Current Events > SCOTUS rules 5-4 that almost half of Oklahoma is a Native American reservation.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/09/supreme-court-says-eastern-half-of-oklahoma-is-native-american-land.html

Gorsuch

---

Uhhhh, so like, is the rapist at least gonna get tried federally, then?
---

Well it was historically where united states deemed "indian country" after forcing them into the western half of the us

---

Does this mean the man that raped a child gets to go free? Or is he going to be tried on the federal level instead?

---

Can we talk about the fact that 1000 years + life is a comically absurd punishment in the first place
---

MC_BatCommander posted...

Does this mean the man that raped a child gets to go free? Or is he going to be tried on the federal level instead?

I missed this - whats the story here?

Are they gonna change the offensive name of the state now?

---

So first of all, this means that the dude who raped a 4-year old girl might be getting his sentence overturned. Which is disgusting.

This also suggests that every crime that occurs within the entire eastern half of Oklahoma can only be undertaken by Muscogee Law, and there is absolutely no chance that the Muskogee tribe has the capabilities to handle the criminal activities of 1.8 million people. Because this defence isn't just a defence because our rapist was a Native American, but anyone living on Native Land would follow the Native laws instead of the State of Oklahoma. So theoretically anyone who commits a crime in this area would have this defence and need to deal with the Native legal system, which will definitely be completely unable to handle this workload.

I feel like this can go incredibly badly for Oklahoma.

Ruvan22 posted...

I missed this - whats the story here?

The reason the SCOTUS is looking at this is because a Native American raped a 4-year old child, and used the defence that he is protected from American Prosecution since the crime was committed on native land, not US soil, and therefore the state of Oklahoma was out of its jurisdiction by convicting him. The SCOTUS has now effectively agreed with this reasoning.

Ruvan22 posted...

I missed this - whats the story here?

It's in the article. The case is the man who raped the child vs the state of Oklahoma


---

MC_BatCommander posted...

It's in the article. The case is the man who raped the child vs the state of Oklahoma

Oh doh!

Neil Gorsuch is the new wild card, he swings both ways.

---

Proto_Spark posted...

So first of all, this means that the dude who raped a 4-year old girl might be getting his sentence overturned. Which is disgusting.

This also suggests that every crime that occurs within the entire eastern half of Oklahoma can only be undertaken by Muscogee Law, and there is absolutely no chance that the Muskogee tribe has the capabilities to handle the criminal activities of 1.8 million people. Because this defence isn't just a defence because our rapist was a Native American, but anyone living on Native Land would follow the Native laws instead of the State of Oklahoma. So theoretically anyone who commits a crime in this area would have this defence and need to deal with the Native legal system, which will definitely be completely unable to handle this workload.

I feel like this can go incredibly badly for Oklahoma.

The reason the SCOTUS is looking at this is because a Native American raped a 4-year old child, and used the defence that he is protected from American Prosecution since the crime was committed on native land, not US soil, and therefore the state of Oklahoma was out of its jurisdiction by convicting him. The SCOTUS has now effectively agreed with this reasoning.

This only applies to Native Americans. White/Black/Asian/etc people would still fall under the jurisdiction of Oklahoma.
---

Bio1590 posted...

This only applies to Native Americans. White/Black/Asian/etc people would still fall under the jurisdiction of Oklahoma.

not only that but tribal court will punish the dude just the same. He isnt gonna get off scott free.

---

Bio1590 posted...

White/Black/Asian/etc people would still fall under the jurisdiction of Oklahoma.

This better not screw up tax-free cigarettes.

Bio1590 posted...

This only applies to Native Americans. White/Black/Asian/etc people would still fall under the jurisdiction of Oklahoma.

Would it, since the Native Land counts as sovereign territory, it applies to everyone living in the area, wouldn't it? If you go to Toronto and kill someone you're prosecuted through Canadian law, not the American one.

Maybe not, since laws regarding native Americans are real weird, but that's would I was expecting this would be.

Bio1590 posted...

Can we talk about the fact that 1000 years + life is a comically absurd punishment in the first place

I think they do that so it's impossible they'll ever be able to find a legal loophole to get out early or get another trial

---

I kept looking for the punchline. This is the legal Hail Mary of the century if that guy goes free because of this.

