With Muscogee reservation question settled, tribal attorneys look to future talks with Oklahoma
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last month to let stand its ruling on the Muscogee (Creek) reservation provides a new opportunity for Native American tribes and the state of Oklahoma to reach agreements on criminal and civil issues, top attorneys for the Cherokee and Chickasaw Nations said Thursday.
Speaking to reporters, Cherokee Nation Attorney General Sara Hill said some elected officials had sought to undermine efforts necessary to establish cooperation among state, federal and tribal authorities on reservations.
But, she said, “I’m hopeful, now that the issue on the reservation is settled, that we can … move into more robust discussions about what tribal-state agreements could look like.”
Hill said those discussions need to be among leaders at the highest political level and take place with an eye toward the future rather than fighting over the past.
Stephen Greetham, senior attorney for the Chickasaw Nation, said “fear-mongering” about the impact McGirt v Oklahoma would have on state revenue has been refuted by record amounts of tax collections.
“We work best when we work together,” Greetham said. “And we work best together when both sides respect each other. So that’s what I’m going to count on.”
Hill and Greetham hailed the Supreme Court’s decision late last month to reject efforts by Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt and Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor to overturn the 2020 ruling in McGirt, which has led to the affirmation of six Indian reservations in Oklahoma and reshaped criminal jurisdiction in about half the state.
Greetham called it an “enormous relief” after tribes worked for the past year against the state, which filed about 50 petitions with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking the reversal of McGirt.
Greetham said there was “no ambiguity left. The law is the law. And we need to move forward.”
The Supreme Court, while rejecting the state’s request to overturn McGirt, did agree to review another question posed by the state — whether Oklahoma prosecutors share jurisdiction with federal prosecutors in cases where a non-Indian is accused of a crime against a Native American in Indian country.
Though Stitt has claimed victory that the court agreed to hear that question, Greetham noted that the state must now go from claiming that the reservations don’t exist to arguing about the state’s authority on reservations.
Under federal law, crimes involving Native Americans in Indian country must be prosecuted in federal or tribal courts.
Except in certain circumstances under the Violence Against Women Act, tribes don’t have the authority to prosecute non-Indians in their courts, so federal prosecutors handle the bulk of those cases
Greetham said the tribes, even though their own jurisdiction is not at issue, are concerned about how the matter plays out. Oklahoma can’t claim jurisdiction that hasn’t been specifically granted by Congress, Greetham said, and Congress hasn’t given Oklahoma jurisdiction in cases involving Native Americans on reservations.
The court is expected to hear oral arguments in the case in April. A decision is expected by this summer.
This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: With McGirt ruling settled, tribes hope for robust talks with Oklahoma
