A high court case that merits attention
THE U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday in a case that bears close attention in Oklahoma, for a few reasons. One is that it’s not very often Oklahoma cases reach the Supreme Court, so there’s a natural hook for residents who might otherwise give the high court only a passing glance. The other, and far more important, reason to pay attention is because the case involves Indian sovereignty.
In Carpenter v. Murphy, the Supreme Court is being asked whether the Muscogee (Creek) Nation still has a reservation in eastern Oklahoma. The state and the federal government say the answer is “no.” The Creeks and Patrick Murphy, whose murder conviction was overturned by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, say otherwise.
Murphy has confessed to the crime, committed in 1999, but the appeals court said the killing occurred on the Creek reservation and thus he should have been tried in federal court instead of in state court.
Attorneys for the state and government plan to argue that even if it never formally did so, Congress effectively disbanded the Creek reservation early in the last century as Oklahoma was becoming a state. The tribe contends that the United States promised in an 1866 treaty that a reservation would be “forever set apart as a home” and protected by any subsequently created state. “The Muscogee (Creek) Nation has always maintained that the 1866 reservation boundaries are still its boundaries today,” the tribe says.
Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter says the decision by the 10th Circuit was “deeply flawed” and “result-oriented.”
“They ignored a half a dozen acts of Congress you have to look at as you’re evaluating the consequences of forming a state and having tribes who reside in that state,” Hunter said recently in a meeting with The Oklahoman’s editorial board.
The outcome of the case could be significant because other members of the Five Tribes — the Choctaws, Chickasaws, Cherokees and Seminoles — would be impacted. In a filing this summer, attorney Lisa Blatt, who will argue the state’s case Tuesday, said a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the plaintiff would “plunge eastern Oklahoma into civil, criminal and regulatory turmoil.”
Hunter was more sanguine in discussing what a loss in this case might mean for the state.
He said he expects the court’s decision to be narrowly interpreted and thus apply solely to law enforcement. He noted that the state has “great relationships with the tribes,” one that is “really a collaboration, a symbiotic relationship, very few disputes.”
If Oklahoma loses, “It’s going to require some changes in how we investigate, prosecute, but it’s not going to be the end of the world,” Hunter said.
Our hope is that Hunter’s right. It would be unfortunate if the outcome — regardless of how it’s decided — weakens the respectful and mutually beneficial statetribal ties that have been the norm for so long.