UNIT 19 • STAGE 4 OF 7
The Courts
Build the courts section with McGirt as the centerpiece callout and introduce gradient text
McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020): How It Came To Be
Jimcy McGirt, a member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, was convicted by the state of Oklahoma of sex crimes against a child. His attorneys argued that the crime occurred within the boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation's reservation in eastern Oklahoma, and that under the federal Major Crimes Act, serious crimes committed by Indians on Indian land are federal offenses, not state offenses. If the Muscogee Nation's reservation was still intact, the state court had no jurisdiction.
The central legal question was straightforward: Had Congress ever formally disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Nation's reservation? Oklahoma argued that the reservation had been effectively dissolved through allotment, the arrival of non-Indian settlers, and statehood. McGirt's attorneys said those circumstances did not matter. Only a federal statute could diminish or disestablish a Tribal reservation, and Congress had never passed one for the Muscogee Nation.
The ruling: 5-4, Justice Gorsuch writing for the majority
The Court agreed with McGirt. Justice Gorsuch, joined by the four liberal justices, applied the settled rule that Tribal treaty rights and reservation boundaries are not abrogated by implication. The Muscogee Nation's reservation was established by treaty. Congress never formally disestablished it. The reservation remains Indian Country. Nearly half of eastern Oklahoma, including most of Tulsa, is Indian Country. The Five Tribes, whose reservations cover that territory, have never surrendered it.
What it means going forward
The ruling meant that thousands of state criminal convictions were subject to challenge on jurisdictional grounds. Federal and Tribal courts gained primary jurisdiction over crimes by Indians on these lands. The ruling was partially limited by Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (2022), which held 5-4 that states may also prosecute non-Indians for crimes against Indians on reservations. But McGirt itself stands: the Muscogee Nation's reservation, and by extension those of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole Nations, are intact. The law means what it says. Tribal land is Tribal land until Congress formally acts otherwise.
New CSS Technique: Gradient Text
Gradient text is a visual effect where the text characters display a color gradient instead of a solid color. You see it everywhere in modern web design. It takes four CSS declarations to produce.
/* Step 1: set the gradient as the element background */
background: linear-gradient(135deg, var(--text-light) 0%, var(--gold-light) 60%);
/* Step 2: clip the background to the text shape, not the box */
-webkit-background-clip: text; /* needed for Safari/Chrome */
background-clip: text; /* standard spec version */
/* Step 3: make the text itself transparent so gradient shows through */
-webkit-text-fill-color: transparent;
}
- Without
background-clip: text, the gradient fills the entire element box, not just the character shapes. The text sits on top of it as solid color. - Without
-webkit-text-fill-color: transparent, the text renders in its normal color on top of the clipped gradient background. Making it transparent reveals the gradient underneath. - Both
-webkit-background-clipandbackground-clipare needed: the prefixed version covers Safari and older Chrome, the unprefixed version is the current standard. - This technique works best on large headings where the gradient transition is visible. On small body text it is too subtle to read well.
The Two Supporting Cases
United States v. Lara (2004), 541 U.S. 193
Billy Jo Lara, a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, was prosecuted by the Spirit Lake Tribe for assaulting a federal officer on Spirit Lake lands. He was not a member of Spirit Lake. He was convicted in Tribal court, then prosecuted federally. He argued double jeopardy: he had already been tried for the same act. The Supreme Court held 7-2 that Congress has the authority to relax restrictions on Tribal criminal jurisdiction, including allowing Tribes to prosecute non-member Indians. The Tribal prosecution and the federal prosecution were acts of two separate sovereigns, so no double jeopardy problem existed. Lara partially addressed the gap left by Oliphant by confirming that Congress can extend Tribal criminal jurisdiction when it chooses to.
Haaland v. Brackeen (2023), 599 U.S. 255
The Brackeens, a Texas couple, challenged the Indian Child Welfare Act as unconstitutional. They argued that ICWA's Indian child classification was a racial preference that violated equal protection, and that ICWA's placement requirements unconstitutionally commandeered state officials. The Supreme Court upheld ICWA 7-2. Justice Barrett, writing for the majority, held that ICWA's Indian classification is a political classification tied to Tribal membership and the federal trust relationship, following Morton v. Mancari (1974), not a racial classification. The anti-commandeering challenge failed because Congress may require states to apply federal standards in proceedings that affect federal interests. Keep the case focused on ICWA, note that Secretary Haaland was the named federal defendant as Secretary of the Interior, but the case is about the law, not her.
Build the Courts Section
The courts section background is --bg-section. The layout is a 2-column cases grid. The McGirt callout spans both columns with grid-column: 1 / -1. Below it, Lara and Brackeen sit side by side as standard case cards using display: flex; flex-direction: column with margin-top: auto on the significance line, the same flex-column pattern from Unit 17 Stage 5.
Stage 4 Complete!
McGirt is documented in full. Stage 5 adds The Nations section: a broad Indian Country landscape view showing nation-building signals across regions. This is not deep profiles like Unit 17 Stage 4. It is a wider view of what is happening across Indian Country.
© 2026 Relentless Feather. All rights reserved.