In McGirt v. Oklahoma, parties disputed sovereignty over a criminal defendant for a crime committed on contested native lands. In a groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court held that large parts of Oklahoma fell under tribal criminal jurisdiction previously unrecognized. The ruling was widely celebrated amid growing support for indigenous land rights. Over the last few decades, the United States has seen a rebirth of the Land Back Movement, which pushes for the restoration of native land rights to tribes. Additionally, indigenous leaders have been pushing for the ratification of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which defines the rights of indigenous people to land ownership and cultural heritage. The effects McGirt will have on tribal land rights nationally remains unclear. While the majority’s holding outlines this case as a specific, isolated occurrence, the Roberts dissent claims such a precedent could be widely used—and misused—in future cases.5 This In Brief compares the fears of the Roberts dissent in McGirt against the realities of land rights for indigenous people. Ultimately, it concludes that while McGirt may advance native land rights of the Muscogee Tribe, a larger human rights framework is needed to meet the expectations of tribal land return the Roberts dissent puts forth.
Dissenting into the Future: The Supreme Court’s Dissent in McGirt, UNDRIP, and the Future of Indigenous Land Rights
