You live in a state, went to school in a state, and continue to reside in a state where we have ignored treaties for 100+ years. If you're a homeowner, the land you own was probably taken away from a tribe at some point.

I don't think folks in Europe get broken up because the Holy Roman Empire conquered their Duchy and incorporated it into the Empire only to have the Empire dissolve and national lines get drawn following a couple of centuries of war.

The history here is very complicated, and it may be a touch reductive, but if these tribes are going to let the world go on as if they didn't have the authority they're trying to claim today, them claiming that power at this juncture doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Treaties are broken. We literally do pick and choose which ones we follow. Right now, we're treaty-bound to be defending Ukraine from any foreign invader and we're not doing that--and that treaty isn't even 30 years old.

You're talking about making the state a jurisdictional and ecological smattering of jurisdictions where regulatory compliance will always be a patchwork in which a lot of companies won't want to do business. This isn't good for anyone.

I just haven't heard you make one good argument yet. You make assumptions about what the tribes would do with more sovereignty and what more sovereignty looks like. You then make the bizarre argument that they'd somehow do worse than the Oklahoma state government in attracting businesses?!? What on earth are you talking about? Oklahoma's government couldn't be more dysfunctional and unattractive to businesses? Do you think businesses want to relocate in a state where a blowhard loser like Ryan Walters is the Secretary of Education? The Chickasaw Nation alone has more business acumen than the current government. So, yeah, I trust that the tribes would figure it out. But, besides that, it's literally the morally and legally right thing to do.

I just haven't heard you make one good argument yet. You make assumptions about what the tribes would do with more sovereignty and what more sovereignty looks like. You then make the bizarre argument that they'd somehow do worse than the Oklahoma state government in attracting businesses?!? What on earth are you talking about? Oklahoma's government couldn't be more dysfunctional and unattractive to businesses? Do you think businesses want to relocate in a state where a blowhard loser like Ryan Walters is the Secretary of Education? The Chickasaw Nation alone has more business acumen than the current government. So, yeah, I trust that the tribes would figure it out. But, besides that, it's literally the morally and legally right thing to do.

Ah yes, so the Chickasaw Nation? Lots of new businesses locating in Ada these days?

So your argument is that we have a few years of subpar leaders in Oklahoma and therefore, it'd be better for the state to have 39! different jurisdictions and regulatory frameworks to deal with? Imagine a company wanting to build a pipeline and having to deal with multiple tribal governments to do it, each extracting something different. Imagine locating a factory within tribal lands--how would you know whether the regulatory framework would be stable from year to year? Just look at Osage Wind LLC, Enel Kansas LLC and Enel Green Power North America Inc. who invested $300 million into a new wind farm thinking they could build a wind farm in Oklahoma the same way they built in Kansas only to be hit with a federal lawsuit and get a shakedown from the Osage Nation wanting their pound of flesh. You think power generators are going to think twice before building in eastern Oklahoma from now on?

The fact is Oklahoma is very attractive to business so long as the business doesn't need an educated workforce, and try as they might, the tribes aren't really doing much better on education than the state of Oklahoma.

And morally and legally right? You'll need to consult a priest and an appellate court on those issues. They're definitely up to interpretation.

You live in a state, went to school in a state, and continue to reside in a state where we have ignored treaties for 100+ years. If you're a homeowner, the land you own was probably taken away from a tribe at some point.

I don't think folks in Europe get broken up because the Holy Roman Empire conquered their Duchy and incorporated it into the Empire only to have the Empire dissolve and national lines get drawn following a couple of centuries of war.


This is where you really start to go off into nonsense. This isn't ancient history being dug up from centuries ago. My wife's great-grandparents signed the Dawes Rolls. These are people she knew. He father still owned the family allotment. The Indian house that was built on the land still stands. He grew up in that house.

The impacted parties are not people back in history, they are US Citizens today with all the rights you have to enforce laws and treaties that impact you.




