Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

36 

MCGIRT v. OKLAHOMA 

Opinion of the Court 

704–706  (1990)  (Brennan,  J.,  dissenting).    Many  tribal
courts across the country were absent or ineffective during
the early part of the last century, yielding just the sort of 
gaps Oklahoma would have us believe impossible.  Indeed, 
this might be why so many States joined Oklahoma in pros-
ecuting  Indians  without  proper  jurisdiction.  The  judicial
mind abhors a vacuum, and the temptation for state prose-
cutors to step into the void was surely strong.  See supra, at 
23–24. 

With time, too, Congress has filled many of the gaps Ok-
lahoma worries about.  One way Congress has done so is by
reauthorizing tribal courts to hear minor crimes in Indian 
country.  Congress chose exactly this course for the Creeks
and others in 1936.  Act of June 26, 1936, §3, 49 Stat. 1967; 
see  also  Hodel,  851  F. 2d,  at  1442–1446.    Another  option
Congress has employed is to allow affected Indian tribes to 
consent to state criminal jurisdiction.  25 U. S. C. §§1321(a), 
1326.  Finally, Congress has sometimes expressly expanded 
state criminal jurisdiction in targeted bills addressing spe-
cific States.  See, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §3243 (creating jurisdic-
tion for Kansas); Act of May 31, 1946, ch. 279, 60 Stat. 229 
(same for a reservation in North Dakota); Act of June 30,
1948, ch. 759, 62 Stat. 1161 (same for certain reservations
in Iowa); 18 U. S. C. §1162 (creating jurisdiction for six ad-
ditional States).  But Oklahoma doesn’t claim to have com-
plied with the requirements to assume jurisdiction volun-
tarily  over  Creek  lands.    Nor  has  Congress  ever  passed  a 
law conferring jurisdiction on Oklahoma.  As a result, the 
MCA  applies  to  Oklahoma  according  to  its  usual  terms: 
Only the federal government, not the State, may prosecute 
Indians for major crimes committed in Indian country. 

VI 

In the end, Oklahoma abandons any pretense of law and 
speaks  openly  about  the  potentially  “transform[ative]”  ef-
fects  of  a  loss  today.    Brief  for  Respondent  43.    Here,  at