Emergency record

Supreme Court Wednesday indeed A request from Oklahoma allows Oklahoma to retain custody of death row inmates, and the court is considering whether it should clarify the meaning of last year’s ruling, that is, Oklahoma’s treatment of land reserved for natives Certain crimes committed have no jurisdiction.

The prisoner Shaun Bosse was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Katrina Griffin and her two children in 2010.He now claims that his conviction is invalid under the following provisions McGill v Oklahoma Because Griffin and her children are members of the Chickasaw Nation, and the crime occurred within the territory of the Native American Reservation. The Oklahoma Court of Appeals agreed and reversed his conviction and sentence. If the ruling goes into effect, Oklahoma will have to hand over Bosse to federal authorities (the latter has filed separate criminal charges against him). However, the Supreme Court-due to the opposition of the court’s three liberal judges-approved the state’s request to shelve the Oklahoma court ruling, and the state filed a petition asking the judges to handle the case on the merits.

The case involves the scope of the 5-4 ruling last year McGilltJudge Ruth Bader Ginsburg and other liberal judges joined Judge Neil Gorsuch’s ruling, which found that most of eastern Oklahoma (Reserved for the creek country in the 19th century) is still reserved for federal law, authorizing the federal government to try certain major crimes committed by “any Indian” in the “Indian State”.After McGilltMany prisoners convicted in Oklahoma courts began to argue that their convictions were invalid because they or their victims were Native Americans.In the Bosse case, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that even though Bosse himself is not a Native American, the state lacks jurisdiction to sue him on the following grounds McGillt.

Oklahoma urgently filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court last month. Ask the judge Block the rulings of state courts and weigh whether states have the right to prosecute non-Native Americans for crimes committed on Native American lands. The state of Oklahoma told the justices that this issue “is now vital to the country and Indian victims” because the number of people living in the area is now recognized as reserved. McGillt. Oklahoma added that allowing states to prosecute such cases would provide “additional guarantees that tribal members who become victims of crime will receive judicial assistance from the federal government, the state government, or both. It minimizes Indians. Human abusers and murderers have the opportunity to escape punishment and protect the Indians from violence to the greatest extent.

hit Urge the justices Avoid disputes. He believes that Oklahoma’s argument that the state should also be able to prosecute crimes against Native Americans runs counter to the Supreme Court’s more than a century-long ruling. Boss went on to say that Oklahoma also did not indicate that if the state court’s decision remains in place, it will be permanently damaged: what will only happen is that Boss will be taken into federal custody for federal prosecution. If the Supreme Court finally reviews the case based on the merits of the case and overturns the state court’s ruling, Bosse continues to say that his conviction and death sentence will be restored.Although Oklahoma “also raised concerns about other cases, unlike here, the United States may not detain or prosecute the United States,” Boss told the judiciary, “if worried, the state should seek suspension. There. “

Acting US Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar (Elizabeth Prelogar) took relatively unusual filing steps without getting the justice’s request. Introduction to “Friends of the Court” She agrees with Boss that Oklahoma has no right to try his crimes against Native Americans. Prelogar wrote: “There is no basis for subverting people’s long-term understanding of the division of federal, state, and tribal jurisdictions in India.” She concluded: “On the contrary, the court reaffirmed the established rule that a country is against non-Indians against Indians. There is no jurisdiction over Indian crimes in the country.”

In a brief unsigned order on Wednesday morning, the court set aside the state court’s ruling until Oklahoma can file its petition for review. The court pointed out that if the petition is rejected, the state court’s decision can take effect; and vice versa. If the request is approved, the ruling will remain until the Supreme Court issues a ruling.

The three liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan all stated that they would have rejected Oklahoma’s request, but they did not provide any opposition. Explanation. Other judges did not publicly record their votes, although Oklahoma requires at least five votes to retain the state court’s decision.

This post is Originally published on the court Hao Hao.