Abstract
The 2020 US Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma recognized surviving rights of the Creek nation in a reservation covering much of eastern Oklahoma. This article analyzes the majority opinion's use of textualism, which relies on close reading of Congressional acts, rather than considerations of policy or equity, to rule in favor of the Creek position. The dissent, ostensibly using the same analytical approach, comes to the opposite conclusion by defending a number of oppressive measures taken by the US Government to displace the Creek. Because the decision was 5-4, with the late Justice Ginsburg in the majority, the future impact of this decision is very much in doubt.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
