Title: The Supreme Court’s big Native American rights case, McGirt v. Oklahoma, explained - Vox
Headings: The Supreme Court’s landmark new Native American rights decision, explained
The Supreme Court’s landmark new Native American rights decision, explained
No, they didn’t give away half of Oklahoma — but it is a big deal.
McGirt is a case about whether the federal government must honor its obligations to Native Americans — but only up to a point
So what does this mean for Oklahoma?
Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?
Next Up In Politics & Policy

Content: The question is which court may try the case against him. But in order to answer this question, the Supreme Court must determine whether McGirt’s crime did, indeed, occur on a reservation. And the answer to that question turns out to have significant implications. The Muscogee (Creek) Nation had a great deal at stake in this case. As the Creek Nation noted in a brief to the Supreme Court, it “had no role in the genesis of this litigation, but now finds its Reservation under direct attack .” It elects its own government and operates its own court system. As Gorsuch’s opinion notes, it “operates a police force and three hospitals; commands an annual budget of more than $350 million; and employs over 2,000 people.” McGirt, according to Riyaz Kanji, one of the authors of the Creek Nation’s brief, “will if anything enhance the Nation’s ability to offer robust governmental programs and services throughout the Reservation (both for Nation citizens and non-citizens).”