Decoding McGirt v. Oklahoma: Jurisdiction Insights

Understanding the Jurisdictional Debate in Oklahoma v. McGirt

Hi, my name is Aaron Grubb. I’m a Tahlequah misdemeanor attorney at Wirth Law Office, and in this video, we’re going to talk about the jurisdictional issue in McGirt v. Oklahoma and introduce our mini-series covering this important case.

So, in this 2020 case, the defendant, McGirt, brought a post-conviction relief claim arguing that because he was a tribal citizen and his offense took place on Muscogee Creek Nation land, the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to convict him. Instead, he argued, jurisdiction should have belonged to either the Muscogee Creek Nation or the federal government.

The Impact of McGirt v. Oklahoma

The reason this became such a significant issue is that Oklahoma had long operated under the assumption that these reservations no longer existed. McGirt argued that there had never been a formal dissolution of the Muscogee Creek Nation reservation, and that since Congress had never taken affirmative steps to disestablish it, the reservation still legally existed.

The Supreme Court agreed. In McGirt v. Oklahoma, the Court held that the Muscogee Creek Nation reservation was never disestablished and remains intact to this day. Because of that, Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction over McGirt’s criminal case.

Wider Implications of the Ruling

The result was that his conviction was overturned, and the ruling has had a widespread impact—particularly across eastern Oklahoma—where several other tribal reservations may similarly still exist under the same legal framework.

If you have further questions about McGirt v. Oklahoma or are interested in how this ruling might affect your own legal situation, please contact us here at Wirth Law Office or check out our other videos on this topic.