The history here is very complicated, and it may be a touch reductive, but if these tribes are going to let the world go on as if they didn't have the authority they're trying to claim today, them claiming that power at this juncture doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Treaties are broken. We literally do pick and choose which ones we follow. Right now, we're treaty-bound to be defending Ukraine from any foreign invader and we're not doing that--and that treaty isn't even 30 years old.

You're talking about making the state a jurisdictional and ecological smattering of jurisdictions where regulatory compliance will always be a patchwork in which a lot of companies won't want to do business. This isn't good for anyone.

The tribes aren't just "claiming" rights, they are arguing sovereignty as granted by law and treated as they have for decades in the courts. Over the last 20 to 30 years tribes have been winning more than losing. Again, these are US citizens suing in the courts for their rights. You can do the same. Lately the so-called Five Civilized Tribes have had some major wins. They are (again see the court cases I named) legally different than other tribes which is why there are so many new issues to work through as the reservations are reestablished.

Conversely the Osage Tribe overall has had some losses in court. They also are legally different from other tribes due to the fact that they were not granted their reservation by the courts but actually purchased the land from the Cherokee Nation for cash and held an actual deed to the land. The Osages have a strong argument that they have been screwed over more than any other tribe due to the fact that they held deeded land and that fact often being ignored by Congress and the courts.

As for difficulty in dealing with tribes and regulations, regulatory compliance is ALWAYS a patchwork in the United States, we are a Federal system by design, that patchwork is intentional to maintain local rights and decision making.

Lastly, maybe you should think on why dealing with tribes seems to make you specifically uncomfortable.

This is where you really start to go off into nonsense. This isn't ancient history being dug up from centuries ago. My wife's great-grandparents signed the Dawes Rolls. These are people she knew. He father still owned the family allotment. The Indian house that was built on the land still stands. He grew up in that house.

The impacted parties are not people back in history, they are US Citizens today with all the rights you have to enforce laws and treaties that impact you.




The tribes aren't just "claiming" rights, they are arguing sovereignty as granted by law and treated as they have for decades in the courts. Over the last 20 to 30 years tribes have been winning more than losing. Again, these are US citizens suing in the courts for their rights. You can do the same. Lately the so-called Five Civilized Tribes have had some major wins. They are (again see the court cases I named) legally different than other tribes which is why there are so many new issues to work through as the reservations are reestablished.

Conversely the Osage Tribe overall has had some losses in court. They also are legally different from other tribes due to the fact that they were not granted their reservation by the courts but actually purchased the land from the Cherokee Nation for cash and held an actual deed to the land. The Osages have a strong argument that they have been screwed over more than any other tribe due to the fact that they held deeded land and that fact often being ignored by Congress and the courts.

As for difficulty in dealing with tribes and regulations, regulatory compliance is ALWAYS a patchwork in the United States, we are a Federal system by design, that patchwork is intentional to maintain local rights and decision making.

Lastly, maybe you should think on why dealing with tribes seems to make you specifically uncomfortable.

no they are asking to be treated differently then that have for over 100 years ..

and because a random defense attorney had an idea to try to help a client ..

Ah yes, so the Chickasaw Nation? Lots of new businesses locating in Ada these days?

So your argument is that we have a few years of subpar leaders in Oklahoma and therefore, it'd be better for the state to have 39! different jurisdictions and regulatory frameworks to deal with? Imagine a company wanting to build a pipeline and having to deal with multiple tribal governments to do it, each extracting something different. Imagine locating a factory within tribal lands--how would you know whether the regulatory framework would be stable from year to year? Just look at Osage Wind LLC, Enel Kansas LLC and Enel Green Power North America Inc. who invested $300 million into a new wind farm thinking they could build a wind farm in Oklahoma the same way they built in Kansas only to be hit with a federal lawsuit and get a shakedown from the Osage Nation wanting their pound of flesh. You think power generators are going to think twice before building in eastern Oklahoma from now on?

The fact is Oklahoma is very attractive to business so long as the business doesn't need an educated workforce, and try as they might, the tribes aren't really doing much better on education than the state of Oklahoma.

