We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
LESSONS FROM MCGIRT V. OKLAHOMA’S HABEAS AFTERMATH.
- Authors
GIBSON, BEN
- Abstract
In the summer of 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, concluding that Congress had never disestablished the historic boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s reservation. In reaching this decision, the majority and dissent in McGirt sparred about the impact the Court’s decision would have on the availability of post-conviction relief for prisoners who historically committed crimes on this and other reservations in Oklahoma. The dissent claimed this would create a clear pathway for scores of state prisoners to challenge their convictions. The majority insisted the results would not be so dire— state and federal procedural requirements would create obstacles for most prisoners seeking to invoke McGirt as a basis for post-conviction relief. This Article surveys the state and federal court decisions on claims for post-conviction relief in which prisoners invoke McGirt (and its Tenth Circuit predecessor, Murphy v. Royal) and evaluates the lessons to be learned from these cases. Prisoners have met little success when invoking these claims. The courts’ reasoning in these cases raise difficult questions regarding the nature and scope of habeas corpus. Most interesting, these claims question the subject matter jurisdiction of the original courts of conviction. Subject matter jurisdiction typically cannot be waived, but the courts that have denied these claims have found that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA) procedural bars still apply to claims based on subject matter jurisdiction. This Article identifies potential constitutional problems with this application of AEDPA based upon the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution’s Suspension Clause.
- Subjects
OKLAHOMA; POSTCONVICTION remedies; PRISONERS; HABEAS corpus; ANTITERRORISM &; Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (U.S.)
- Publication
Denver Law Review, 2022, Vol 99, Issue 2, p253
- ISSN
2469-6463
- Publication type
Article