Background & Facts
Jimcy McGirt, a member of the Seminole Nation, was convicted in Oklahoma state court of serious crimes committed on land that had historically been part of the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation. McGirt argued his conviction was invalid because Oklahoma had no criminal jurisdiction: the land was Indian Country under the Major Crimes Act, and only federal courts could prosecute him.
Oklahoma argued that the Creek Reservation had been "disestablished" over a century of allotment, statehood, and demographic change — even though Congress had never explicitly disestablished it. The case turned on a single question: had Congress disestablished the reservation, or had the reservation simply been ignored?
The case was argued during the COVID era and decided 5-4. Justice Gorsuch wrote for the majority, joined by the four liberal justices.
The Court's Holding
The Court held that the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation had never been disestablished by Congress. The land remained Indian Country, Oklahoma had no criminal jurisdiction over the offenses charged, and McGirt's state conviction was invalid. The decision shifted criminal jurisdiction over major crimes on roughly half of Oklahoma to federal courts and tribal courts.
Key Holding — McGirt's Textualist Rule:
Congress must speak with unmistakable clarity to disestablish a reservation or diminish tribal sovereignty. Reservations persist unless Congress explicitly says otherwise. Time, demographic change, state assertion of jurisdiction, and judicial assumption are NOT substitutes for explicit congressional action. Tribal rights cannot be lost by implication or neglect.
Key Language
"On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise. Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the West would be secure forever... Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word."
"If Congress wishes to break the promise of a reservation, it must say so. History shows that Congress knows how to withdraw a reservation when it can muster the will. Often, legislation has provided wholesale extinguishment with explicit and clear language. Congress has not done so here."
"Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law."
How McGirt Reaches P.L. 280 in California
McGirt is the case that reopens the door on every assumption of state authority over Indian Country. If "unlawful acts performed long enough and with sufficient vigor are never enough to amend the law," then 70+ years of California exercising P.L. 280 jurisdiction without tribal consent never legitimized that exercise.
For ATN, McGirt does multiple things at once:
- 1. Time does not legitimize unconsented jurisdiction. California cannot defend P.L. 280 by saying "we've been doing this for 70 years."
- 2. Textual clarity is required. P.L. 280 is silent on tribal consent. Under McGirt's textualism, that silence does not authorize state authority — Congress must speak with unmistakable clarity to override tribal sovereignty.
- 3. Reservations persist. The Mendocino Indian Reservation remains Indian Country regardless of demographic change, county incorporation, or state administrative practice.
- 4. Congress can revisit at any time. McGirt invites Congress to re-examine its termination-era statutes — including P.L. 280 — under modern textualist scrutiny.
- 5. Promises matter. Federal trust commitments to California tribes were not extinguished by the 1953 P.L. 280 imposition.
McGirt is the most important Indian-law decision of the 21st century. It is the lever ATN should use to argue that California's 70-year exercise of P.L. 280 jurisdiction has never been legitimate, regardless of how routine it has become.
Related Cases
- Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (2022) — McGirt's partial walk-back; Gorsuch's dissent reaffirms its principles
- Worcester v. Georgia (1832) — Original source of the "promise" Gorsuch invoked
- Haaland v. Brackeen (2023) — McGirt's principles extended to ICWA
- Menominee Tribe v. United States (1968) — Pre-McGirt clear-statement rule