Case No. 17-1107 | 10th Cir.
Preview by Michelle Divelbiss, Online Editor
The background of Carpenter v. Murphy reads like a gruesome true crime novel, but the case hinges on jurisdiction over Indian reservations in Oklahoma and whether the reservation of the Muscogee Creek Nation (“Creek Nation”) still exists or was disestablished by Congress. For a vivid description of the gruesome events, see Brief for Petitioner at 16, Carpenter v. Murphy, No. 17-1107 (U.S. filed July 23, 2018).
Respondent Patrick Murphy, a member of the Creek Nation, was convicted of murdering “his girlfriend’s former lover,” George Jacobs—another member of the Creek Nation. Id. at 15–16. Although he was tried and convicted by the state of Oklahoma, Murphy later argued that the state did not have jurisdiction because the crime was committed on the Creek reservation and because Murphy is a member of the Creek Nation. Under the Major Crimes Act, “[a]ny Indian who commits . . . murder . . .shall be subject to the same law and penalties as all other persons committing [it], within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a) (2018) (emphasis added). The parties and the courts have disagreed about whether the Congress disestablished the 1866 boundaries of the Creek reservation and therefore dispute whether the state had jurisdiction to convict Murphy.
Under a test developed in Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984), the Tenth Circuit evaluated whether statutory “text ‘expressly’ disestablished or diminished the boundaries of the Creek Nation.” Brief for Petitioner at 18, Carpenter v. Murphy, No. 17-1107 (U.S. filed July 23, 2018). The Tenth Circuit found that there was no disestablishment of the Creek Nation territory.
Here, Petitioner argues that the creation of the State of Oklahoma expressly and necessarily disestablished the reservation’s boundaries. Further, Petitioner argues that if the reservation’s boundaries still existed, the reservation would effectively split Oklahoma in two, with the Indian reservation comprising nearly one-half of the state. Respondent Murphy describes a series of complicated negotiations and decisions between Congress and the Creek Nation and argues that there is no statutory text that disestablishes the reservation. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court analyzes the statutory text in light of complicated negotiations between the Creek Nation and Congress more than 150 years ago.