Title: McGirt v. Oklahoma points to why Native Americans have a hard time seeking justice - The Washington Post
Headings: The Oklahoma decision reveals why Native Americans have a hard time seeking justice
The Oklahoma decision reveals why Native Americans have a hard time seeking justice
Congress won’t let tribes fully punish non-Native American criminals — but federal prosecutors often won’t pursue crimes against Native Americans.
McGirt v. Oklahoma
Why does the federal government share jurisdiction with the tribal nations?
What are the consequences of federal jurisdiction?
What can be done?

Content: in McGirt the court noted selling land does not alter sovereignty. Advertisement
Story continues below advertisement
Thursday’s decision means criminals such as McGirt — Native Americans committing crimes on the MCN reservation — will fall under both federal and tribal jurisdiction instead of that of Oklahoma. The federal government will have jurisdiction over non-Native Americans who commit crimes against Native Americans on the reservation, while Oklahoma will continue to have exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Native Americans against non-Native Americans. Why does the federal government share jurisdiction with the tribal nations? In 1883, in a case called Ex parte Kan-gi-Shun-ca (Crow Dog), the Supreme Court ruled the federal government did not have the authority to try a Native American man accused of murdering another Native American man on tribal lands; the tribal nation had that exclusive power. Congress responded by passing the Major Crimes Act in 1885 — still in force today — which gives the federal government shared jurisdiction over a set of “major crimes” such as murder on tribal land. In 1968, Congress passed a statute limiting tribal authority called the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA); the law limited the sentences that tribes could impose to a maximum of one-year incarceration. That discouraged many tribes from prosecuting major violent crimes.