The addition of Murphy to the docket marks the second time in two years that the justices have agreed to resolve a boundary matter. In Nebraska v. Parker , the Supreme Court -- by a unanimous vote of 8 to 0 -- held that Congress did not diminish the reservation of the Omaha Tribe. "Only Congress has the power to diminish a reservation," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the March 2016 decision. But as Thomas further explained, reservation boundary disputes are extremely fact intensive. Though the foremost factor is Congressional intent, courts can consider other circumstances, such as the presence of non-Indians in a reservation that has been opened up to allotment. The state is indeed hoping its "unique history" will sway the Supreme Court. Hunter's petition, filed earlier this year, argued that Oklahoma's very existence is predicated on the "systematic and deliberate" termination of the so-called Five Civilized Tribes, one of which is the Muscogee Nation. "To prepare the Indian Territory for statehood, Congress systematically dismantled tribal governments and their communal ownership of lands," Hunter wrote. "The birth of our forty-sixth state marked the culmination of a two-decade legislative campaign to dissolve the Five Tribes’ communal territories." And in presenting that history to the high court, Oklahoma is counting on a prominent and powerful ally. The Trump administration, without being asked for its views, submitted a brief which said that "Congress disestablished the Creek Nation’s territory and largely stripped its governmental authority."
Some bad news for Indian Country as the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Royal v. Murphy. At issue is whether the reservation of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation was diminished by Congress. A lower court ruled that it wasn't, a victory that is now in doubt. pic.twitter.com/0vs90Hf9dG— indianz.com (@indianz) May 21, 2018
"Congress broke up the Creek Nation’s domain, substituting individual for communal ownership and distributing the proceeds to individual Indians," Noel J. Francisco, the Trump administration's Solicitor General, wrote in the March 9 brief. "Congress also eliminated the Creek Nation’s tribal courts and provided for the dissolution of the tribal government, divestment of tribal property, and distribution of tribal funds," the brief continued. "These actions demonstrate that Congress did not intend for the Creek Nation’s historic lands to constitute a continuing reservation." Industry interests are also siding with the state. The Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association already submitted a brief and Oklahoma Oil and Gas Association, the Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association and the State Chamber of Oklahoma jointly filed a second one. That leaves Indian Country, for now, outnumbered. But tribes and their advocates have been paying close attention to the case, which has the potential to affect sovereign interests in a wide area of Oklahoma -- almost the entire eastern half, including the areas in and around Tulsa, the second-largest city in the state. "It has implications, not just for the Creek Nation, but for the other Five Civilized Tribes," Joel Williams, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation and a staff attorney at the Native American Rights Fund, told tribal leaders earlier this year.
The case is also notable because of the underlying circumstances. Patrick Dwayne Murphy, a citizen of the Muscogee Nation, has been sentenced to death in Oklahoma for murdering George Jacobs, a fellow tribal citizen, in 1999. But since 10th Circuit concluded that the incident occurred within the boundaries of the Muscogee Nation, as described by an 1866 treaty, the state lacked jurisdiction. The federal government would then be responsible for prosecuting Murphy and might not be able to pursue the death penalty, due to the unique status of Indian Country. "Because Mr. Murphy is an Indian and because the crime occurred in Indian Country, the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction. Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction," Judge Scott Matheson Jr., wrote at the conclusion of the court's 126-page opinion, in which the histories of the Muscogee Nation and the state of Oklahoma were examined at length. The 10th Circuit, incidentally, is where Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court's newest member, spent a decade. During his time there, he sided with the Ute Tribe in a long-running reservation boundary dispute in Utah.
"Over the last forty years the questions haven’t changed — and neither have our answers. We just keep rolling the rock," Gorsuch wrote at the time in Ute Tribe v. Utah. But Gorsuch's expertise -- Ute leaders believe his participation was instrumental to their victory -- hasn't helped the Muscogee Nation. According to the Supreme Court's order list, the new justice "took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition." That means Gorsuch won't be participating in oral arguments, which are expected this fall. The case will be decided by the remaining eight justices -- all of whom took part in Nebraska v. Parker two years ago, following the death of Antonin Scalia. Royal v. Murphy isn't the only boundary case on the Supreme Court's radar. The Eastern Shoshone Tribe and the Northern Arapaho Tribe are locked in a battle with the state of Wyoming over the status of the asking the justices to take a look at their Wind River Reservation. A divided panel of the 10th Circuit ruled against the tribes in February 2017, holding that Congress indeed intended to dismantle a portion of the reservation. "We believe Congress’s use of the word 'cede' can only mean one thing — a diminished reservation," Chief Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich wrote in the 2 to 1 decision. The tribes subsequently asked the 10th Circuit to rehear the case, and that's when the Trump administration abandoned them. The Department of Justice is asking the Supreme Court not to hear the petitions in Eastern Shoshone Tribe v. Wyoming and Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Wyoming. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision:
Murphy v. Royal [Revised] (November 9, 2017)
Murphy v. Royal [Original] (August 8, 2017) Related Stories:
Another Indian law case in limbo as high court turns to Trump again (May 14, 2018)
Trump administration sides with industry in reservation boundary case (April 3, 2018)
Tribes take Wind River Reservation boundary case to Supreme Court (February 22, 2018)
Tribes see continued challenges as more cases head to highest court (February 21, 2018)
Appeals court won't revisit historic decision in Muscogee Nation boundary case (November 9, 2017)
Muscogee Nation citizen seeks dismissal of murder charge as boundary case heats up (September 29, 2017)
Oklahoma plans to ask court to reconsider ruling on Muscogee Nation boundaries (August 24, 2017)
Trump administration abandons tribes in battle over boundaries of reservation in Wyoming (August 14, 2017)
Muscogee Nation welcomes decision affirming the boundaries of its reservation (August 9, 2017)
Muscogee Nation citizen wins reversal of death penalty conviction in Oklahoma (August 8, 2017)
Appeals court hears slew of Indian cases amid focus on Supreme Court nominee (March 23, 2017)