Although Oklahoma has exercised criminal jurisdiction in the disputed area for well over a century, the Supreme Court reiterated that this is irrelevant. The general propositions remain that states do not have jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians on Indian land and that there must be clear evidence of disestablishment for land to cease being considered “Indian Country” under 18 U.S.C. § 1151. Because McGirt is a member of the Seminole nation and his crimes took place within the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s original reservation boundaries (a reservation that was never legally disestablished), the court held that Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute McGirt and reversed his convictions.

[12]Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9, 18 (1987).[13] 18 USC § 1151. Although this definition is contained in the criminal code, it applies in the civil context as well.

“Indian country” includes “all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government.” 18 U.S.C. § 1151. The state appellate court vacated Castro-Huerta’s conviction based on its determination that the Federal Government had exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.In reversing and remanding, the Supreme Court first observed that the Constitution provides that a State has jurisdiction over all of its territory, even Indian country.

405 RCW.15RCW 19.405.010(6); RCW 19.405.020(23) (“‘Highly impacted community’ means a community designated by the department of health based on cumulative impact analyses in RCW 19.405.140 or a community located in census tracts that are fully or partially on ‘Indian country’ as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1151.”).16RCW 19.405.

Justice Gorsuch, who joined the court from the Tenth Circuit, did not take part in the deliberations in 2019 or in 2020.FOOTNOTESSee 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (definition of Indian country); § 1153(a) (providing for exclusive federal jurisdiction for enumerated crimes).United States v. McBratney, 104 U. S. 621, 624 (1882).

Justice Gorsuch, who joined the court from the Tenth Circuit, did not take part in the deliberations in 2019 or in 2020.FOOTNOTES[1]See 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (definition of Indian country); § 1153(a) (providing for exclusive federal jurisdiction for enumerated crimes).[2]United States v. McBratney, 104 U. S. 621, 624 (1882).

al argument next week. Here are the cases to be argued this term (so far) that we're watching (descriptions taken directly from the question presented in each petition for certiorari):Second AmendmentNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York: Whether [New York] City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.Fourth AmendmentKansas v. Glover: [W]hether, for purposes of an investigative stop under the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable for an officer to suspect that the registered owner of a vehicle is the one driving the vehicle absent any information to the contrary.JurisdictionSharp v. Murphy (held over from last term for reargument): Whether the 1866 territorial boundaries of the Creek Nation within the former Indian Territory of eastern Oklahoma constitute an “Indian reservation” today under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a).FraudKelley v. United States: Does a public official “defraud” the government of its property by advancing a “public policy reason” for an official decision that is not her subjective “real reason” for making the decision?Immigration-related state prosecutionsKansas v. Garcia: 1. Whether IRCA expressly preempts the States from using any information entered on or appended to a federal Form I-9, including common information such as name, date of birth, and social security number, in a prosecution of any person (citizen or alien) when that same, commonly used information also appears in non-IRCA documents, such as state tax forms, leases, and credit applications.2. [Question by the Court] Whether the Immigration Reform and Control Act impliedly preempts Kansas’s prosecution of respondents.Insanity defenseKahler v. Kansas: Do the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments permit a state to abolish the insanity defense?Unanimous verdictRamos v. Louisiana:Whether the Fourteenth Amendment fully incorp

Today, the Court vacated and remanded, holding that Yakima did not address the scope of tribal sovereign immunity, but only a question of statutory interpretation concerning the Indian General Allotment Act of 1887. The Court's decision is available here.Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in four cases:Jam v. International Finance Corp., No. 17-1011: Whether the International Organizations Immunities Act – which affords international organizations the “same immunity” from suit that foreign governments have, 22 U.S.C. § 288a(b) – confers the same immunity on such organizations as foreign governments have under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§1602-11.Royal v. Murphy, No. 17-1107: Whether the 1866 territorial boundaries of the Creek Nation within the former Indian Territory of eastern Oklahoma constitute an “Indian reservation” today under 18 U.S.C. §1151(a).Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, No. 16-1275: Does the Atomic Energy Act preempt a state law that on its face regulates an activity within its jurisdiction (here uranium mining), but has the purpose and effect of regulating the radiological safety hazards of activities entrusted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (here, the milling of uranium and the management of the resulting tailings)?Culbertson v. Berryhill, No. 17-773: Whether attorney fees for Social Security benefits claims subject to 42 U.S.C. §406(b)’s 25-percent cap include, as the Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits hold, only fees for representation in court or, as the Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits hold, also fees for representation before the agency.