Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 76.0

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

31 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

Regulatory Act); see Brief for United States as Amicus Cu-
riae  23;  23  U. S. C.  §202(b)(1)(B)(v)  (road  grants;  “former 
Indian reservations in the State of Oklahoma”); 25 U. S. C. 
§1452(d)  (Indian  Financing  Act;  “former  Indian  reserva-
tions  in  Oklahoma”);  §2020(d)  (education  grants;  “former 
Indian reservations in Oklahoma”); §3103(12) (National In-
dian  Forest  Resources  Management  Act;  “former  Indian
reservations in Oklahoma”); 29 U. S. C. §741(d) (American
Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act; “former In-
dian reservations in Oklahoma”); 33 U. S. C. §1377(c)(3)(B) 
(waste  treatment  grants;  “former  Indian  reservations  in 
Oklahoma”);  42  U. S. C.  §5318(n)(2)  (urban  development 
grants; “former Indian reservations in Oklahoma”).7 

Second, consider the State’s “exercis[e] [of] unquestioned 
jurisdiction over the disputed area since the passage of ” the 
Enabling Act, which deserves “weight” as “an indication of
the intended purpose of the Act.”  Rosebud Sioux Tribe, 430 
U. S., at 599, n. 20, 604.  As discussed above, for 113 years, 
Oklahoma has asserted jurisdiction over the former Indian 

—————— 

7 The Court suggests that these statutes only show that there are some
“former reservations” in Oklahoma, not that the Five Tribes’ former do-
mains are necessarily among them.  Ante, at 27, n. 14.  History says oth-
erwise.  For example, the Five Tribes actively lobbied for inclusion of this
language in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.  See Hearing on S. 902 
et al. before the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 99th Cong., 
2d Sess., 299–300 (1986).  They observed that the term “reservation,” as 
originally defined, did not pertain to the “eastern Oklahoma tribes, in-
cluding the Five Civilized Tribes.”  Ibid. (statement of Charles Blackwell,
representative of the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma).  Accordingly, they 
“recommend[ed] inclu[ding] . . . the wording ‘or in the case of Oklahoma 
tribes, their former jurisdictional and/or reservation boundaries in Okla-
homa.’ ”  Id., at 300 (emphasis added).  The National Indian Gaming As-
sociation, which proposed the language on which the final act was ulti-
mately  modeled,  made  the  same  point,  observing  that  in  Oklahoma 
“reservation  boundaries  have  been  extinguished  for  most  purposes”  so 
the statute should refer to “former reservation[s] in Oklahoma.”  Id., at 
312 (Memorandum from the National Indian Gaming Assn. to the Senate
Select Committee on Indian Affairs (June 17, 1986)).