Law on Native Land: McGirt v. Oklahoma

In July 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that changed Oklahoma forever. In McGirt v. Oklahoma, the Court held that the reservation of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation was never disestablished. That meant the land promised by treaty in the 1800s remains “Indian Country” under federal law.

The ruling did not just apply to the Creek Nation. Because other tribes in eastern Oklahoma have similar treaties, the decision reverberated across half the state.

What the Court Decided

At the heart of McGirt was a simple but powerful principle: Congress must clearly express its intent to disestablish a reservation. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, looked at the treaties the federal government made with the Muscogee Nation. Nowhere did Congress pass a law that ended the reservation. Because of that, the reservation still legally exists.

The Court emphasized that promises made to tribes in treaties are binding. Justice Gorsuch opened his opinion with words that still echo: “On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise.”

Why Jurisdiction Matters

If land is Indian Country, certain rules apply under federal law. For criminal cases, the Major Crimes Act gives the federal government, not the state, the authority to prosecute serious crimes committed by Native Americans on reservations.

This meant that the State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction over many cases it had been prosecuting for decades. Thousands of convictions were suddenly called into question. Federal and tribal courts had to step in to handle cases going forward.

Immediate Impact in Oklahoma

The decision set off a wave of changes:
✔️ Convictions of tribal citizens in state court were vacated if the crimes happened within reservation boundaries
✔️ Federal prosecutors in the Eastern and Northern Districts of Oklahoma saw their caseloads surge
✔️ Tribes began expanding their own justice systems to handle the cases now clearly under their authority

Cities like Tulsa and Broken Arrow found themselves squarely within Indian Country for the first time in more than a century, at least from a legal standpoint.

Reactions and Challenges

The ruling was celebrated by tribal nations as a long overdue recognition of sovereignty. It affirmed that treaty rights still matter and cannot be brushed aside.

At the same time, the decision sparked concern among state officials and law enforcement who worried about gaps in jurisdiction. The state argued that the decision created uncertainty for victims and stretched federal resources thin.

Why McGirt Still Matters

McGirt v. Oklahoma remains one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions on tribal sovereignty in decades. It reaffirmed that tribal reservations continue to exist unless Congress clearly says otherwise.

Even after follow-up cases like Castro-Huerta, which gave states more authority in certain situations, McGirt stands as a cornerstone: treaties are binding, promises must be honored, and sovereignty is not erased by time.

Key Takeaway

For Oklahomans, McGirt is more than a legal decision. It is a reminder that history is still alive in the law. It reshaped criminal jurisdiction, empowered tribal governments, and forced the state to adjust to a new reality.

The next post in Law on Native Land will look at the sequel to McGirt: Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, where the Supreme Court narrowed tribal sovereignty by expanding state power in Indian Country.