovereign Nations.
The Choctaw Nation has always worked with law enforcement agencies to promote public safety, our economy, and the rights of all citizens. Nothing about the McGirt decision changes that commitment.
We will continue to work toward a joint state-tribal agreement to resolve any significant jurisdictional issues that arise from the McGirt decision. We believe in working together as sovereign governments for the growth and prosperity of all Oklahomans.”
|
|
|
|
Post by librarylady on Jul 10, 2020 15:38:37 GMT
I wonder if all kinds of convictions will be overthrown.."You didn't have authority to convict under state/US laws, it belongs to the tribal nations."
|
|
|
|
Post by PolarGreen12 on Jul 10, 2020 15:53:06 GMT
I wonder if all kinds of convictions will be overthrown.."You didn't have authority to convict under state/US laws, it belongs to the tribal nations." Two already have been overturned. That’s what brought all this about. Their lawyer filed an appeal that said the state didn’t have the power to convict him on their murder and rape charges because this was still tribal land since the treaty was never signed/honored. That’s what got the wheel moving. One had received the death penalty and the other c a 500 year sentence. They area now over turned and will be re-tried in federal court. |
|
|
|
Post by librarylady on Jul 10, 2020 16:20:01 GMT
A few years ago we saw a show about a rape on a South Dakota reservation.
Because 1, yes ONE, prosecutor handles all the cases for ALL the reservations--the case had never been prosecuted.
I think 5 years had passed at that time.
I hope more federal prosecutors are hired with this change. It was ridiculous before this ruling.
|
|
|
|
Post by PolarGreen12 on Jul 10, 2020 16:37:46 GMT
Reservations have a bad reputation for rapes and then not really ever charging the men. It’s sad and scary for women who live on them.
|
|
mich5481
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,516
|
Post by mich5481 on Jul 10, 2020 16:46:33 GMT
Reservations have a bad reputation for rapes and then not really ever charging the men. It’s sad and scary for women who live on them. That's awful. I wonder if things will change since the entire eastern half of Oklahoma is now a reservation. I think it is easy for people to ignore what happens on reservations if they don't regularly go there (the whole out of sight, out of mind deal), so now that people are suddenly going to be impacted might spur change. 🤷♀️ |
|
