Oklahoma
Related: About this forumOklahoma state officials resist Supreme Court ruling affirming tribal authority over American Indian
Its unusual for someone to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit one of its decisions. Its very rare for that to happen almost immediately after the ruling was issued. But in the two years since the courts ruling in a key case about Native American rights, the state of Oklahoma has made that request more than 40 times.
State officials have also repeatedly refused to cooperate with tribal leaders to comply with the ruling, issued in 2020 and known as McGirt v. Oklahoma. Local governments, however, continue to cooperate with the tribes and show how the ruling could actually help build connections between the tribal governments and their neighbors.
In the McGirt ruling, the Supreme Court held that much of eastern Oklahoma is Indian country under the terms of an 1833 treaty between the U.S. government and the Muscogee Creek Nation. Based on that treaty and an 1885 federal law, the ruling effectively means that the state of Oklahoma cannot prosecute crimes committed by or against American Indians there. Federal and tribal officials are the only ones who can pursue these cases.
Since that ruling, federal courts have held that the lands in Oklahoma of five additional tribes the Cherokee Nation, the Choctaw Nation, the Seminole Nation, the Chickasaw Nation and the Quapaw Nation also remain American Indian country and are subject to federal and tribal jurisdiction under the 1885 federal law. Under these decisions, about 43% of Oklahoma is Indian country.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/oklahoma-state-officials-resist-supreme-123253115.html
Thomas Hurt
(13,925 posts)over minorities. Their little paranoid minds be must popping.
Desert grandma
(1,053 posts)If not, Oklahoma would be unable to enforce it's ridiculous abortion law against any member of any of those tribal nations, right? The tribal nations are considered sovereign as I understand it.
Runningdawg
(4,618 posts)Lot's of debate on the issue, few answers. It's the same with gun laws.
bello
(133 posts)IANAL, but this sounds suspiciously close to the logic that allowed tribes to set up casinos all over the place. Ya gotta admit that the Wampanoag Casino and Womens Health Center has a nice ring to it. The ole unintended consequences will gitcha every time.
Desert grandma
(1,053 posts)So many states contain Native American Reservations, including some in Republican states. It would be a novel approach to getting around these ridiculous bans. As I understand it, only federal and tribal laws apply to tribal members and crimes committed on their land. With that interpretation, states can pass whatever laws they want, they will only apply on sovereign Indian Nations if it is a law passed by the tribe itself or by federal law. If Roe falls, everything I read says that "women's health" decisions will be decided by the state, therefore not necessarily applicable to Indian Nations.