Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 72

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

27 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

where who encourage and receive any part of such contri-
butions do it knowing that they can give no return or service
for same and that they take such money fraudulently and 
dishonestly.”  Id., at 17a.5 

In addition to their words, the contemporaneous actions
of Oklahoma, the Creek, and the United States in criminal 
matters confirm their shared understanding that Congress
did not intend a reservation to persist.  Had the land been 
a reservation, the federal government—not the new State—
would have had jurisdiction over serious crimes committed
by Indians under the Major Crimes Act of 1885.  See §9, 23 
Stat. 385.  Yet, at statehood, Oklahoma immediately began 
prosecuting  serious  crimes  committed  by  Indians  in  the 
new state courts, and the federal government immediately
ceased prosecuting such crimes in federal court.  At argu-
ment, McGirt’s counsel acknowledged that he could not cite 
a  single  example  of  federal  prosecutions  for  such  crimes. 
Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  17–18.   Rather,  the  record  demonstrates 
that case after case was transferred to state court or filed 
there outright by Oklahoma after 1907—without objection 
by anyone.  See, e.g., Bigfeather v. State, 7 Okla. Crim. 364, 
123 P. 1026 (1912) (manslaughter); Rollen v. State, 7 Okla. 
Crim. 673, 125 P. 1087 (1912) (assault with intent to kill); 
Jones v. State, 3 Okla. Crim. 593, 107 P. 738 (1910) (mur-
der); see also Brief for Petitioner in Carpenter v. Murphy, 
O. T. 2018, No. 17–1107, pp. 40–41 (collecting more cases). 

—————— 

5 The Court discounts the views of the principal chiefs as mere predic-
tions about what Congress “would” do, ante, at 25, but the Court ignores
statements made after statehood, describing what Congress did do.  The 
Court also asserts that the chiefs’ views cannot serve as “evidence” of the 
“meaning” of laws enacted by Congress.  Ante, at 25, n. 12.  That is in-
consistent  with  our  precedent,  which  specifically  instructs  us  to  deter-
mine Congress’s intent by considering the “understanding of the status
of the reservation by members” of the affected tribe.  Parker, 577 U. S., 
at ___ (slip op., at 6).  The contemporaneous understanding of the leaders 
of the tribe is highly probative.