Read on Twitter
For the Political Scientists, and especially the Law and Courts people, McGirt v. Oklahoma is BIG deal. After years of trouncing on treaty rights, the Court resoundingly said, "No," and it could not be more rare. /1
@Rebecca_A_Reid and I have analyzed all SCOTUS cases involving Indigenous Peoples from 1969-2010, a total of 104 cases. We demonstrate citation to a specific treaty generally has no effect on the outcome of the case /2
But it absolutely should! Treaties are co-equal to federal law in the US, and as was the case in McGirt, most cases citing a treaty focus on a state ignoring soverignty or property based claims. /3
Historically, the Court has not #HonorTheTreaties.
Indeed, the treaties didn't seem to matter w/r to the outcome of cases. That is why McGirt matters. The Court stated clearly that the 1866 Treaty with the Creeks is good law and controls the outcome. /4
Indeed, the treaties didn't seem to matter w/r to the outcome of cases. That is why McGirt matters. The Court stated clearly that the 1866 Treaty with the Creeks is good law and controls the outcome. /4
Treaties with federally recognized tribes have been under attack since at least 1871. Rebecca and I wrote in 2017: /5
We found that citations to treaties do not effect the Court's decision-making. Today they did, and I am over-joyed to be wrong.
One case doesn't change a trend, but it is a start. #HonorTheTreaties
One case doesn't change a trend, but it is a start. #HonorTheTreaties
