Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 41.0

38 

MCGIRT v. OKLAHOMA 

Opinion of the Court 

to apply their criminal laws in cases of non-Indian victims
and  defendants,  including  within  Indian  country.    See 
McBratney, 104 U. S., at 624.  And Oklahoma tells us that 
somewhere between 10% and 15% of its citizens identify as 
Native  American.    Given  all  this,  even  Oklahoma  admits 
that the vast majority of its prosecutions will be unaffected 
whatever we decide today. 

Still, Oklahoma and the dissent fear, “[t]housands” of Na-
tive Americans like Mr. McGirt “wait in the wings” to chal-
lenge  the  jurisdictional  basis  of  their  state-court  convic-
tions.  Brief  for  Respondent  3.  But  this  number  is 
admittedly  speculative,  because  many  defendants  may
choose  to  finish  their  state  sentences  rather  than  risk 
reprosecution  in  federal  court  where  sentences  can  be 
graver.  Other  defendants  who  do  try  to  challenge  their 
state convictions may face significant procedural obstacles, 
thanks to well-known state and federal limitations on post-
conviction review in criminal proceedings.15 

In any event, the magnitude of a legal wrong is no reason
to perpetuate it.  When Congress adopted the MCA, it broke
many treaty promises that had once allowed tribes like the
Creek to try their own members.  But, in return, Congress
allowed only the federal government, not the States, to try 

—————— 

15 For example, Oklahoma appears to apply a general rule that “issues
that were not raised previously on direct appeal, but which could have 
been raised, are waived for further review.”  Logan v. State, 2013 OK CR 
2, ¶ 1, 293 P. 3d 969, 973.  Indeed, JUSTICE THOMAS contends that this 
state-law  limitation  on  collateral  review  prevents  us  from  considering 
even the case now before us.  Post, at 2 (dissenting opinion).  But while 
that state-law rule may often bar our way, it doesn’t in this case.  After 
noting a potential state-law obstacle, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals (OCCA) proceeded to address the merits of Mr. McGirt’s federal
MCA claim anyway.  Because the OCCA’s opinion “fairly appears to rest
primarily on federal law or to be interwoven with federal law” and lacks 
any “plain statement” that it was relying on a state-law ground, we have 
jurisdiction  to  consider  the  federal-law  question  presented  to  us.    See 
Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1040–1041, 1044 (1983).