And morally and legally right? You'll need to consult a priest and an appellate court on those issues. They're definitely up to interpretation.

When the Osage were forced into allotments, there was a difference in what happened with the land from other tribes due to the Osage holding deeded land. The tribe was able to hold onto the mineral rights for all the land in Osage County. It is how they got rich collectively when oil was found. The whole "headrights" issue that is central to the story in the Killers of the Flower Moon is about those mineral rights. So is the wind power case.

Anyway, the Osage sued Enel not as a regulatory agency but as the owner of "Wind Rights" (as part of mineral rights) in Osage County. They won. Any mineral right owner could do the same. Enell just tried to ignore the Indians and lost.

You as a lawyer should be able to understand this.

no they are asking to be treated differently then that have for over 100 years ..

and because a random defense attorney had an idea to try to help a client ..

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/103917011/pancake_bunny_400x400.jpg

no they are asking to be treated differently then that have for over 100 years ..

and because a random defense attorney had an idea to try to help a client ..

Yes, Black people also asked to be treated differently than they were in the past in this country with concern to wrong interpretations such as "separate but equal." Indigenous peoples have always argued for sovereignty and the treaties to be upheld. That's not new. While specific nations are have specific cases and legal arguments, the broader push has always been there. The reason the Supreme Court is taking these cases seriously now is because Gorsuch is the most acquainted with tribal law of any Supreme Court justice.

Continuing to argue that the U.S. should maintain an injustice from the past just because things "have been that way" is not a very good argument—especially in this country.

Continuing to argue that the U.S. should maintain an injustice from the past just because things "have been that way" is not a very good argument—especially in this country.

Laches is an equitable legal argument that we keep doing it that way because it's been done that way. So is estoppel. These are equitable arguments which have been legal arguments for over 1,000 years of common law.

Just because you don't like the arguments, doesn't make them bad.

not linking the argument doesn't make it bad. what makes it bad is that estoppel and laches don't bind the government.

I agree with Midtowner and Boulder sooner which is rare, but whatever. It really should be more political than anything. But at the end of the day, the Indians deserve their land. They just should not have control over the law. How tf are you going to enforce the law over land you can’t govern? That doesn’t make sense.

I agree with Midtowner and Boulder sooner which is rare, but whatever. It really should be more political than anything. But at the end of the day, the Indians deserve their land. They just should not have control over the law. How tf are you going to enforce the law over land you can’t govern? That doesn’t make sense.

“I personally can’t figure out how this would work” is also not a very compelling argument.

“I personally can’t figure out how this would work” is also not a very compelling argument.

"I don't know what I am talking about. I even admit I don't know what I am talking about, but have a very strong opinion anyway" is SO 21st Century America. This thread is all of that with a healthy dash of white privilege and lack of empathy. Perfectly emblematic of the times we live in.

Is this not a discussion board? To talk about and particularly may be enhance our opinions? I’m not trying to downplay anything here. Give me a break.

Is this not a discussion board? To talk about and particularly may be enhance our opinions? I’m not trying to downplay anything here. Give me a break.

Yes, but why not ask a question instead of offering an admittedly uninformed opinion?

I agree with Midtowner and Boulder sooner which is rare, but whatever. It really should be more political than anything. But at the end of the day, the Indians deserve their land. They just should not have control over the law. How tf are you going to enforce the law over land you can’t govern? That doesn’t make sense.

It's not really as simple as the Indians "deserve their land." The vast majority of that land was bargained away and sold decades ago and no one is even talking about reversing those sales. This is about who receives the ad valorem taxes from those lands, this is about mineral and water rights from the land. There are cases suggesting that even where a reservation was disestablished, if Congress did not specifically remove the mineral rights, then the tribe retains those. There are cases regarding water which cut the other way--the Winters case, for example, completely undercuts the tribal claims to water rights in the well-watered eastern part of the state as it held there's an implicit grant of sufficient water rights to irrigate the irrigable land within the tribal boundaries (as it was implied [again, don't you love how they get all of this stuff through implicit language, but can't lose stuff except by explicit language?] that the purpose of reservations was to allow tribes to adopt an agrarian lifestyle)--so in Winters, the tribes wouldn't be granted any more water by implication than that which is necessary to irrigate the irrigable parts of the land--and in Eastern Oklahoma, plenty of water falls from the sky, and that for sure wouldn't grant tribal governments the rights to ALL of the water as some of their litigation has claimed.

