Post by less1brain on Oct 12, 2020 8:06:14 GMT -8
JUSTICE GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court:
On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise. Forced
to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the
Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in
the West would be secure forever. In exchange for ceding
“all their land, East of the Mississippi river,” the U. S. government
agreed by treaty that “[t]he Creek country west of
the Mississippi shall be solemnly guarantied to the Creek
Indians.” Treaty With the Creeks, Arts. I, XIV, Mar. 24,
1832, 7 Stat. 366, 368 (1832 Treaty). Both parties settled
on boundary lines for a new and “permanent home to the
whole Creek nation,” located in what is now Oklahoma.
Treaty With the Creeks, preamble, Feb. 14, 1833, 7 Stat.
418 (1833 Treaty). The government further promised that
“[no] State or Territory [shall] ever have a right to pass laws
for the government of such Indians, but they shall be allowed to govern themselves.” 1832 Treaty, Art. XIV, 7 Stat.
368.
Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.
Was this guy aiming to win the first Pulitzer Prize for a Supreme Court decision?
On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise. Forced
to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the
Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in
the West would be secure forever. In exchange for ceding
“all their land, East of the Mississippi river,” the U. S. government
agreed by treaty that “[t]he Creek country west of
the Mississippi shall be solemnly guarantied to the Creek
Indians.” Treaty With the Creeks, Arts. I, XIV, Mar. 24,
1832, 7 Stat. 366, 368 (1832 Treaty). Both parties settled
on boundary lines for a new and “permanent home to the
whole Creek nation,” located in what is now Oklahoma.
Treaty With the Creeks, preamble, Feb. 14, 1833, 7 Stat.
418 (1833 Treaty). The government further promised that
“[no] State or Territory [shall] ever have a right to pass laws
for the government of such Indians, but they shall be allowed to govern themselves.” 1832 Treaty, Art. XIV, 7 Stat.
368.
Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.
Was this guy aiming to win the first Pulitzer Prize for a Supreme Court decision?
