Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 40.0

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

37 

Opinion of the Court 

least,  the  State  is  finally  rejoined  by  the  dissent.  If  we 
dared  to  recognize  that  the  Creek  Reservation  was  never
disestablished,  Oklahoma  and  dissent  warn,  our  holding 
might  be  used  by  other  tribes  to  vindicate  similar  treaty 
promises.  Ultimately,  Oklahoma  fears  that  perhaps  as
much as half its land and roughly 1.8 million of its residents
could wind up within Indian country.

It’s hard to know what to make of this self-defeating ar-
gument.  Each tribe’s treaties must be considered on their 
own  terms,  and  the  only  question  before  us  concerns  the 
Creek.  Of course, the Creek Reservation alone is hardly in-
significant, taking in most of Tulsa and certain neighboring 
communities in Northeastern Oklahoma.  But neither is it 
unheard  of  for  significant  non-Indian  populations  to  live
successfully in or near reservations today.  See, e.g., Brief 
for National Congress of American Indians Fund as Amicus 
Curiae 26–28 (describing success  of Tacoma, Washington, 
and Mount Pleasant, Michigan); see also Parker, 577 U. S., 
at ___–___ (slip op., at 10–12) (holding Pender, Nebraska, 
to be within Indian country despite tribe’s absence from the
disputed territory for more than 120 years).  Oklahoma re-
plies that its situation is different because the affected pop-
ulation here is large and many of its residents will be sur-
prised to find out they have been living in Indian country 
this whole time.  But we imagine some members of the 1832 
Creek Tribe would be just as surprised to find them there. 
What are the consequences the State and dissent worry
might  follow  from  an  adverse  ruling  anyway?  Primarily,
they argue that recognizing the continued existence of the 
Creek Reservation could unsettle an untold number of con-
victions and frustrate the State’s ability to prosecute crimes 
in the future.  But the MCA applies only to certain crimes 
committed  in  Indian  country  by  Indian  defendants.  A 
neighboring statute provides that federal law applies to a 
broader  range  of  crimes  by  or  against  Indians  in  Indian 
country.  See 18 U. S. C. §1152.  States are otherwise free