@dblanchard I wouldn’t say this ruling touches those directly (though I haven’t made it all the way through the opinion yet). The overall gist of this is a question of State vs Federal jurisdiction on tribal land. This maintains “tribal land” can only be redefined by Congress.
Posted
in
Comments
3 responses
@dblanchard In this case, the State was trying to argue that the land was ceded through other things, but Court emphasizes that only Congress and only intentionally can cede it.
Those laws are federal and courts have maintained that US still hold plenary power.
@dblanchard The later appropriation acts (allowing NAs to sell their individually-owned land to white folks)… is interesting. I think this decision sidesteps that by still saying it is “Indian country” without regard to who lives there and is scoped to only the MCA.
@dblanchard Will be really interesting to see how this case is applied in questioning those acts.