{"id":3660,"date":"2022-11-01T01:58:00","date_gmt":"2022-11-01T01:58:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/live-cornell-law-review.pantheonsite.io\/?p=3660"},"modified":"2022-11-01T01:58:00","modified_gmt":"2022-11-01T01:58:00","slug":"judicial-discretion-across-jurisdictions-mcgirts-effects-on-indian-offenders-in-oklahoma","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/2022\/11\/01\/judicial-discretion-across-jurisdictions-mcgirts-effects-on-indian-offenders-in-oklahoma\/","title":{"rendered":"Judicial Discretion Across Jurisdictions: McGirt’s Effects on Indian Offenders in Oklahoma"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Oklahoma\u2019s exercise of criminal jurisdiction over crime committed on tribal reservations remained unchecked until 2020. In McGirt v. Oklahoma<\/em>, the Supreme Court held that the Muscogee Creek Nation\u2019s reservation had in fact never been disestablished and remains in existence today. In doing so, the Court restored criminal prosecution authority to tribal and federal courts. McGirt<\/em> received praise throughout the United States from tribal nations and federal Indian Law practitioners for Justice Gorsuch\u2019s strong affirmation of the Muscogee Creek\u2019s sovereignty over its reservation and the honoring of treaties made between the United States and the Muscogee Creek Nation. Similarly situated tribes in Eastern Oklahoma including the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw have already joined the Muscogee Creek Nation in asserting the changes that McGirt<\/em> brings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the wake of this change, legal and political discussion has centered around practical matters: Does the Tribe have adequate resources for managing criminal jurisdiction within its reservation? Will the increase in cases overload the federal court system? The question of how the change in prosecutorial authority will affect Native American criminal defendants has yet to be asked, though. This Note assesses the effects of McGirt<\/em> on the sentencing of Native Americans who commit crimes on a reservation in Oklahoma. Oklahoma state court judges exercise discretion in areas of sentencing different from federal court judges. Existing empirical studies suggest federal sentencing produces harsher, lengthier sentences than state courts. By comparing Oklahoma and federal court sentencing data, this study attempts to answer whether McGirt<\/em>‘s celebration of tribal sovereignty is simultaneously a devastating blow to Native American criminal defendants committing crimes on tribal reservations in Oklahoma. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To read this note please click here: Judicial Discretion Across Jurisdictions: McGirt’s Effects on Indian Offenders in Oklahoma<\/em><\/a>. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Oklahoma\u2019s exercise of criminal jurisdiction over crime committed on tribal reservations remained unchecked until 2020. In McGirt v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court held that the Muscogee Creek Nation\u2019s reservation had in fact never been disestablished and remains in existence today. In doing so, the Court restored criminal prosecution authority to tribal and federal courts. McGirt…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[100,46,53],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3660","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-issue-7-clr-print-volume-107","category-notes","category-print-volume-107"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3660","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3660"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3660\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3660"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3660"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3660"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}