On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court scaled back its 2020 McGirt v. Oklahoma decision by ruling in favor of Oklahoma in Castro-Huerta v. Oklahoma. The move has prompted local lawmakers and party and tribal leaders to address what effects the ruling will have within the Cherokee Nation reservation.
The ruling will require that crimes committed by non-Native Americans on tribal land be tried in state courts, rather than tribal courts.
Chuck Hoskin Jr., principal chief of Cherokee Nation, has criticized the State of Oklahoma for its attacks on tribal sovereignty. On June 3, he signed an executive order to take down Oklahoma flags within tribal complexes, except for special occasions, though the decision was reversed two weeks later.
Hoskin does not believe the Supreme Court ruling adheres to legal precedent, set by the McGirt decision. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who led the charge in the McGirt decision, would seem to agree.
“With today’s decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against legal precedent and the basic principles of congressional authority and Indian law. During arguments, Justice Gorsuch asked if the Court would ‘wilt today because of a social media campaign’ – it is unfortunate that the answer appears to be yes,” wrote Hoskin in a tweet.
It is likely the Castro-Huerta decision will continue to divide the relationship between the tribal nation and the state.
Yolette Ross, chair of the Cherokee County Democratic Party, did not agree with the Castro-Huerta decision, and thinks governing institutions should focus on working alongside tribal nations.
“Tribes should maintain their sovereignty, but the recent Supreme Court ruling chips away at it. This ruling presents a significant challenge in enforcing the law and will take time to iron out. What is key is that the state and the tribes must work on a coordinated effort to ensure public safety for all Oklahomans,” said Ross.
Dell Barnes, vice chair of the Cherokee County Democratic Party, wants to see the decision reversed because he sees that Oklahoma is overreaching its judicial authority.
“Oklahomans and the state didn’t need this decision. The federal government has always had the ability to prosecute those crimes. Some want Oklahoma to continue their unfounded virtual monopoly on criminal justice over the reservation lands. I think the future will see this decision revised and corrected,” said Barnes.
Oklahoma State Sen. Dewayne Pemberton, R-Muskogee, feels the Castro-Huerta decision will move Oklahoma a step in the right direction.
“The McGirt ruling has been very controversial and confusing since it was released. This latest ruling, I feel, simply attempts to clarify some of the muddy water created by McGirt regarding the right of prosecution,” said Pemberton.
He does agree, though, that the ruling will further the divide the state and tribal nations.
“According to news releases from state government leaders, the state is pleased with the ruling and therefore feels it is in the best interest of the state as a whole. Obviously, based on other press releases, tribal nations do not share that enthusiasm,” he said.
When asked whether he felt Native Americans should be entitled to sovereignty over their land, he said he was not qualified to make that determination.
“That is a question left to the federal courts and their interpretation of previous treaties, signed and in force between the tribal nations and the federal government,” he said.
State Rep. Bob Ed Culver, R-Tahlequah, does not care where criminals are prosecuted, so long as they are held accountable for their crimes.
“If you break the law, you need to be punished. Whether it is tribal court, state court, or federal court, it doesn’t matter so long as whoever committed the law is punished. We don’t want loopholes. There needs to be a consensus that if you are breaking the law, you will be prosecuted. I don’t care who does it, it just needs to be done,” said Culver.
