U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
1–10 of 1001 posts
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#2> The ruling means that for the first time much of eastern Oklahoma is legally considered reservation land. More than 1.8 million people live in the land at issue, including roughly 400,000 in Tulsa, Oklahoma’s second-largest city.
McGirt v Oklahoma (9 July 2020) pdf:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#3> The ruling means that for the first time much of eastern Oklahoma is legally considered reservation land. More than 1.8 million people live in the land at issue, including roughly 400,000 in Tulsa, Oklahoma’s second-largest city. McGirt v Oklahoma (9 July 2020) pdf: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Very interesting. Is this the first time a major city has fallen within a reservation?
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#4This is a terrible article, it just cites the facts of the decision, teases the implication (OMG half of OK!) and explains nothing. Here's a review article about the same case from a while back which does a better job: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half-land-...
The tl;dr is that, yes, indeed, half of Oklahoma is part of land reserved for the Creek in a 1833 treaty. And almost two centuries of subsequent jurisprudence and state development has (unsurprisingly) completely ignored that with effectively no legal basis. Neither Congress nor the state of Oklahoma has ever lifted a finger to try to make this right.
Basically, this is the Supreme Court saying that enough is enough, this can't go on, and telling the relevant governments to get their shit together and figure this out.
No, Injuns aren't coming for Tulsa.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#5> The ruling means that for the first time much of eastern Oklahoma is legally considered reservation land. More than 1.8 million people live in the land at issue, including roughly 400,000 in Tulsa, Oklahoma’s second-largest city. McGirt v Oklahoma (9 July 2020) pdf: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Very interesting. Is this the first time a major city has fallen within a reservation?
And, either way, what are the implications to non-tribe citizens and non-tribe governments?
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#6This is a terrible article, it just cites the facts of the decision, teases the implication (OMG half of OK!) and explains nothing. Here's a review article about the same case from a while back which does a better job: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half-land-... The tl;dr is that, yes, indeed, half of Oklahoma is part of land reserved for the Creek in a 1833 treaty. And almost two centuries of sub…
So if it's not part of OK, how does that impact OK from a representation in Congress, electoral college, e-Rate/federal funding perspective.
All of those people are no longer part of the state?
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#7This is a terrible article, it just cites the facts of the decision, teases the implication (OMG half of OK!) and explains nothing. Here's a review article about the same case from a while back which does a better job: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half-land-... The tl;dr is that, yes, indeed, half of Oklahoma is part of land reserved for the Creek in a 1833 treaty. And almost two centuries of sub…
If we are going to truly treat this 1833 treaty as legally valid, does that mean that one party is entitled to compensation for 187 years of damages? Or is it more likely that we will somehow hand-wave it away and just find a way to retroactively undo the treaty?
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#8This is a terrible article, it just cites the facts of the decision, teases the implication (OMG half of OK!) and explains nothing. Here's a review article about the same case from a while back which does a better job: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half-land-... The tl;dr is that, yes, indeed, half of Oklahoma is part of land reserved for the Creek in a 1833 treaty. And almost two centuries of sub…
So if it's not part of OK, how does that impact OK from a representation in Congress, electoral college, e-Rate/federal funding perspective. All of those people are no longer part of the state?
States and reservations are orthogonal concepts. This has nothing to do with "taking land away from" a state, it's about which legal authority has jurisdiction within the borders. People on reservations still vote in their relevant state elections.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#9This is a terrible article, it just cites the facts of the decision, teases the implication (OMG half of OK!) and explains nothing. Here's a review article about the same case from a while back which does a better job: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half-land-... The tl;dr is that, yes, indeed, half of Oklahoma is part of land reserved for the Creek in a 1833 treaty. And almost two centuries of sub…
No income tax? Never mind injuns coming. Where do people sign up to become one?
Huge percentage of population has some Indian blood.
The exact definition can be worth a lot to many people.
Let the drama begin!
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#10This is a terrible article, it just cites the facts of the decision, teases the implication (OMG half of OK!) and explains nothing. Here's a review article about the same case from a while back which does a better job: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half-land-... The tl;dr is that, yes, indeed, half of Oklahoma is part of land reserved for the Creek in a 1833 treaty. And almost two centuries of sub…
If we are going to truly treat this 1833 treaty as legally valid, does that mean that one party is entitled to compensation for 187 years of damages? Or is it more likely that we will somehow hand-wave it away and just find a way to retroactively undo the treaty?
> If we are going to truly treat this 1833 treaty as legally valid
If? SCOTUS literally just said it's valid. Today.
As far as what's going to happen, presumably the state legislature, congress, and the Tribal government(s) are going to come to some kind of deal. I'm no expert. I'm just reacting to the vaguely racist paranoia in the headline that has people freaking out that they'll suddenly be Ruled by Indians.