because 1. 99% of US does not understand that "tribal" nations are sovereign; thus, 2. they weren't expecting SCOTUS to respect international "law of nations" or 3. much less observe the letter of federal statutes.

(1) Once  a federal reservation is established, only  Congress can diminish or disestablish it. Doing so requires a clear expression of congressional intent. Pp. 6-8.
(2) Oklahoma claims that Congress ended the Creek Reservation during the so-called "allotment era"--a period when Congress sought to pressure many tribes to abandon their communal lifestyles and parcel their lands into smaller lots owned by individual tribal members. Missing from the allotment-era agreement with the Creek, see 31 Stat. 862-864, however, is any statute evincing anything like the "present and total surrender of all tribal interests" in the affected lands. And this Court has already rejected the argument that allotments automatically ended reservations. Pp. 8-13
(3) Oklahoma points to other ways Congress intruded on the Creeks' promised right to self-governance during the allotment era, including abolishing the Creeks' tribal courts, 30 Stat. 504-505, and requiring Presidential approval for certain tribal ordinances, 31 Stat. 872. But these laws fall short of eliminating all tribal interest in the contested lands. Pp. 13-17.
[...]
(e) Finally, Oklahoma warns of the potential consequences that will follow a ruling against it, such as unsettling an untold number of convictions and frustrating the State's ability to prosecute crimes in the future. This Court is aware of the potential for cost and conflict around jurisdictional boundaries. But Oklahoma and its tribes have proven time and again that they can work successfully together as partners, and Congress remains free to supplement its statutory directions about the lands in question at any time. Pp. 36-42.

McGIRT v. OKLAHOMA, with Sharp v. Murphy (criminal appellant)

GORSUCH, J., delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.  ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALITO and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined, except as to footnote 9. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

This is a "narrow" judgement primarily affirming law enforcement between governments, inter alia, not altering Creek territorial area--reduced in 1866 to present size, notwithstanding sales of personal real estate. Always read the footnotes.


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

Since it could turn out to be a pretty big deal, I find it hard to believe that it will actually be enforced. Didn't president Jackson have a pithy statement on the relationship between the judiciary and enforcement?