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: Thus, Oklahoma lacks authority to try McGirt for raping someone on a Native American reservation. Only the federal courts may try such a crime. On the surface, in other words, McGirt seems to involve a fairly minor issue. No one questions that McGirt may be convicted of rape. And no one questions that he can face a stiff penalty for such a conviction. 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 .”