Until Castro-Huerta, we had a taste of what some of these governments want to argue is their right, and it was 100% a case of the dog catching the car. It was a complete mess. It would be the same with environmental regulation, and the Oklahoma DEQ and the Water Resources Board have more expertise and resources than all of the tribal governments combined, despite the broad negative brush some would try and paint with. Tribal governments would arguably still have to comply with EPA mandates, and they don't have the resources in place to do that.

And then what happens when a company needs to build a pipeline across the state? Should they just build in Kansas, Arkansas and Texas because they don't want to deal with the ever changing landscape of up to 30 different sovereigns all seeking their own pound of flesh?

That it isn't a very workable situation is a very real and very solid argument--and I'll bet dollars to donuts that the current SCOTUS is going to get ahold of some of these cases and restore order to this situation.

It's not really as simple as the Indians "deserve their land." The vast majority of that land was bargained away and sold decades ago and no one is even talking about reversing those sales. This is about who receives the ad valorem taxes from those lands, this is about mineral and water rights from the land. There are cases suggesting that even where a reservation was disestablished, if Congress did not specifically remove the mineral rights, then the tribe retains those. There are cases regarding water which cut the other way--the Winters case, for example, completely undercuts the tribal claims to water rights in the well-watered eastern part of the state as it held there's an implicit grant of sufficient water rights to irrigate the irrigable land within the tribal boundaries (as it was implied [again, don't you love how they get all of this stuff through implicit language, but can't lose stuff except by explicit language?] that the purpose of reservations was to allow tribes to adopt an agrarian lifestyle)--so in Winters, the tribes wouldn't be granted any more water by implication than that which is necessary to irrigate the irrigable parts of the land--and in Eastern Oklahoma, plenty of water falls from the sky, and that for sure wouldn't grant tribal governments the rights to ALL of the water as some of their litigation has claimed.

Until Castro-Huerta, we had a taste of what some of these governments want to argue is their right, and it was 100% a case of the dog catching the car. It was a complete mess. It would be the same with environmental regulation, and the Oklahoma DEQ and the Water Resources Board have more expertise and resources than all of the tribal governments combined, despite the broad negative brush some would try and paint with. Tribal governments would arguably still have to comply with EPA mandates, and they don't have the resources in place to do that.

And then what happens when a company needs to build a pipeline across the state? Should they just build in Kansas, Arkansas and Texas because they don't want to deal with the ever changing landscape of up to 30 different sovereigns all seeking their own pound of flesh?

That it isn't a very workable situation is a very real and very solid argument--and I'll bet dollars to donuts that the current SCOTUS is going to get ahold of some of these cases and restore order to this situation.

With this one sentence, you show that you do not have even a basic understanding of the situation "Tribal governments would arguably still have to comply with EPA mandates".

With this one sentence, you show that you do not have even a basic understanding of the situation "Tribal governments would arguably still have to comply with EPA mandates".

Cry about it more.

You pick one thing out of all of the above and seem to blow by the entire point.

The point is that there could be 30 different jurisdictions to comply with for anyone wanting to do business in this State and it's going to cost billions of dollars and jobs potentially.

^^^ +10000

Cry about it more.

You pick one thing out of all of the above and seem to blow by the entire point.

The point is that there could be 30 different jurisdictions to comply with for anyone wanting to do business in this State and it's going to cost billions of dollars and jobs potentially.



It is a very important point. The tribes absolutely 100% have to adhere to federal laws. There is no argument. The "patchwork of laws" you keep complaining about is where tribal law doesn't match STATE law. Federal law applies. Always.

