Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 27

24 

MCGIRT v. OKLAHOMA 

Opinion of the Court 

Cohen §6.04(4)(a) (“Before 1942 the state of New York reg-
ularly exercised or claimed the right to exercise jurisdiction 
over the New York reservations, but a federal court decision 
in that year raised questions about the validity of state ju-
risdiction”);  Brief  for  United  States  as  Amicus  Curiae  in 
Carpenter  v.  Murphy,  O.  T.  2018,  No.  17–1107,  pp. 7a–8a 
(Letter from Secretary of the Interior, Mar. 27, 1963) (not-
ing  that  many  States  have  asserted  criminal  jurisdiction
over Indians without an apparent basis in a federal law).11 
Oklahoma next points to various statements during the
allotment era which, it says, show that even the Creek un-
derstood  their  reservation  was  under  threat.    And  there’s 
no doubt about that.  By 1893, the leadership of the Creek 
Nation  saw  what  the  federal  government  had  in  mind:
“They  [the  federal  government]  do  not  deny  any  of  our 
rights under treaty, but say they will go to the people them-
selves and confer with them and urge upon them the neces-
sity of a change in their present condition, and upon their 
refusal  will  force  a  change  upon  them.”  P.  Porter  &  A. 
McKellop, Printed Statement of Creek Delegates, reprinted
in Creek Delegation Documents 8–9 (Feb. 9, 1893).  Not a 
decade  later,  and  as  a  result  of  these  forced  changes,  the 
leadership recognized that “ ‘[i]t would be difficult, if not im-
possible  to  successfully  operate  the  Creek  government
now.’ ”  App. to Brief for Respondent 8a (Message to Creek 

—————— 

11 Unable to answer Oklahoma’s admitted error about the very federal 
criminal statute before us, the dissent travels far afield, pointing to the
fact an Oklahoma court heard a civil case in 1915 about an inheritance— 
involving  members  of  a  different  Tribe—as  “evidence”  Congress  dises-
tablished the Creek Reservation.  See post, at 21 (citing Palmer v. Cully, 
52  Okla.  454,  455–465,  153  P. 154,  155–157  (1915)  (per curiam)).  But 
even  assuming  that  Oklahoma  courts  exercised  civil  jurisdiction  over
Creek members, too, the dissent never explains why this jurisdiction im-
plies  the  Creek  Reservation  must  have  been  disestablished.    After  all, 
everyone agrees that the Creeks were prohibited from having their own 
courts at the time.  So it should be no surprise that some Creek might
have resorted to state courts in hope of resolving their disputes.