Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 69

24 

MCGIRT v. OKLAHOMA 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

“contemporaneous understanding” of the status of the res-
ervation and the “history surrounding the passage” of the
relevant Acts.  Parker, 577 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8) (in-
ternal quotation marks omitted); see Yankton Sioux Tribe, 
522 U. S., at 351–354; Solem, 465 U. S., at 471.  The avail-
able evidence overwhelmingly confirms that Congress elim-
inated any Creek reservation.  That was the purpose iden-
tified by Congress, the Dawes Commission, and the Creek 
Nation  itself.  And  that  was  the  understanding  demon-
strated by the actions of Oklahoma, the United States, and 
the Creek. 

According to reports published by Congress leading up to
Oklahoma statehood, the Five Tribes had failed to hold the 
lands for the equal benefit of all Indians, and the tribal gov-
ernments were ill equipped to handle the largescale settle-
ment of non-Indians in the territories.  See supra, at 4–5; 
Woodward, 238 U. S., at 296–297.  The Senate Select Com-
mittee  on  the  Five  Tribes  explained  that  it  was  “impera-
tive[ ]” to “establish[ ] a government over [non-Indians] and 
Indians” in the territory “in accordance with the principles 
of  our  constitution  and  laws.”  S. Rep.  No.  377,  at  12–13. 
On  the  eve  of  the  Original  Creek  Agreement,  the  House 
Committee on Indian Affairs emphasized that “[t]he inde-
pendent  self-government  of  the  Five  Tribes  ha[d]  practi-
cally  ceased,”  “[t]he  policy  of  the  Government  to  abolish 
classes in Indian Territory and make a homogeneous popu-
lation  [wa]s  being  rapidly  carried  out,”  and  all  Indians 
“should at once be put upon a level and equal footing with
the great population with whom they [were] intermingled.” 
H. R. Rep. No. 1188, 56th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1900). 

The Dawes Commission understood Congress’s intent in
the same way.  The Commission explained that the “object 
of Congress from the beginning has been the dissolution of 
the tribal governments, the extinguishment of the commu-
nal or tribal title to the land, the vesting of possession and
title in severalty among the citizens of the Tribes, and the