Supreme Court Case-watch | Royal v. Murphy

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

I came across Royal v. Murphy the other day. It seems like an interesting case study in how the Court prioritizes administrative convenience over black letter law.

Coverage: New Republic; SCOTUS Blog

Case background: Patrick Murphy, a member of the Muscogee Creek Nation, claimed Oklahoma lacked the jurisdiction to try him for the murder of another tribal member on what was part of the Creek Nation’s reservation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While a ruling that's extended only to Creek Nation's original 1866 borders would return 4,600 square miles to the tribe (and remove nearly 750,000 Oklahomans from the state's criminal jurisdiction for anything other than minor infractions), it is not unreasonable to expect other tribes to argue similarly. If extended to the original five tribes of Oklahoma, nearly half of the state would be returned to tribal jurisdiction.

Big Picture Question

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, will Congress be forced to act to restore Oklahoma's state borders in the event that the Court either declines cert or sides with the 10th?

As The New Republic article points out, Justice Gorsuch previously served on the Tenth and has some experience with issue of tribal jurisdiction.

It's also an open question whether Solem is even the right precedent to apply. Solem did not contend with statehood, so it may be that the justices choose to leave Solem in place and note that its precedent does not apply to Royal.

A micro perspective

As for the actual crime committed that underlies the big picture question presented, federal law prohibits the death penalty for crimes prosecuted under tribal jurisdiction, while Murphy currently sits on death row under Oklahoma law.

Thoughts?

[FairBol]

Here's how I would rule on this case (although I am not, by any means, a lawyer). 

The matter of what territory belongs to the Creek tribe is, to me, not at issue here.  The more pressing issue is the question of jurisdiction, and who has the authority to make law and try cases for the Creek Nation.  This can be broken down into two sections. 

First, is Native American land within the boundaries of the United States? It is my contention that it is.  The treaties that have been made with Native American tribes definitively declare this to be the case. 

Moving on, we come to the question of who has authority over these lands.  According to the aforementioned treaties with Native Americans, any Native American lands are sovereign nations governed by the Native American tribes.  The Native American tribes alone have the right and authority to make their own laws, and determine their own punishments for violations of such laws.
 
It is my belief that, with notable exceptions, it is not the federal government's place to dictate to a sovereign nation what that nation can and cannot do.  As such, I would rule in favor of Mr. Murphy's argument that the State of Oklahoma lacks jurisdiction in his murder case (in my view, such jurisdiction lies with the Creek Nation).  Therefore, I would also rule that any action taken by the State against Mr. Murphy is null and void. 

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Here's how I would rule on this case (although I am not, by any means, a lawyer). 

The matter of what territory belongs to the Creek tribe is, to me, not at issue here.  The more pressing issue is the question of jurisdiction, and who has the authority to make law and try cases for the Creek Nation.  This can be broken down into two sections. 

First, is Native American land within the boundaries of the United States? It is my contention that it is.  The treaties that have been made with Native American tribes definitively declare this to be the case. 

Right, agree. I pointed out the territory question because that's arguably what Murphy's outcome hinges on. I.e., did Congress correctly (for lack of a better term) apportion out former Creek tribal lands when establishing the State of Oklahoma. It is Murphy's contention, of course, that Congress did not and that therefore his arrest occurred on tribal lands. Which leads to the question of authority...

Moving on, we come to the question of who has authority over these lands.  According to the aforementioned treaties with Native Americans, any Native American lands are sovereign nations governed by the Native American tribes.  The Native American tribes alone have the right and authority to make their own laws, and determine their own punishments for violations of such laws.
 
It is my belief that, with notable exceptions, it is not the federal government's place to dictate to a sovereign nation what that nation can and cannot do.  As such, I would rule in favor of Mr. Murphy's argument that the State of Oklahoma lacks jurisdiction in his murder case (in my view, such jurisdiction lies with the Creek Nation).  Therefore, I would also rule that any action taken by the State against Mr. Murphy is null and void. 

Generally, in most but not all cases, tribes signed treaties with the US Government that granted tribes the right to self-governance but that still recognized the members of the tribe as US citizens. Individuals living under tribal jurisdiction are for all intents and purposes US citizens, but not citizens of the state in which they live (if that makes any sense at all). I.e., a member of the Cheyenne tribe is a citizen of the United States, but not of Wyoming or Montana. And as a result, cannot be tried under state criminal or civil law, but may be tried under federal criminal or civil law. It's also why members of a tribe can vote in federal elections.

[brucejoel99]

Here are the facts: Murphy, an Indian person, was convicted of 1st Degree Murder & sentenced to death in McIntosh County, OK. Murphy was found guilty of killing George Jacobs, an Indian person, on a rural state road in McIntosh County.

So, the issue is whether McIntosh County had jurisdiction to try Murphy for the murder of Jacobs, & the crux of this issue is whether this crime occurred in Indian Country.

The court held that the crime did in fact occur in Indian Country & therefore jurisdiction was vested exclusively in Federal court under the Major Crimes Act. Thus, Murphy's conviction & sentence were overturned due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction in McIntosh County.

The way I see it, the opinion of the Court thoroughly analyzed the historical record & faithfully applied the relevant law, so it should continue to be upheld.