---

berlyman101 posted...

I kept looking for the punchline. This is the legal Hail Mary of the century if that guy goes free because of this.

there is 0 chance he will go free.

---

berlyman101 posted...

This is the legal Hail Mary of the century if that guy goes free because of this.

meanwhile, in a tiny corner of Yellowstone...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4529829.stm

Proto_Spark posted...

Would it, since the Native Land counts as sovereign territory, it applies to everyone living in the area, wouldn't it? If you go to Toronto and kill someone you're prosecuted through Canadian law, not the American one.

Maybe not, since laws regarding native Americans are real weird, but that's would I was expecting this would be.

It's not the same as crossing into another country.

Also I believe it only applies to members of the actual tribe the reservation is for anyways. Like if someone from a reservation in North or South Dakota went down there and did something illegal the state of Oklahoma would still have jurisdiction over that person's actions.

E: Actually nevermind the above, did more reading and while the SCOTUS did rule that Indian tribes couldn't prosecute members of other tribes in Duro v Reina, Congress went and changed the ICRA after to allow them to do it.
---

Basically they said that the state cant go after the person for a serious crime committed on a reservation, only the federal government. It would have to be handled through the federal courts rather than state. Only tribal law applies unless the federal authorities step in.

---

Bio1590 posted...

It's not the same as crossing into another country.

Also I believe it only applies to members of the actual tribe the reservation is for anyways. Like if someone from a reservation in North or South Dakota went down there and did something illegal the state of Oklahoma would still have jurisdiction over that person's actions.

huh that's cool. This is way less of a potential problem than I was thinking it could be, I guess I'm a bit too cynical.

Proto_Spark posted...

laws regarding native Americans are real weird

It's all such a convoluted mess that a constitutional amendment or two would be needed to clean it all up.

Or, I suppose a simpler workaround would be to declare the entire state of Oklahoma to be a reservation, functionally merging the state and tribal governments.

Questionmarktarius posted...

It's all such a convoluted mess that a constitutional amendment or two would be needed to clean it all up.

Or, I suppose a simpler workaround would be to declare the entire state of Oklahoma to be a reservation, functionally merging the state and tribal governments.

its really not that complicated.

---

Proto_Spark posted...

So first of all, this means that the dude who raped a 4-year old girl might be getting his sentence overturned.

Wow. Who would have thought giving a rapist rights would end Oklahoma. Guess this is the kind of power the Supreme Court has.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

It's all such a convoluted mess that a constitutional amendment or two would be needed to clean it all up.

Or, I suppose a simpler workaround would be to declare the entire state of Oklahoma to be a reservation, functionally merging the state and tribal governments.

It's really not.
---

Just read article and it was the liberal judges that sided with a rapist. Not the four conservative ones wow.

---

MelbuFrahma4 posted...

Just read article and it was the liberal judges that sided with a rapist. Not the four conservative ones wow.

nobody is siding with a rapist. jfc

---

MelbuFrahma4 posted...

Just read article and it was the liberal judges that sided with a rapist. Not the four conservative ones wow.

Not sure if dum or pretending to be.
---

Bio1590 posted...

It's really not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties#U.S.%E2%80%93Native_American_treaties
hope you like scrolling

DeadBankerDream posted...

Uhhhh, so like, is the rapist at least gonna get tried federally, then?

Maybe is this particular case given that they have all the evidence handed to them, but the Federal government doesn't usually bother enforcing the law in reservations.

berlyman101 posted...

I kept looking for the punchline. This is the legal Hail Mary of the century if that guy goes free because of this.

The man is not disputing his guilt

---

This is the slipperiest fucking slope I've ever seen.

I work for an insurance company that has Oklahoma as one of its biggest states of business, I expect this to turn into an absolute shitstorm in multiple ways

---

So like is half of Oklahoma exempt from the election now? Are they even Oklahoma?
---

ThisGuyAreSick posted...

So like is half of Oklahoma exempt from the election now? Are they even Oklahoma?

