Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

3 

Syllabus 

patent the Creek received somehow made their tribal sovereignty eas-
ier to divest.  Congress established a reservation, not a dependent In-
dian community, for the Creek Nation.  Pp. 28–31.

(d) Even assuming that the Creek land is a reservation, Oklahoma
argues  that  the  MCA  has  never  applied  in  eastern  Oklahoma.    It 
claims  that  the  Oklahoma  Enabling  Act,  which  transferred  all  non-
federal  cases  pending  in  the  territorial  courts  to  Oklahoma’s  state 
courts, made the State’s courts the successors to the federal territorial 
courts’ sweeping authority to try Indians for crimes committed on res-
ervations.  That argument, however, rests on state prosecutorial prac-
tices that defy the MCA, rather than on the law’s plain terms.  Pp. 32–
36. 

(e) Finally, Oklahoma warns of the potential consequences that will 
follow a ruling against it, such as unsettling an untold number of con-
victions and frustrating the State’s ability to prosecute crimes in the 
future.  This Court is aware of the potential for cost and conflict around 
jurisdictional boundaries.  But Oklahoma and its tribes have proven 
time and again that they can work successfully together as partners,
and  Congress  remains  free  to  supplement  its  statutory  directions 
about the lands in question at any time.  Pp. 36–42. 

Reversed. 

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, 
BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.  ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dis-
senting  opinion,  in  which  ALITO  and  KAVANAUGH,  JJ.,  joined,  and  in
which THOMAS, J., joined, except as to footnote 9.  THOMAS, J., filed a dis-
senting opinion.