Sharp v. Murphy Case Brief

Sharp v. Murphy

591 U.S. 977

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Takeaway

In short, this case applied McGirt to hold that the Creek Reservation was never disestablished, leaving Oklahoma without state-court jurisdiction over Murphy’s major-crime prosecution.

Background

Patrick Dwayne Murphy, an enrolled member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Oklahoma state court. In federal habeas proceedings, Murphy argued that Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction because his offense occurred within the historic Creek Reservation and therefore in “Indian country,” where the federal Major Crimes Act generally assigns jurisdiction over specified major offenses committed by Indians.

The Tenth Circuit agreed. It concluded that Congress had never disestablished the Creek Reservation, so the crime occurred in Indian country and Oklahoma lacked authority to prosecute Murphy. The Supreme Court affirmed that judgment in a short per curiam decision, relying on its reasoning in McGirt v. Oklahoma, decided the same day.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Congress disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation so that Oklahoma had jurisdiction to prosecute Murphy in state court.

Holding

No. The Creek Reservation remained an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal-jurisdiction law, and Oklahoma therefore lacked jurisdiction over Murphy’s prosecution.

Reasoning

The Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit “for the reasons stated in McGirt v. Oklahoma.” McGirt held that the relevant question is whether Congress clearly enacted legislation ending the reservation. A reservation does not disappear merely because later statutes altered tribal governance, allotted tribal lands, opened land to non-Indian settlement, or produced demographic change.

Applying that rule to the Creek Reservation, the McGirt analysis concluded that Congress had not clearly disestablished it. Because the reservation remained intact, land within its historic boundaries remained Indian country under federal law.

Murphy was an Indian defendant accused of a major crime committed in Indian country. Under the Major Crimes Act, the Federal Government, rather than Oklahoma, has jurisdiction over such a prosecution. The Court therefore affirmed the Tenth Circuit’s judgment granting relief from the state conviction.

Dissents

Justice Thomas

Reasoning

Justice Thomas dissented from the Court’s disposition but did not write a separate opinion in Sharp v. Murphy. The per curiam opinion therefore supplies no distinct reasoning that can be attributed specifically to him in this case.

Justice Alito

Reasoning

Justice Alito dissented from the Court’s disposition but did not write a separate opinion in Sharp v. Murphy. The per curiam opinion therefore does not state a separate, case-specific rationale for his disagreement.