Kavanaugh tried to argue that because Indian Territory was 60% white by 1890 it was only "nominally" Indian territory. He is trying to use a history of violent, illegal settlement in Oklahoma to undercut tribal sovereignty. Kavanaugh doesn't belong on the Court, for 100 reasons.

justice Breyer citing "Felix Cohen" as an official interpretation of state/tribal jurisdiction w/o specifying any particular section of his 1000-page handbook is a very "i didnt do the reading but..." move

justice Alito asking the Creek attorney whether the state would have jurisdiction in a series of hypothetical situations... attorney had to break it to him that the "Court's precedent on that has been a little unclear" LOL give this man an award for understatements

love to hear Supreme Court justices learning about Indian law on the fly! like is this court Supreme bc it's knowledgeable? bc it's authoritative? or is it more of a "crunchwrap supreme" situation where it just has a bit more lettuce and some fun toppings??

Kavanaugh keeps trying to go back to 1890 to suggest that the US intended to remove tribal authority at the time bc of how many white people would have been subject to jurisdiction. 1901 statues and Court ruling in Hitchcock clearly show he is wrong about this.

Creek Nation attorney smashed his argument and provided historical/statutory evidence for continuing tribal sovereignty in under 60 seconds. Kavanaugh can take his rancid Jacksonian interpretations home.

justice ginsburg is playing devil's advocate so hard she might actually be working for the devil, can't wait to find out! she's asking leading questions @ the defense, referencing Oklahoma laws regarding racial non-discrimination as reason for abolishing tribal sovereignty.

OK Solicitor General trying to equate tribal sovereignty with Plessy-era 'separate but equal' in order to claim state's have authority over all land... "with the reservation, you're creating two separate societies that Congress had tried to abolish." wow.

OK Solicitor General is making the most insane attempts to counter Justice Kagan's well-founded clarification that possessing fee-simple land does not undo reservation status.

defense relying on the argument that a tribe "agreeing to divest itself of resources" ie land (under military threat, via typically fraudulent procedures, with little recourse to any semblance of justice at the time) should be interpreted as a permanent divestment of sovereignty.

Kavanaugh is saying AGAIN that Congress was "in a difficult position" in 1890 bc of # of white ppl in Indian Territory. Kavanaugh, like many racists, assumes that Tribal jurisdiction is an inherent threat to white people.

US Dep. Solicitor General arguing that OK state law providing for equal treatment regardless of race in the 1890s somehow means that Creek Nation was no longer considered sovereign. Another ahistorical argument that racial equality is incompatible w/ Tribal Sovereignty.

US Solicitor now arguing that the Dawes (General Allotment) Act meant that "Congress was preparing to substitute the state for the [Indian] Territory" and therefore allotment should be considered as extinguishing sovereignty, equivalent to complete cession of land. Wrong!!

Justice Breyer asks what it would mean to overturn Solem v. Bartlett. "I don't know the history of every tribe in the United States...and I'm not sure that you do." Suggests a "parade of horribles" would follow a decision overturning tribal sovereignty in OK.

ahh cool now the US Solicitor Gen. argues that we can't consider (settler) state officials as acting in bad faith in 1890. an insane argument for what theyve already conceded was a period when the US was usurping tribal sovereignty "in preparation for statehood."

Justice Gorsuch asked a good question, noted that the defense is relying on assumptions about demographics before OK statehood rather than actual texts of law. US Solic. Gen. rebuts that "general public understanding" was statehood required extinguishing tribal sovereignty.

throughout, the justices continue to assume that Native sovereignty and statehood are fundamentally opposed. Angela Riley and Maggie Blackhawk have recently made legal arguments to the contrary. i expect the justices haven't been keeping up w/ the Harvard Law Review.

our fave coming back strong, noting that "the arguments [re: racial equality language] the SG and the state of OK are making were made up for today," are NOT from the 1890 OK statutes in question, so cannot be used to argue tribal sovereignty was extinguished via statehood!

tl; dr - no one on the Supreme Court ever took a course in Indian law taught by an Indian lawyer, and they've never made it through a Charles Wilkins, Robert Williams Jr, or Walter EchoHawk book, much less any recent law review essay on Native sovereignty. good to know!

also, keep your eyes out for Turtle Mountain historian and tribal justice Dr. Keith Richotte Jr.'s forthcoming Indian Law Textbook!! thank god

ask your library to purchase a copy, mail one to your least favorite Supreme Court justice, and definitely read it yourself: http://store.westacademic.com/s.nl?it=A&id=316495