{"id":385,"date":"2020-07-13T09:28:19","date_gmt":"2020-07-13T13:28:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indianz.com\/supremecourt\/?p=385"},"modified":"2020-07-13T09:28:19","modified_gmt":"2020-07-13T13:28:19","slug":"native-american-journalists-association-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/indianz.com\/z\/supremecourt\/2020\/07\/13\/native-american-journalists-association-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Native American Journalists Association"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"NAJA-NARF\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n

NAJA Reporting Guide: U.S. Supreme Court cases McGirt\u00a0<\/span>v. Oklahoma and Sharp v. Murphy<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n

On Thursday, July 9, 2020, the final decision day of its 2019-2020 term, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jimcy McGirt<\/span> in McGirt<\/span> v. Oklahoma<\/a> that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation remains intact. The Native American Journalists Association and Native American Rights Fund developed this reporting guide as a tool for newsrooms reporting on Indian Country.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Supreme Court cases McGirt<\/span> v. Oklahoma and Sharp v. Murphy<\/a>presented unique questions about criminal jurisdiction over Indians in parts of Eastern Oklahoma. Both cases asked the Supreme Court to determine whether the Muscogee (Creek) Nation\u2019s historic boundaries in Oklahoma constitute an \u201cIndian reservation\u201d today.<\/p>\n

Defendants McGirt<\/span> (whose case came through the Oklahoma state courts) and Patrick Murphy (whose case came through the federal courts) are citizens of federally recognized tribes who were convicted by the State of Oklahoma for crimes that occurred within the boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. In most cases, states have no jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians or against Indians on reservations.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s decision in McGirt<\/span> v. Oklahoma affirms the tribe\u2019s reservation status, upholding the argument<\/a> that Congress never disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) reservation. That means since the Muscogee (Creek) Nation is an Indian reservation, McGirt<\/span> and Murphy were tried in the wrong court, and their convictions must be thrown out.<\/p>\n

Scrutinize historical context<\/strong>
\nTreaties between tribal nations and the federal government are the supreme law of the land according to the U.S. Constitution. These treaties provide crucial context for accurate reporting on contemporary tribal affairs.<\/p>\n

This case turns on the 19th century treaties between the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the United States, and a series of statutes Congress enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The state of Oklahoma and its allies argued those statutes dismantled the Muscogee (Creek) Nation\u2019s reservation and left in its place only individual parcels of Indian land where federal jurisdiction limits the state\u2019s authority. Muscogee (Creek) Nation, McGirt<\/span>, Murphy and their allies argued that Congress might have at one time intended to dismantle the reservation, but changed its mind and ultimately left the reservation intact, preserving federal jurisdiction (and ousting state jurisdiction) throughout the reservation for crimes involving Indians.<\/p>\n

Choose sources wisely<\/strong>
\nReporters should seek sources with relevant professional experience, tribal historians or leaders and avoid interviewing non-experts on federal Indian law. Organizations like the Native American Rights Fund<\/a> and the National Congress of American Indians<\/a> can inform coverage with deep context and history. Universities across the U.S. with Indigenous law programs may provide legal experts and scholars as knowledgeable sources. For more information on sourcing in Indian Country, refer to the NAJA Indigenous Expert Guide<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Clearly explain impact<\/strong>
\nPast convictions of tribal citizens by the State of Oklahoma could be overturned; but the issue of when a new Supreme Court decision affects past criminal convictions is itself very complicated, so the effect on past convictions is uncertain.<\/p>\n