Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 80.0

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

35 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

of  the  most  grievous  offenses.9    Although  the  federal  gov-
ernment may be able to reprosecute some of these crimes,
it may lack the resources to reprosecute all of them, and the
odds  of  convicting  again  are  hampered  by  the  passage  of 
time, stale evidence, fading memories, and dead witnesses.
See  Brief  for  United  States  as  Amicus  Curiae  37–39.  No 
matter, the court says, these concerns are speculative be-
cause  “many  defendants  may  choose  to  finish  their  state 
sentences rather than risk reprosecution in federal court.” 
Ante, at 38.  Certainly defendants like McGirt—convicted of
serious  crimes  and  sentenced  to  1,000  years  plus  life  in
prison—will not adopt a strategy of running out the clock 
on their state sentences.  At the end of the day, there is no
escaping  that  today’s  decision  will  undermine  numerous
convictions obtained by the State, as well as the State’s abil-
ity to prosecute serious crimes committed in the future. 

Not to worry, the Court says, only about 10%–15% of Ok-
lahoma  citizens  are  Indian,  so  the  “majority”  of  prosecu-
tions  will  be  unaffected.  Ibid.  But  the  share  of  serious 
crimes committed by 10%–15% of the 1.8 million people in 
eastern Oklahoma, or of the 400,000 people in Tulsa, is no 
small number. 

Beyond the criminal law, the decision may destabilize the 
governance  of  vast  swathes  of  Oklahoma.  The  Court,  de-
spite  briefly  suggesting  that  its  decision  concerns  only  a 
narrow question of criminal law, ultimately acknowledges 
that  “many”  federal  laws,  triggering  a  variety  of  rules, 
spring into effect when land is declared a reservation.  Ante, 
at 39–40. 

—————— 

9 The  Court  suggests  that  “well-known”  “procedural  obstacles”  could 
prevent challenges to state convictions.  Ante, at 38.  But, under Okla-
homa law, it appears that there may be little bar to state habeas relief 
because “issues of subject matter jurisdiction are never waived and can 
therefore be raised on a collateral appeal.”  Murphy v. Royal, 875 F. 3d 
896, 907, n. 5 (CA10 2017) (quoting Wallace v. State, 935 P. 2d 366, 372 
(Okla. Crim. App. 1997)).