Supreme Court Case-watch | Royal v. Murphy

[FairBol]

Here's how I would rule on this case (although I am not, by any means, a lawyer). 

The matter of what territory belongs to the Creek tribe is, to me, not at issue here.  The more pressing issue is the question of jurisdiction, and who has the authority to make law and try cases for the Creek Nation.  This can be broken down into two sections. 

First, is Native American land within the boundaries of the United States? It is my contention that it is.  The treaties that have been made with Native American tribes definitively declare this to be the case. 

Moving on, we come to the question of who has authority over these lands.  According to the aforementioned treaties with Native Americans, any Native American lands are sovereign nations governed by the Native American tribes.  The Native American tribes alone have the right and authority to make their own laws, and determine their own punishments for violations of such laws.
 
It is my belief that, with notable exceptions, it is not the federal government's place to dictate to a sovereign nation what that nation can and cannot do.  As such, I would rule in favor of Mr. Murphy's argument that the State of Oklahoma lacks jurisdiction in his murder case (in my view, such jurisdiction lies with the Creek Nation).  Therefore, I would also rule that any action taken by the State against Mr. Murphy is null and void.