Electors are determined by the number of reps + senators so this election is the same.

However 2020 is a census year meaning after this oaklahoma gets to recount. They currently have 7.

---

He noted in the majority opinion that, No one disputes that Mr. McGirts crimes were committed on lands described as the Creek Reservation in an 1866 treaty and federal statute.

But, in seeking to defend the state court judgment below, Oklahoma has put aside whatever procedural defenses it might have and asked us to confirm that the land once given to the Creeks is no longer a reservation today.

It sounds like, if im reading this correctly, the problem is that the state went for some sort of crazy argument that forced the Court's hand.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Electors are determined by the number of reps + senators so this election is the same.

However 2020 is a census year meaning after this oaklahoma gets to recount. They currently have 7.

I wonder if the "Indians not taxed" lines in Article 2 and Amendment 14 will be invoked now...

lol, people are so ignorant of indian reservations, I love it.

Bottom line is this ws a great ruling from the supreme court to protect the future of the sovereignty of indian reservations from encroachment by the states

---

Just curious, can the next batch of judges overturn this ruling?
---

St0rmFury posted...

Just curious, can the next batch of judges overturn this ruling?

Judges can't just overturn shit. There has to be a change in a law and a challenge to that law that makes it all the way to the supreme Court and then they can choose to overturn it at that time.

---

St0rmFury posted...

Just curious, can the next batch of judges overturn this ruling?

Only if the law changes. Or maybe a law this court overlooked, gets pointed out to them.

JE19426 posted...

Only if the law changes. Or maybe a law this court overlooked, gets pointed out to them.

or, you know, renegotiate the 190-year-old treaty behind this all.

ThisGuyAreSick posted...

So like is half of Oklahoma exempt from the election now? Are they even Oklahoma?

No, and yes.

Questionmarktarius posted...

I wonder if the "Indians not taxed" lines in Article 2 and Amendment 14 will be invoked now...

They're all considered "taxed" on a federal level.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

or, you know, renegotiate the 190-year-old treaty behind this all.

I would consider that a law being changed.

Serious Cat posted...

They're all considered "taxed" on a federal level.

So that's a "no" then. Thanks.

The result of this case is very interesting and the impacts will be worth paying attention to. I'm a lawyer that works in the casino industry so I have to have some understanding of Indian law (but I'm not close to an expert). I'm going to try to summarize some of what happened and then just provide a few issues that may come up.

The first sentence of the opinion is pretty dramatic: "On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise."

Generally, crimes committed by Native Americans on Indian land are supposed to go to federal court because state courts have limited jurisdiction on Indian land. The guy in this case was originally tried and convicted by Oklahoma State Court. He appealed by pointing to a treaty from the early 1800s, signed as part of Indian relocation, that said the location of his crime was on Indian land. If it was Indian land he was supposed to be tried in federal court not state court. The US Supreme Court held that the treaty hasn't changed and the land identified as Indian land in that treaty is still Indian land and his conviction by a state court was wrong.

This means that a very large part of Oklahoma is currently considered Indian territory. The federal government still has oversight and will still punish crimes committed on those lands, but it has to be in federal court. This is going to be a major drain on the federal court system because its not prepared to handle the amount of cases it may soon get.

It also brings up a question about state and local police in these areas. I don't know how it works in OK but it may be interesting to see what role and rights the police units maintain on these Indian Lands. I imagine some of the Indian tribes may not want them around.

Taxation is another question. The federal government cannot tax people on Indian land. If you are a US citizen living in the area that is now considered a sovereign nation (like the city of Tulsa) you may not have to pay the federal government or OK any taxes. This would be a good question for a tax attorney and I'm not providing legal advice here but there seems to be an open question about how taxes work. If that is the case, Oklahoma state budgets will be impacted dramatically.

I'm sure its more interesting as a law nerd or for someone that live in an effected area but this case was a much bigger deal than Trump's tax stuff yesterday.

---

JE19426 posted...

I would consider that a law being changed.

A law that only affects a certain group of people?

---

So is the tribal punishment for this guy's crime gelding by any chance? Because if so, carry on.

---

Why does the TC always make boring ass topics

---