scotland news

Less than two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled McGirt v. Oklahoma By a vote of 5 to 4, much of eastern Oklahoma was reserved for the Creek Nation in the 19th century, but remains for the purposes of a federal law that gives the federal government the sole authority to judge certain significant “Any Indian” in the crime “State of India”.On Friday, the justices — Justice Amy Coney Barrett replaced the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was in McGirt Majority – to what extent agree to consider McGirt Applicable, but they refused to reconsider the decision itself, which the state said had “a more immediate and destabilizing effect on life in states across the United States” than any other recent court decision.

justices Grant Review inside Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta case, he was convicted of neglecting his five-year-old stepdaughter. Although Castro-Huerta is not Native American, his stepdaughter was a member of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians, and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals quashed his conviction for the crime that occurred in the Indian state. conviction.The decision was based on the court’s conclusion that McGirt Not only for serious crimes committed by Native Americans, but also for crimes committed by others in Indian countries.

Oklahoma filed Over 30 separate petitions Ask the judge to deny McGirt. It told the justices that the impact of the decision was “catastrophic and worse by the day.” Thousands of victims of crime are now seeking justice from federal and tribal prosecutors, overwhelming those offices and federal district courts and leaving many crimes “uninvestigated and unprosecuted,” the state wrote. Oklahoma added that the decision also threatens “hundreds of millions of dollars in state tax revenue.” The state argues that while the court may “believe that compromise or congressional action may limit interference with its decision,” now it’s clear that “neither will arise.” “Only a court,” the state stressed, “can correct the problems it caused, and this case provides it with an opportunity to do so before the damage becomes irreversible.”

Castro-Huerta urged the justices to reject the scrutiny, telling them the state has repeatedly acknowledged that it does not have the authority to hear cases against Native Americans — cases like this — on lands traditionally reserved for Native Americans by Congress.The court should not re-examine its McGirt, he argued. “It hardly goes without saying that this Court will not overrule statutory decisions based solely on personnel changes,” he wrote, especially when Congress can make changes that the state seeks.

In a brief order Friday afternoon, the justices agreed to address only the first issue raised in the state’s petition, namely McGirt Prohibition of states from prosecuting non-Native defendants for crimes against Native Americans in the “country of India.” The court presents arguments at an April 2022 debate and will rule in the summer.

The judge is expected to issue more orders at Friday’s meeting at 9:30 a.m. Monday, followed by an opinion on the contested case at 10 a.m.

this article is Originally Posted on Howe on the Court.