Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Oklahoma Indian Claim

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled by a 5-4 margin that much of eastern Oklahoma “remains ‘Indian Country,’ ” preventing state authorities from prosecuting offenses there that involve Native Americans.

The case concerned Jimcy McGirt, a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation who was convicted of sex crimes against a child by state authorities in the Nation’s historical boundaries. He said that only federal authorities were entitled to prosecute him.

Mr. McGirt argued that Congress had never clearly destroyed the sovereignty of the Creek Nation over the area, covering about half the state. The solicitor general of Oklahoma took the opposite view, saying the area had never been reservation land.

The practical implications for the region’s 1.8 million residents were vast, with justices asking in oral arguments how business disputes and adoptions would be affected.

McGirt v. Oklahoma, No. 18-9526, an appeal from a state court’s decision, was the Supreme Court’s second attempt to resolve the status of eastern Oklahoma.

In November 2018, the justices heard arguments in Sharp v. Murphy, No. 17-1107, which arose from the prosecution in state court of Patrick Murphy, a Creek Indian, for murdering George Jacobs in rural McIntosh County, east of Oklahoma City.

After he was sentenced to death, it emerged that the murder had taken place on what had once been Indian land. Mr. Murphy argued that only the federal government could prosecute him and that a federal law barred the imposition of the death penalty because he was an Indian.

Mr. Murphy convinced the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver. But when the case was argued before an eight-member Supreme Court, the justices seemed divided and troubled. (Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who had served on the 10th Circuit when it ruled on the case, recused himself.)

Instead of issuing a decision before the term ended in June 2019, the court announced it would hear another set of arguments in its current term, which started in October. That was a sign the court had deadlocked, 4 to 4.

But there was no new argument in the Murphy case, probably because it was not clear another hearing would break the deadlock. Instead, the court heard Mr. McGirt’s case, allowing the overarching issue to be settled by a nine-member court.