So we are still in this murky area where time will tell how things are going to go, but it does not seem that Murphy McGirt`s agreement is going in principle somewhere at this stage. Between the effects of the Supreme Court decision, the existing laws that regulate the reservations and the amendments described in the agreement in principle, there is much to be unpacked for tribal citizens. Lauren King is an Indian law professor, lawyer with Foster Garvey PC and citizen of the Muscogee Nation (Creek). She spoke to Rebecca Nagle by email to Native News Online about what the agreement means to tribal and ostoklahoma citizens. Even if they are passed, I don`t think it will save previous beliefs, but it doesn`t seem that the tribes agree, and it doesn`t seem that there`s much support in Congress for anything without the consent of the tribes. But the document in principle resulting from these negotiations is a dangerous disappointment. The tribes and the state seem to have already acknowledged their defeat on the assumption that Congress will intervene immediately through legislation. Worse, instead of showing – as the tribe showed to the Supreme Court – that tribal, state and local governments can cope with all the disruptions, the signatories of the agreement seem in principle to defend. The agreement, which purports to seek predictability and clarity, in principle asks Congress to codify the existing principles of Indian federal law.
Attorney General Mike Hunter and chief of the tribe, which issued, under the decision McGirt v. Oklahoma on Thursday, an agreement in principle for proposed federal laws, which will clarify the state and tribal jurisdiction in criminal and civil matters. The agreement in principle is largely intended to legislate on the long-standing principles of Indian federal law, which are already in force in Indian countries. Before and after McGirt, the tribes already have criminal jurisdiction over The Indians in the Indian country. States are already excluded from the persecution of Indians. States, tribes and the federal government are already cooperating on public safety. Tribal powers over non-members are governed by the test of Montana and its descendants. Counsel for the Creek Nation made this clear in its briefing and during the oral proceedings.
Now we have the Attorney General saying that there is an agreement with the tribes, that at least two of the five tribes say there is no agreement. “While there are many other details to be created in the near future, we believe this civil and criminal jurisdictional agreement is the best way to protect the public and promote continued economic growth in Oklahoma,” said Attorney General Hunter. “My commitment to our tribal partners is to work together to find common ground on the issues highlighted by this case. The tribal nations of Oklahoma are a fundamental part of Oklahoma`s culture, economy, politics and governance. The relationship between the tribes and my office is based on trust and mutual respect. And this synergism was essential to the successful formation of this important agreement. The agreement did not explicitly refer to the impact on energy legislation. But under the title of civil justice, he said that some of the feedback I`ve heard from tribal communities is that it could potentially make them the most persecuted and monitored people in America, because instead of taking the jurisdiction of the state and giving them to the feds and tribes, like McGirt`s decision for many things That`s what`s happening. , suggest that this agreement would effectively return it to the States, but that it would not remove it from the diet or strain.