The Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma has revolutionized the handling of criminal legal matters in the state. Jimcy McGirt was convicted by Oklahoma in 1997 for the rape and sexual assault of a four-year-old girl and was subsequently sentenced to two 500-year sentences (McGirt v. Oklahoma, 2020). It is my contention that the material aspects of the case will have a significant impact on the landscape of eastern Oklahoma. The Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma redefines the handling of crime and creates an unprecedented set of challenges, which if poorly addressed, will negatively impact the relationship with Native Indians.
In my view, the ruling revealed the fact that Oklahoma has, for a long time, ignored the requirement that Congress is the sole entity with the power to establish the boundaries of a tribal reservation. This means that the entire region that was initially categorized as the Creek Nation is considered Indian Country, and the stipulations outlined in the Major Crimes Act apply in McGirt’s case. I believe that McGirt v. Oklahoma has changed the management of criminal cases in the state significantly. The jurisdiction issue impacts the state’s ability to prosecute Indians accused of a crime as well as non-Indian individuals who commit crimes against Indians. It is my view that crimes that fall under the Major Crimes Act will go unpunished, especially when the victims are indigenous women and girls who are barely protected by the current legal system.
I do not believe that the law will promote lawlessness in the state. While the arguments that the Supreme Court’s decision is likely to see criminals go free bear some merit, most of the cases affected by the ruling will automatically get transferred to federal or tribal court. It is vital to note, however, that the law as currently defined does not apply to past convictions, which I think will reduce the number of individuals appealing for retrials. In addition, serious criminals are unlikely to go free because other courts are perfectly equipped to address the material issues in any case, and most of the affected individuals have exhausted their federal appeals. I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court Ruling will prompt state and local law enforcement to work together with federal and tribal agencies to ensure lawlessness is eliminated.
I believe that the state of Oklahoma has lost a considerable degree of control over the native tribes. The law, in its current state could potentially extinguish Oklahoma’s regulatory and taxing power over a significant portion of the state. In addition, there is a real risk that serious economic losses could be experienced if the tribes assume jurisdiction over industrial and mining operations in tribal lands. The aforementioned risks could be further compounded by losses in tax revenue from Indian territories.
The Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma will have a lasting impact on the state’s handling of criminal activity. While the effects of the ruling on lawlessness are unjustified, its impact on the relationship between Oklahoma and its Indian tribes is evident. The potential loss of control and jurisdiction is likely to have profound economic impacts. While there is a need to assess the impact of the decision, it is worth considering the fact that the state ignored the fact that Congress is the only entity that can designate tribal reservations.
Reference
McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U. S. (2020). Web.