Additionally, these rulings only apply to the five tribes, four of which have massive regions larger than entire states. It is not a situation where you pass from one tribal government to another every few miles. You overstate the complexity by a lot. And isn't complexity in the law the whole point of most lawyers?

The patchwork of laws is requiring a tens of millions of dollar wind produciton plant on Osage land to be dismantled as we speak and will cost the state untold billions in investment because no one is going to want to invest in the eastern part of the state anymore when there are 49 other states with much less complicated sovereignty questions.

The patchwork of laws is requiring a tens of millions of dollar wind produciton plant on Osage land to be dismantled as we speak and will cost the state untold billions in investment because no one is going to want to invest in the eastern part of the state anymore when there are 49 other states with much less complicated sovereignty questions.

Enel didn’t get the correct permits before starting construction in Osage County. That doesn’t have anything to do with McGirt. Tribal Sovereignty doesn’t have any effect on real estate/industrial projects.

Enel didn’t get the correct permits before starting construction in Osage County. That doesn’t have anything to do with McGirt. Tribal Sovereignty doesn’t have any effect on real estate/industrial projects.

I didn't say it did have anything to do with McGirt.

But....

"for both conversion and trespass. Further, Judge Choe-Groves ordered the Defendants to remove the wind farm from the Osage Mineral Estate and return it to its pre-trespass condition on or before December 1, 2025.

“This case demonstrates our commitment to preserving and defending tribal sovereignty,” said U.S. Attorney Clint Johnson. “As Judge Choe-Groves emphasized, injury to the Osage sovereignty cannot be condoned or suffered. The Defendants disregarded cease-and-desist instructions with willful and wrongful intent.”

--quoting the press release on the U.S. Attorney's website for the Northern District of OK... So they seem to think there are sovereignty issues here.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndok/pr/enel-ordered-remove-osage-wind-farm-after-more-ten-years-litigation

I didn't say it did have anything to do with McGirt.

But....

"for both conversion and trespass. Further, Judge Choe-Groves ordered the Defendants to remove the wind farm from the Osage Mineral Estate and return it to its pre-trespass condition on or before December 1, 2025.

“This case demonstrates our commitment to preserving and defending tribal sovereignty,” said U.S. Attorney Clint Johnson. “As Judge Choe-Groves emphasized, injury to the Osage sovereignty cannot be condoned or suffered. The Defendants disregarded cease-and-desist instructions with willful and wrongful intent.”

--quoting the press release on the U.S. Attorney's website for the Northern District of OK... So they seem to think there are sovereignty issues here.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndok/pr/enel-ordered-remove-osage-wind-farm-after-more-ten-years-litigation
So, if they have authority, then companies and people need to respect that and follow the rules. As i understand it, that wasn't done. The Osage have a long history of people ignoring their rights in order to profit from their natural resources. It should have a chilling effect on rule breakers and a stimulus for those wanting to do it right. Strong defense of the laws should protect honest investors and encourage more.

So, if they have authority, then companies and people need to respect that and follow the rules. As i understand it, that wasn't done. The Osage have a long history of people ignoring their rights in order to profit from their natural resources. It should have a chilling effect on rule breakers and a stimulus for those wanting to do it right. Strong defense of the laws should protect honest investors and encourage more.

I wouldn't call a win in a District Court case or even at the 10th Circuit the final word on this. To be clear, there are no rules--just novel legal theories at this point. The Osage have won this round, that doesn't mean they'll keep winning or that Congress won't act.

More than likely, what happens here will be that Oklahoma, or at least the Eastern part of it is going to miss out on lots of economic opportunities because of this history of companies believing they have a clear title to do what they want and finding out otherwise in district court.

I wouldn't call a win in a District Court case or even at the 10th Circuit the final word on this. To be clear, there are no rules--just novel legal theories at this point. The Osage have won this round, that doesn't mean they'll keep winning or that Congress won't act.

More than likely, what happens here will be that Oklahoma, or at least the Eastern part of it is going to miss out on lots of economic opportunities because of this history of companies believing they have a clear title to do what they want and finding out otherwise in district court.

