Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 20

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

P.  2d  1051,  1054  (Okla.  1994);  Full  Faith  and  Credit  of 
Tribal  Courts,  Okla.  State  Cts.  Network  (Apr.  18,  2019), 
https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument. 
asp?CiteID=458214.

Maybe some of these changes happened for altruistic rea-
sons, maybe some for other reasons.  It seems, for example,
that at least certain Members of Congress hesitated about 
disestablishment in 1906 because they feared any reversion 
of the Creek lands to the public domain would trigger a stat-
utory commitment to hand over portions of these lands to 
already powerful railroad interests.  See, e.g., 40 Cong. Rec. 
2976 (1906) (Sen. McCumber); Id., at 3053 (Sen. Aldrich).
Many of those who advanced the reorganization efforts of 
the  1930s  may  have  done  so  more  out  of  frustration  with
efforts  to  assimilate  Native  Americans  than  any  disaffec-
tion  with  assimilation as  the  ultimate  goal.    See  1  Cohen 
§1.05; Scherer, Imperfect Victories, at 2–4.  But whatever 
the  confluence  of  reasons,  in  all  this  history  there  simply 
arrived no moment when any Act of Congress dissolved the 
Creek Tribe or disestablished its reservation.  In the end, 
Congress moved in the opposite direction.7 

D 
Ultimately,  Oklahoma  is  left  to  pursue  a  very  different
sort of argument.  Now, the State points to historical prac-
tices and demographics, both around the time of and long
after  the  enactment  of  all  the  relevant  legislation.    These 
facts, the State submits, are enough by themselves to prove
disestablishment.    Oklahoma  even  classifies  and  catego-

—————— 

7 The  dissent  ultimately  concedes  what  Oklahoma  will  not:    that  no 
“individual congressional action or piece of evidence, standing alone, dis-
established the Creek reservation.”  Post, at 9–10.  Instead we’re told we 
must consider “all of the relevant Acts of Congress together, viewed in 
light of contemporaneous and subsequent contextual evidence.”  Ibid.  So, 
once again, the dissent seems to suggest that it’s the arguments in the 
next section that will get us across the line to disestablishment.