Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2019 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

McGIRT v. OKLAHOMA 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF 
OKLAHOMA 

No. 18–9526.  Argued May 11, 2020—Decided July 9, 2020 

The Major Crimes Act (MCA) provides that, within “the Indian country,” 
“[a]ny Indian who commits” certain enumerated offenses “shall be sub-
ject to the same law and penalties as all other persons committing any
of  [those]  offenses,  within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United
States.”    18  U. S. C.  §1153(a).    “Indian  country”  includes  “all  land
within  the  limits  of  any  Indian  reservation  under  the  jurisdiction  of
the United States Government.”  §1151.  Petitioner Jimcy McGirt was
convicted by an Oklahoma state court of three serious sexual offenses. 
He unsuccessfully argued in state postconviction proceedings that the
State  lacked  jurisdiction  to  prosecute  him  because  he  is  an  enrolled 
member of the Seminole Nation and his crimes took place on the Creek
Reservation.  He seeks a new trial, which, he contends, must take place 
in federal court. 

Held: For MCA purposes, land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 

19th century remains “Indian country.”  Pp. 3–42.

(a) Congress  established  a  reservation  for  the  Creek  Nation.    An 
1833 Treaty fixed borders for a “permanent home to the whole Creek
Nation of Indians,” 7 Stat. 418, and promised that the United States
would “grant a patent, in fee simple, to the Creek nation of Indians for
the [assigned] land” to continue “so long as they shall exist as a nation,
and continue to occupy the country hereby assigned to them,” id., at 
419.  The patent formally issued in 1852.

Though the early treaties did not refer to the Creek lands as a “res-
ervation,” similar language in treaties from the same era has been held 
sufficient to create a reservation, see, e.g., Menominee Tribe v. United 
States, 391 U. S. 404, 405, and later Acts of Congress—referring to the 
“Creek reservation”—leave no room for doubt, see, e.g., 17 Stat. 626. 
In addition, an 1856 Treaty promised that “no portion” of Creek lands