State, Creek Nation disagree on jurisdiction
Lawyers on both sides of a reservation dispute at the U.S. Supreme Court largely agreed Friday that a Native American reservation must be considered “Indian country” under federal law, even as they disagreed on whether land in eastern Oklahoma qualifies as such.
Earlier this month, the high court asked the four parties in Carpenter v. Murphy — the state of Oklahoma, the federal government, defendant Patrick Murphy and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation — to answer two questions.
The first is whether any statute grants the state of Oklahoma power to prosecute crimes committed within the boundaries of the Creek Nation. The second is whether land can qualify as an Indian reservation but not be considered “Indian country” under federal law.
It was on the first question that the parties strongly disagreed. The state of Oklahoma and the federal government argued that a series of laws passed between 1890 and 1907 gave state courts jurisdiction in what was once Indian Territory and is now eastern Oklahoma.
“Congress never repealed those statutes, which continue to give Oklahoma jurisdiction over (Murphy)’s crime, regardless of the reservation status of the former territory of the Creek Nation,” wrote Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler, arguing on behalf of the federal government.
Murphy killed a man in 1999 on a plot of McIntosh County land that once belonged to the Creeks. Last year, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned his murder conviction and death sentence after finding Congress never ended the Creek reservation, therefore it still exists and Murphy was tried in the wrong court.
Major crimes in Indian country are traditionally prosecuted in federal courts, not state courts like the one in which Murphy was convicted. The Supreme Court, by requesting the parties answer questions about jurisdiction, has indicated it may try to split the difference, ruling the Creek reservation exists but state courts can still prosecute Murphy and other homicide defendants in eastern Oklahoma. Murphy and the tribe disagree.
“If the Creek reservation endures, then it is ‘Indian country,’ and the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute major crimes involving Indians on the reservation,” wrote Ian Gershengorn, Murphy’s attorney, in his brief Friday, calling it “unambiguous.”
The four attorneys combed the history books and picked passages from century-old statutes to support their respective arguments. The state of Oklahoma argues history is on its side, because state courts have prosecuted crimes on former Creek land for 111 years. The Creeks say history clearly shows Congress never disestablished their reservation, and therefore it still exists.
As they have for most of 2018, the two sides also disagreed about the ramifications of a ruling in the Creeks’ favor. The state of Oklahoma said it would “create confusion and disarray” and would result in “breathtaking consequences” to everything from alcohol to casinos to adoptions. It could change tax laws and “decimate state and local budgets.”
Worse yet, such a ruling "would call into question hundreds, if not thousands, of state convictions,” wrote Lisa Blatt, a private attorney representing the state of Oklahoma.
Riyaz Kanji, representing the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, called such claims “severely exaggerated.” Attorneys for the tribe and Murphy have argued a ruling in their favor would not change civil laws or regulations and have a limited effect on criminal cases.
“Accordingly, the suggestion that vindicating the Nation’s reservation boundaries will result in the release of thousands of violent criminals is hyperbole and supplies no basis for decision here,” Kanji wrote.
The four attorneys must file further briefs Jan. 11. The high court then will consider those before issuing its opinion sometime in the first half of 2019.