## Facts

- Jimcy McGirt, a citizen of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, was convicted in Oklahoma state court of three serious sexual offenses involving his wife’s four-year-old granddaughter and was sentenced to 1,000 years plus life without parole.
- The offenses occurred in Wagoner County, Oklahoma, on land within the historic boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation set by nineteenth-century treaties and later confirmed by federal law.
- After other litigation (including *Murphy v. Royal*) concluded that Congress had not disestablished the Creek Reservation, McGirt sought post-conviction relief, arguing Oklahoma lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the crimes occurred in “Indian country.”
- McGirt argued that, as an Indian charged with offenses covered by the Major Crimes Act (MCA), he could be prosecuted only by the United States in federal court.
- Oklahoma responded that the Creek Reservation had been terminated or disestablished over time through allotment-era and statehood-era statutes and related history, so the land no longer qualified as “Indian country” for MCA purposes.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected McGirt’s jurisdictional claim and left the conviction in place.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the land remains a reservation—and thus “Indian country”—under federal criminal law, which would bar Oklahoma’s prosecution.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress clearly disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s reservation, so that land within its historic boundaries is not “Indian country” under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a).
2. If the Creek Reservation remains in place, whether the Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153) gives the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over enumerated major crimes committed by an Indian there, preventing Oklahoma from prosecuting McGirt in state court.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and remanded.
- In a 5–4 opinion by Justice Gorsuch, the Court held that Congress never clearly disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation.
- Because the land remains “Indian country” and McGirt is an Indian for purposes of the MCA, Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him for MCA-listed offenses; the United States has prosecutorial authority under federal law.

## Legal Principles

- A reservation, once established, continues to exist unless Congress clearly expresses an intent to diminish or disestablish it.
- Courts look first to the text of treaties and statutes; allotment and other changes in governance or land ownership do not end a reservation without clear congressional language.
- “Indian country” includes “all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government.” 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a).
- Under the Major Crimes Act, enumerated offenses committed by an Indian in Indian country fall within federal criminal authority, which bars state prosecution for those crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 1153.
- Longstanding state practice, demographics, and predicted consequences cannot substitute for a clear act of Congress altering reservation boundaries.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation was never disestablished by Congress, so the crime location remained Indian country; as a result, the Major Crimes Act prevented Oklahoma from prosecuting McGirt in state court for the charged major offenses committed there.


McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020)