Talk:McGirt v. Oklahoma

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michilds382.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Jimcy or Jimmy?
Is this person's name Jimcy or just Jimmy? I can find sources for both but it seems like he might just be Jimmy... Tkondrashov (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The SCOTUS paperwork has Jimcy. I suspect some sources typoed that as "Jimmy" which propagated, but the court documents are all "Jimcy". --M asem (t) 17:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Fourteenth Amendment Issues
How does McGirt not violate the Fourteenth amendment equal protection clause based upon race? Given that any treaty which violates the U.S. constitution is void to the extent of any constitutional violation (e.g. congress can't grant the tribes any right to violate the U.S. Constitution which is the supreme law over all Indian treaties as far as the federal courts are concerned), It seems that McGirt is patently wrong at common law as well as at federal statutory law because McGirt as it sits would seemingly require the court to have overruled Brown v.Board of Education,347 U.S. 483 and to reaffirm Plessy v. Furguson 163 U.S. 537 if the court is to suggest that race may in any way play into how a criminal case is prosecuted. Also Cf. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 242, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241, etc. A section should be developed to at least attempt to address these issues as to at least demonstrate the basic interplay in terms of constitutional law theory if nothing else, as to demonstrate the comity principle, if this article is at all to be useful to anyone. 2600:8804:7100:4000:D081:B8E8:C082:3EFE (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Under U.S. law, being "Indian" is not a racial category; it's a political category. See Morton v. Mancari. This law professor blog post offers some more explanation. So the 14th amendment isn't really implicated here, unless there are reliable sources discussing it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, Neil Gorsuch mentioned this in his concurrence in Haaland v. Brackeen today. Page 15 of the concurrence: The Fourteenth Amendment would later reprise this language, Amdt. 14, §2, confirming both the enduring sovereignty of Tribes and the bedrock principle that Indian status is a “political rather than racial” classificationn, Morton v. Mancari. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Overruling
Should we add an overruling section to the infobox? Technically Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta overruled McGirt in part (similarly to when Planned Parenthood v. Casey overruled Roe v. Wade in part)? Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Everything I've seen from a legal analysis is that the Castro-Huerta case only clarified the decision from McGirt, rather than overrule any part of it. M asem (t) 21:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)