Supreme Court GUTS McGirt, Neil Gorsuch in Dissent on Tribal Sovereignty

 The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that Oklahoma can prosecute non-Native Americans for crimes committed on tribal land when the victim is Native American. 

The 5-4 decision cut back on the high court’s ruling from 2020 that said a large chunk of eastern Oklahoma remains an American Indian reservation. The first decision left the state unable to prosecute Native Americans accused of crimes on tribal lands that include most of Tulsa, the state’s second-largest city with a population of about 413,000.

Gorsuch’s lengthy dissent — 42 pages, 17 pages longer than the opinion — makes it clear that he feels that the court just gutted it. And in doing so, Gorsuch accuses the majority of intellectual dishonesty

A state court later ruled that the Supreme Court decision also stripped the state of its ability to prosecute anyone for crimes committed on tribal land if either the victim or perpetrator is Native American.

That would have left the federal government with sole authority to prosecute such cases, and federal officials had acknowledged that they lack the resources to prosecute all the crimes that have fallen to them.

But the high court's new ruling said the state also can step in when only the victims are tribal members.

“The State’s interest in protecting crime victims includes both Indian and non-Indian victims," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court.

After the 2020 decision, about 43% of Oklahoma is now considered Indian Country, and the issue of the state's ability to prosecute those crimes “has suddenly assumed immense importance," Kavanaugh wrote.

In a dissent joined by the court’s three liberal members, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the decision “allows Oklahoma to intrude on a feature of tribal sovereignty recognized since the founding.”

The case highlighted the already strained relationship between Native tribes in Oklahoma and Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, who has fought to return legal jurisdiction over tribal lands to the state.

NOOKSACK 306 EVICTIONS Three Cases Continued until August 16

 The Tribal Court  granted 86 year-old Auntie Ollie Oshiro and 22 others a continuance until August 16, citing the State Supreme Court’s injunction (but saying isn’t bound thereby) & questioning whether Nooksack is “owner” of the home for unlawful detainer purposes.

From KING 5 NEWS

Saturnino Javier is among the so-called Nooksack 306 – a group that Tribal Council voted to disenroll claiming a fraudulent ancestral link to the tribe that dates back to the 19th century. The 306 has fought this decision for more than a decade.

Over the winter, dozens of members living on tribal managed land were served eviction notices.

“It’s beyond stressful. You have 86- and 74-year-old elders that are not sure where they will live in a matter of days weeks or months,” said Gabe Galanda, an Indigenous rights lawyer who represents the 306.

It's an eviction process that has gained global attention. Back in February, the United Nations issued a statement calling for the US to “halt” what they called “imminent forced evictions” of former Nooksack Indigenous Tribe members.

“They are at risk of losing those homes and having those homes taken without any form of compensation recompense,” Galanda said.

Just two weeks ago, the Washington Supreme Court intervened, calling for a stop to evictions until the court has time to consider the case. But on Wednesday, via zoom, proceedings continued.

“I’m Native American, and that’s what I am. Want to see my pedigree like a dog or what?” Javier told the court via zoom. “I’m waiting to see the legal document that says I am not Nooksack, I’ve never seen it yet."

Ultimately, no decision was reached by Tribal Court on Wednesday.
For the Nooksack 306, the hearing marked the next step in a procedural saga that spanned a decade.

In a written statement, the Nooksack Tribe said Wednesday's hearing concerned three people who no longer qualify for low-income housing because they have no tribal lineage.