This all sounds so familiar to GM-OKC being told one thing and then finding out later that what they were told initially was not what the law was. Diligence appears to be lacking.

This all sounds so familiar to GM-OKC being told one thing and then finding out later that what they were told initially was not what the law was. Diligence appears to be lacking.

Similar in lots of ways, yes. GM was given assurances by the OIA, basically your local billinoaires' club (well just millionaires back then) that they could guarantee that GM could come here and never have to pay property tax. GM built here and the Mid Del schools sued, represented by a friend of my family, Lana Tyree, alleging the OIA never had the power to make those assurances. And yes, my family was very closely involved in that whole transaction--I would say on the side of the good guys. Unfortunately, there were unforseen consequences--that may have been the last time a major company relocated to Oklahoma believing our inducement packages were built on solid ground.

Again, like with these energy companies, I'm not even sure it was a lack of due diligence on their part. They had no idea who the OIA except that they appeared to speak for the state. And the worst thing you could accuse the wind company of doing is assuming that building a turbine in Oklahoma is pretty much the same as building one in Arkansas.

I recall a story my dad told me regarding telegraph lines and a tribe in the 1800s. Something like the telegraph company ran lines on tribal land (maybe Cherokee), and the tribe sent notice that the telegraph would have to pay for access. Telegraph ignored them. Tribal police cut down the telegraph poles and lines. Telegraph paid the tribe.

Does anyone know what kind of impact this could have on things?

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/tribes/2025/01/22/united-keetoowah-band-ruling-cherokee-nation-tahlequah-ok/77852082007/

Does anyone know what kind of impact this could have on things?

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/tribes/2025/01/22/united-keetoowah-band-ruling-cherokee-nation-tahlequah-ok/77852082007/

https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/document_secretarys_orders/m-37084-cherokee-res.pdf

Keetoowah has dual /jurisiction with the Cherokee .. for 7,000 sq miles in NE oklahoma


In a written statement, Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. called the opinion “offensive to the Cherokee people.” Along with calling on the incoming Trump administration to withdraw the opinion, Hoskin said the tribe also would be reaching out to Oklahoma’s congressional delegation to block implementation of the opinion.

“Tribes and lawmakers alike should be deeply alarmed by a federal lawyer rewriting generations of historical and legal precedent with a stroke of his pen,” Hoskin said. “We plan to ask the courts to correct this wrong interpretation and to follow the well-established historic and legal precedent.”

That seems like a big change.

It seems like a pretty specific dispute.

There seems to be a lot of factual context here that is missing from the article, so I don't have much of an opinion on it except that I do find it remarkable that the Cherokee Tribe would which fights and protects its sovereignty would deny the very existence and rights of a smaller band of their people who are apparently the successors in interest to a small sliver of the lands claimed by the Cherokees.

It smacks of hypocrisy all the way round on their part, of course, to be fair, I'm not sure what position the Cherokees took on McGirt and progeny... but maybe I'd be enlightened by some context.

I wouldn't call a win in a District Court case or even at the 10th Circuit the final word on this. To be clear, there are no rules--just novel legal theories at this point. The Osage have won this round, that doesn't mean they'll keep winning or that Congress won't act.

More than likely, what happens here will be that Oklahoma, or at least the Eastern part of it is going to miss out on lots of economic opportunities because of this history of companies believing they have a clear title to do what they want and finding out otherwise in district court.

Doubful. The eastern part of the state is where most of the industry will go since that where the infrastructure (MKARNS and Hydroelectric power) is. Muskogee just had a groundbreaking for a $1.2 billion lithium refinery.

The only problems from McGirt are because the state and other local govs dont want to lose power or money. Otherwise agreements with revenue-sharing to pay for a tribal criminal justice system would be worked out just like the other compacts are.

Easier said than done. I knew lots of contract lawyers working on McGirt cases in Eastern Oklahoma and it was a mess. Thank goodness the SCOTUS pulled the plug on that experiment.