Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 55.0

10 

MCGIRT v. OKLAHOMA 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

dence,  standing  alone,  disestablished  the  Creek  reserva-
tion.  Rather,  Oklahoma  contends  that  all  of  the  relevant 
Acts of Congress together, viewed in light of contemporane-
ous and subsequent contextual evidence, demonstrate Con-
gress’s intent to disestablish the reservation.  “[O]ur tradi-
tional  approach  . . .  requires  us”  to  determine  Congress’s 
intent  by  “examin[ing]  all  the  circumstances  surrounding
the opening of a reservation.”  Hagen, 510 U. S., at 412 (em-
phasis added).  Yet the Court refuses to confront the cumu-
lative import of all of Congress’s actions here.

The Court instead announces a new approach sharply re-
stricting consideration of contemporaneous and subsequent 
evidence  of  congressional  intent.  The  Court  states  that 
such “extratextual sources” may be considered in “only” one
narrow  circumstance:  to  help  “ ‘clear  up’ ”  ambiguity  in  a
particular  “statutory  term  or  phrase.”    Ante,  at  17–18,  20 
(quoting Milner v. Department of Navy, 562 U. S. 562, 574 
(2011), and citing New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U. S. ___, 
___ (2019) (slip op., at 6)). 

But, if that is the right approach, what have we been do-
ing  all  these  years?  Every  single  one  of  our  disestablish-
ment cases has considered extratextual sources, and in do-
ing so, none has required the identification of ambiguity in
a particular term.  That is because, while it is well estab-
lished that Congress’s “intent” must be “clear,” ante, at 20 
(quoting  Yankton  Sioux  Tribe,  522  U. S.,  at  343),  in  this
area  we  have  expressly  held  that  the  appropriate  inquiry 
does not focus on the statutory text alone.

Today the Court suggests that only the text can satisfy
the longstanding requirement that Congress “explicitly in-
dicate[ ]” its intent.  Ante, at 20 (quoting Solem, 465 U. S., 
at  470).  The  Court  reiterates  that  a  reservation  persists 
unless  Congress  “said  otherwise,”  ante,  at  1;  if  Congress 
wishes to disestablish a reservation, “it must say so,” with 
the right “language.”  Ante, at 8, 18; see ante, at 42 (same).