McGirt v. Oklahoma

In 1997, Jimcy McGirt, an enrolled member of the Seminole Nation, was convicted by an Oklahoma state court of three serious sexual offenses committed within the historical boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Reservation. McGirt filed for post-conviction relief, arguing that because he is a Native American and the crimes occurred in "Indian country," only federal courts had jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Gorsuch, held that Congress had never explicitly disestablished the Creek Reservation, meaning the land remained "Indian country" for federal criminal law purposes. The Court reversed McGirt's conviction, holding that he was entitled to a new trial in federal court.

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in a 5-4 decision. The Court held that for Major Crimes Act purposes, land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains "Indian country," and that only Congress can disestablish a reservation. Justice Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, and Justice Thomas filed a separate dissenting opinion.

Whether the land reserved for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in the 19th century remained an Indian reservation for purposes of the federal Major Crimes Act, and consequently, whether the State of Oklahoma had jurisdiction to prosecute Jimcy McGirt for crimes committed on that land.

The decision was hailed as the most significant Indian law case of the century. It restored historical sovereignty to Oklahoma's tribal nations and permanently altered the state's political landscape, affirming that approximately half of Oklahoma, including Tulsa, is Native American reservation land. The ruling required the transfer and reevaluation of a massive number of criminal cases from state to federal and tribal courts. Tribal court dockets surged, and cross-deputization agreements were established. The decision also prompted debates over state tax exemptions for tribal members and led to subsequent litigation such as Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, which further clarified jurisdictional boundaries.