Today’s Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, holds:

  • Much of eastern Oklahoma (likely including Bartlesville) is within Indian Country.
  • Only federal courts, and not state courts, may prosecute an Indian who commits a “major crime” in Indian Country.

Jimmy McGirt was convicted of “serious sexual offenses” in Wagoner County, Oklahoma. Mr. McGirt challenged his conviction in the U.S. Supreme Court. The undisputed points of the case were:

1. Mr. McGirt was an enrolled member of the Seminole Tribe at the time of the offenses.

2. The offenses were committed in Wagoner County.

3. Wagoner County is within the boundaries of an area that an 1866 federal treaty and statute defined as the “Creek Reservation.”

4. The

5. Mr. McGirt was convicted in an Oklahoma state court, not a federal court.

Mr. McGirt raised the following propositions, which the State of Oklahoma disputed:

1. Only Congress can disestablish an Indian reservation.

2. Congress has never disestablished the Creek Reservation after the 1866 treaty.

3. Therefore, the Creek Reservation was still within “Indian Country” and only a federal

court, not an Oklahoma state court, could convict Mr. McGirt of his crimes.

4. Therefore, Mr. McGirt’s conviction was unlawful.

The Supreme Court ruled:

1. Only Congress can disestablish an Indian reservation.

2. In order for Congress to disestablish an Indian reservation, Congress must pass a statute explicitly disestablishing the reservation.

3. Congress had never passed a statute disestablishing the Creek Reservation.

4. Therefore, the Creek Reservation has the same boundaries as it did in 1866.

5. Only a federal court, and not an Oklahoma state court, had the authority to prosecute an Indian who committed, a major crime within the Creek Reservation.

6. Therefore, Mr. McGirt’s conviction was illegal.

Read the Supreme Court’s opinion (authored by Justice Gorsuch),

What does this mean for Bartlesville?

The Supreme Court limited its ruling in two ways:

1. The Court’s ruling only applies to land within the Creek Reservation.

2. The Court’s ruling only applies to the Major Crimes Act. The Court did not address the many other federal laws that relate to Indian Country.

No part of Bartlesville is within the Creek Reservation, so the Court’s ruling does not directly affect Bartlesville. However, all of Washington County, is within Cherokee Country. Because the

To see a map of tribal jurisdictions in Oklahoma, click

Thus, under today’s ruling in McGirt: If an Indian, commits a “major crime” in Washington County, or anywhere in eastern Oklahoma, only a federal court, and not an Oklahoma state court, may prosecute the Indian.

On page 40 of the Court’s ruling, the Court acknowledged that is holding “might potentially trigger a variety of federal civil statutes and rules, including ones making the region eligible for assistance with homeland security, historical preservation, schools, highways, roads, primary care clinics, housing assistance, nutritional programs, disability programs, and more.” However, the Court didn’t specify how, if at all, its ruling would affect these laws. It is likely that, in the coming months, tribes, and state and federal agencies, will enter into discussion as to how these other laws will apply in eastern Oklahoma.

So, if you live in Bartlesville, you live in Indian Country.

Are you surprised to learn that you live in Indian Country?

The lawyers who represented the State of Oklahoma before the Supreme Court, argued that eastern Oklahoma was not still in Indian Country. These lawyers wrote,

“That revolutionary result would shock the 1.8 million residents of eastern Oklahoma who have universally understood that they reside on land regulated by state government, not by tribes.”

“Universally understood”?

When I studied at the

Nevertheless, the beliefs of the TU law professors demonstrate that, prior to today’s ruling, it was not “universally understood” that eastern Oklahoma was not in Indian Country. The Supreme Court’s holding is precisely in line with what was taught at TU. While the Court’s ruling may “shock” some, the ruling would not shock the TU Indian law professors. Also, practitioners of Indian law throughout the country, and especially in this region of Oklahoma, studied at TU’s Native American Law Center, and were greatly influenced by the professors there, as I was. Today’s ruling wouldn’t shock them either. A year and a half ago, on