The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
SCOTUS Grants Cert To Narrow, But Not Overrule McGirt
Efforts to lobby ACB to reverse McGirt have failed.
In August, Oklahoma asked Justice Barrett to overrule McGirt. Well, not exactly. To be precise, the petition asked the Court to reverse the 2020 precedent. But in reality, ACB's vote would have made the 5-4 decision come out the other way.
Now, five months later, the Court declined that request. Instead, the Court granted cert on a question that could limit the scope of McGirt. From today's orders in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. The case will be set for argument in the April 2022 argument session. Petitioner's brief on the merits is to be filed on or before Monday, February 28, 2022. Respondent's brief on the merits is to be filed on or before Monday, March 28, 2022. The reply brief is to be filed in accordance with Rule 25.3.
Here were the two questions presented in the petition:
1. Whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country.
2. Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
Question #2 is out. But Question #1 is in.
If I had to predict, the Court will say that McGirt is limited to cases where there is both an Indian defendant and an Indian victim. That should narrow the destabilizing effects of McGirt. Justice Gorsuch may even get behind that decision. But the Justices will not have to labor over yet another stare decisis fight this term. Once again, the Court limits questions presented as a bulwark of moderation.
I think the past few days have taught me a lesson about the Supreme Court. Perhaps Oklahoma made a mistake by asking the Court to overrule McGirt. Maybe it would have been more effective to merely suggest, in one form or another, to reverse the precedent. We all know Chief Justice Roberts prefers the subtle art of persuasion. Or so I heard on the radio.
Stay tuned for the April oral argument.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
That strikes me as a fairly stupid prediction, since 1. Oklahoma isn't asking for that limitation and 2. such a result would be directly contrary to the plain text of the Major Crimes Act.
And the fact that the Supreme Court upheld this provision of the Major Crimes Act in United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641 (1977) would seem to send the stupidity to South Texas College of Law levels.
Oooh, the personal insult about Josh's employer returns! The adults have entered the conversation.
Hi Mrs. Blackman!
Dude had arguments and criticisms, and yet you answered none of them.
In its Petition for Cert, Oklahoma has a section specifically titled:
"Review Is Warranted Regarding The Authority Of A State To Prosecute Non-Indians Who Commit Crimes Against Indians In Indian Country" (pg. 10).
You might want to give that section a quick read to understand what Oklahoma is seeking in its appeal.
Oklahoma is arguing that the General Crimes Act gives it concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government over crimes committed by non-Indians in Indian country.
It is not, however, arguing that it has jurisdiction over crimes enumerated in the Major Crimes Act committed by Indians against non-Indians in Indian country, which is the resolution Prof. Blackman predicted.
STUPID POST-DICTION TOO ?
Well, didn't 8 of 9 just opine that Texas licensing officials (might) have enforcement authority even though SB8 expressly says that private enforcement is exclusive, and that state officials and agencies may not enforce this subchapter (the Texas Heartbeat Act)?
Sec. 171.207. LIMITATIONS ON PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT. (a) Notwithstanding Section 171.005 or any other law, the requirements of this subchapter shall be enforced exclusively through the private civil actions described in Section 171.208. No enforcement of this subchapter, and no enforcement of Chapters 19 and 22, Penal Code, in response to violations of this subchapter, may be taken or threatened by this state, a political subdivision, a district or county attorney, or an executive or administrative officer or employee of this state or a political subdivision against any person, except as provided in Section 171.208.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.171.htm#171.207
Gutless.
Yes, yes, Bob, we already know you think anything which empowers non-whites is bad.