Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 30

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

27 

Opinion of the Court 

others never paused to think about the question.  Certain 
historians have argued, for example, that the loss of Creek 
land  ownership  was  accelerated  by  the  discovery  of  oil  in
the region during the period at issue here.  A number of the 
federal  officials  charged  with  implementing  the  laws  of
Congress were apparently openly conflicted, holding shares
or board positions in the very oil companies who sought to
deprive Indians of their lands.  A. Debo, And Still the Wa-
ters  Run  86–87,  117–118  (1940).  And  for  a  time  Okla-
homa’s courts appear to have entertained sham competency
and guardianship proceedings that divested Tribe members 
of  oil  rich  allotments.  Id.,  at  104–106,  233–234;  Brief  for 
Historians  et al.  as  Amici  Curiae  26–30.  Whatever  else 
might  be  said  about  the  history  and  demographics  placed 
before us, they hardly tell a story of unalloyed respect for 
tribal interests.14 

In the end, only one message rings true.  Even the care-
fully selected history Oklahoma and the dissent recite is not 
nearly as tidy as they suggest.  It supplies us with little help 

—————— 

14 The dissent asks us to examine a hodge-podge of other, but no more
compelling, material.  For example, the dissent points to later statutes 
that do no more than confirm there are former reservations in the State 
of  Oklahoma.  Post,  at  30–31.    It  cites  legislative  history  to  show  that 
Congress  had  the  Creek  Nation—or,  at  least,  its  neighbors—in  mind 
when it added these in 1988.  Post, at 31, n. 7.  The dissent cites a Senate 
Report from 1989 and post-1980 statements made by representatives of 
other tribes.  Post, at 30, 32–33.  It highlights three occasions on which 
this Court referred to something like a “former Creek Nation,” though it
neglects  to  add  that  in  each  the  Court  was  referring  to  the  loss  of  the
Nation’s communal fee title, not its sovereignty.  Grayson v. Harris, 267 
U. S. 352, 357 (1925); Woodward v. DeGraffenreid, 238 U. S. 284, 289– 
290  (1915);  Washington  v.  Miller,  235  U. S.  422,  423–425  (1914).    The 
dissent points as well to a single instance in which the Creek Nation dis-
claimed reservation boundaries for purposes of litigation in a lower court, 
post, at 32, but ignores that the Creek Nation has repeatedly filed briefs 
in  this  Court  to  the  contrary.    This  is  thin  gruel  to  set  against  treaty 
promises enshrined in statutes.