Oklahoma vs US Supreme Court

[dan_bgblue]

My word my dear, what a fine mess you have handed us

[VirginiaCat]

It appears to be a subscription required.

however, the gist is clear. Do the treaties made in the 1800's still have legal substance and must be adhered to? Especially given there has been little to no enforcement of the treaties in the past 200 years.

[dan_bgblue]

Sorry about the pay site. The WSJ is a great website imo and it is not real costly.

Here is the gist of the article.

Four dissenting Supreme Court Justices warned last year that the majority’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma would cause chaos in the Sooner State and beyond. Their warning is coming true in the underreported story of the year, as Justice Neil Gorsuch’s misguided opinion has created legal and economic havoc.

Justice Gorsuch, joined in 2020 by the Court’s four liberals, essentially said nearly half of Oklahoma—with 1.9 million people and most of Tulsa—might still be Indian country under treaties from the 1800s. The results have included overturned convictions all the way up to murder, with some criminals set free; tax protests; and rules on everything from zoning to fishing to marijuana put into doubt.

“In our opinion, this is the biggest issue that’s ever hit any state since the Civil War,” says Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, and he might be right. The state’s ultimate goal is to convince the Supreme Court to reverse McGirt, a 5-4 decision whose majority included Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her replacement by Justice Amy Coney Barrett could make all the difference.
***

Justice Gorsuch’s ruling swept aside precedent and a century of reliance interests. On its own terms, McGirt was a criminal case about the historical boundaries of the Creek Nation. Yet it’s being taken as a broad invitation to expand tribal claims, and now the question is how to avoid real harm to Oklahoma and its residents.