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 BlogCase 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.
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 QuestionSo, 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 perspectiveAs 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?