Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

32 

MCGIRT v. OKLAHOMA 

Opinion of the Court 

when the federal government agreed to offer more protec-
tion for tribal lands, it really provided less.  All this time, 
fee title was nothing more than another trap for the wary. 

V 
That leaves Oklahoma to attempt yet another argument
in the alternative.  We alluded to it earlier in Part III.  Now, 
the State accepts for argument’s sake that the Creek land 
is a reservation and thus “Indian country” for purposes of
the Major Crimes Act.  It accepts, too, that this would nor-
mally mean serious crimes by Indians on the Creek Reser-
vation  would  have  to  be  tried  in  federal  court.  But,  the 
State tells us, none of that matters; everything the parties
have briefed and argued so far is beside the point.  It’s all 
irrelevant because it turns out the MCA just doesn’t apply 
to  the  eastern  half  of  Oklahoma,  and  it  never  has.    That 
federal law may apply to other States, even to the western 
half of Oklahoma itself.  But eastern Oklahoma is and has 
always been exempt.  So whether or not the Creek have a 
reservation, the State’s historic practices have always been 
correct  and  it  remains  free  to  try  individuals  like  Mr. 
McGirt in its own courts. 

Notably, the dissent again declines to join Oklahoma in 
its latest twist.  And, it turns out, for good reason.  In sup-
port of its argument, Oklahoma points to statutory artifacts
from  its  territorial  history.  The  State  of  Oklahoma  was 
formed from two territories:  the Oklahoma Territory in the
west and Indian Territory in the east.  Originally, it seems
criminal prosecutions in the Indian Territory were split be-
tween  tribal  and  federal  courts.    See  Act  of  May  2,  1890, 
§30,  26  Stat.  94.  But,  in  1897,  Congress  abolished  that 
scheme, granting the U. S. Courts of the Indian Territory
“exclusive  jurisdiction”  to  try  “all  criminal  causes  for  the
punishment of any offense.”  Act of June 7, 1897, 30 Stat. 
83.  These federal territorial courts applied federal law and