Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 63.0

18 

MCGIRT v. OKLAHOMA 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

maintain a tribal body to wrap up the distribution of Creek 
lands.  Indeed, the Court does not cite any examples of the
Creek Nation exercising significant government authority 
in the wake of the statutes discussed above.  Instead, the 
Court  alludes  to  subsequent  changes  in  the  1920s  to  the 
general “federal outlook towards Native Americans,” and it
observes that in the 1930s Congress authorized the Creek 
Nation to reconstitute its tribal courts and adopt a consti-
tution and bylaws.  Ante, at 15.  That, however, simply high-
lights the drastic extent to which Congress erased the Na-
tion’s authority at the turn of the century.

Third, Congress destroyed the foundation of sovereignty 
by stripping the Creek Nation of its territory.  The commu-
nal title held by the Creek Nation, which “did not recognize 
private property in land,” “presented a serious obstacle to
the creation of [a] State.”  Choate v. Trapp, 224 U. S. 665, 
667  (1912).    Well  aware  of  this  impediment,  Congress  es-
tablished the Dawes Commission and directed it to negoti-
ate with the Five Tribes for “the extinguishment of the na-
tional  or  tribal  title  to  any  lands”  within  the  Indian
Territory.  Act of Mar. 3, 1893, §16, 27 Stat. 645.  That ex-
tinguishment  could  be  accomplished  through  “cession”  of
the  tribal  lands  to  the  United  States,  “allotment”  of  the 
lands among the Indians, or any other agreed upon method. 
Ibid.  The  Commission  initially  sought  cession,  but  ulti-
mately  sought  to  extinguish  the  title  through  allotment. 
See ante, at 9. 

In the Original Creek Agreement of 1901, Congress did 
just that.  The agreement provided that “[a]ll lands belong-
ing to the Creek tribe,” except town sites and lands reserved
for  schools  and  public  buildings,  “shall  be  allotted  among 
the  citizens  of  the  tribe.”  §§2,  3,  31  Stat.  862  (emphasis 
added).  Town sites, rather than being allotted, were made 
available  for  purchase  by  the  non-Indians  residing  there.
§§11–16, id., at 866–867.  Unclaimed lots were to be sold at 
public  auction,  with  the  proceeds  divvied  up  among  the