Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt praised the court, calling it a “pivotal moment” in a statement. Stitt was fighting for state sovereignty over the issue and feared that if his side lost, it could open an avenue for individuals to gain access to abortion in tribal lands as a way of circumventing the state’s strict abortion rules. .
“We believe that there is a possibility that some breeds will try to have a custom abortion,” he said in an interview with KTUL before giving his opinion. “They believe that you can be a 1/1000 member of the tribe and not have to follow state law. And so that is something we are watching.” Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion on the case Wednesday, along with Supreme Judges John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett. He said the constitution “allows a state to exercise jurisdiction over an Indian country”. “The Indian country is part of the state, not separate from the state,” Cavanaugh wrote. Cavanaugh affirmed a controversial 2020 ruling called McGirt v. Oklahoma, in which the court ruled that Congress had never formally abolished Creek Reservation and that a large portion of eastern Oklahoma should therefore be considered Indian territory. That opinion was drafted by Judge Neil Gorsuch and joined by Liberals in court, who disagreed with Wednesday’s ruling. McGirth had caused chaos and uncertainty in Oklahoma and raised urgent questions about the extent of a state’s jurisdiction over Indian land. State courts began overturning many convictions that ruled Oklahoma had no jurisdiction. The state returned to the Supreme Court asking him to overthrow McGirt. State attorneys hoped Barrett – who ousted the late Liberal Liberal Justice Ruth Bender Ginsburg – would turn the majority of the court in their favor. The judges agreed to take up the dispute, but only considered the scope of McGirt instead of considering whether to overturn it immediately. All parties acknowledged that the federal government had jurisdiction to prosecute non-Native Americans for racial crimes, but the new case raised questions about whether the state also had jurisdiction. The court on Wednesday said it did.
Gorsuch, who now disagrees with Conservative Barrett, overturned the majority decision. In a dispute full of references to Native American history, Gorsuch accused the majority of allowing “Oklahoma to infiltrate a feature of tribal sovereignty recognized since its inception.” “One can only hope that the political branches and the future courts will do their duty to honor the promises of this Nation, even as we have not been able to make our own today,” he said. Cherokee leader Chuck Hoskin Jr. issued a statement criticizing the court’s action, saying the Supreme Court had “ruled against the legal precedent and the basic principles of congressional authority under Indian law”. Hoskin said that while he was disappointed with the decision, “it does not diminish our commitment to fulfill our responsibilities for public safety and to protect the people of Oklahoma in our detention and throughout the state.”
The dispute was initially started by the lawyers of Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta, who is not a member of the tribe, and he was convicted of child neglect in a case involving his stepdaughter, who is a member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. The stepdaughter has cerebral palsy and is legally blind. In 2015, Castro-Huerta’s sister-in-law was at home and noted that her stepdaughter was dehydrated, emaciated and covered in lice and feces. When asked, Castro-Huerta admitted that he had malnourished her. The state of Oklahoma has accused both Castro-Huerta and his wife of neglecting children. Castro-Huerto was sentenced to 35 years in prison. Following his conviction, the Supreme Court ruled that McGirt and Castro-Huerta’s attorneys had challenged his conviction, arguing that only the federal government had jurisdiction to prosecute him. While his state appeals court was pending, a large federal court in Oklahoma charged him with the same conduct. He accepted a seven-year prison sentence. In his decision against him on Wednesday, Cavanaugh noted that Castro-Huerta “actually received a 28-year reduction in his sentence as a result of McGirth.”