Law on Native Land: A New Blog Series on Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country
In recent years, no legal issue has reshaped Oklahoma more than the question of criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country. Who has the authority to prosecute crimes on tribal land: the state, the federal government, or the tribes themselves?
The answers are found in centuries-old treaties and statutes as well as a wave of modern court decisions that have changed the legal landscape in profound ways.
Why This Series?
This blog series, Law on Native Land, explores the key cases defining criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country. From the U.S. Supreme Court to Oklahoma’s appellate courts to federal lawsuits filed by the Department of Justice, each ruling tells part of the story of sovereignty, state power, and the daily lives of Native people in eastern Oklahoma.
Our goal is to explain these complex cases in plain language, making them accessible to community members, students, policymakers, and anyone interested in how law and sovereignty intersect.
The Cases We’ll Cover
Over the coming weeks, we will walk through the most important decisions shaping Indian Country jurisdiction:
McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) – The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case affirming that the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation still exists and that only the federal government, not the state, can prosecute major crimes involving tribal citizens.
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (2022) – The follow-up ruling allowing states to share jurisdiction with the federal government when non-Indians commit crimes against Indians.
Deo v. Parish (2023) – An Oklahoma appellate case that shifted the burden onto defendants to challenge state jurisdiction in Indian Country.
State v. Crosson (2023) – A ruling requiring state judges to issue warrants for tribal citizens even within reservation boundaries.
Hopson / 10th Circuit (2025) – A decision affirming that federal courts lack jurisdiction over certain misdemeanor crimes, leaving them to tribal courts.
Hooper v. City of Tulsa – A case striking down Tulsa’s attempt to claim criminal jurisdiction under the old Curtis Act.
Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. City of Henryetta – A modern lawsuit challenging municipal overreach into tribal jurisdiction.
United States v. Ballard / United States v. Iski – Federal lawsuits seeking to stop Oklahoma prosecutors from charging tribal citizens in Indian Country.
Stitt’s Supreme Court Petition (O’Brien case) – The governor’s effort to push the Supreme Court to revisit and narrow McGirt.
And more, as these jurisdictional battles continue to unfold.
What It Means for Oklahomans
These cases are not just legal puzzles. They impact real people every day:
Defendants facing charges in courts that may or may not have jurisdiction
Tribal governments working to exercise their rightful authority
Families and communities navigating overlapping state, federal, and tribal systems
Law enforcement officers trying to understand who has power in which circumstances
By following this series, you will gain a clearer picture of how the courts are shaping justice in Indian Country and why it matters to all of us living in Oklahoma today.
First Up
We begin with the case that started it all: McGirt v. Oklahoma. The first installment of Law on Native Land will break down what the Supreme Court decided, why it matters, and how it continues to affect the lives of tribal citizens and all Oklahomans.