[rotskoff]

I follow court news pretty closely and was genuinely curious about this decision. Here is a brief description of what I understand the decision to mean (I am not an expert by any means). Under the federal "Major Crimes Act" (MCA) members of various Native American tribes are not subject to state prosecution for crimes committed in "Indian territory". This case was brought by McGirt, a member of the Creek Nation, who challenged his conviction based on the original treaty establishing the Creek reservation in eastern Oklahoma. The headline is a bit misleading: for purposes of the MCA, eastern OK is now considered a part of the Creek Nation. This means McGirt must be convicted with the reservation's justice system or in federal court. It also has the consequence (discussed extensively in Roberts' dissent) that many existing convictions could potentially be vacated. It will be interesting to see how the Creek nation works with Oklahoma to address these changes.

[CivBase]

They guy has already served 20 years for a crime which he originally plead guilty for. He was convited for raping a four year old girl.

Why he is challenging it now and by contesting the court's authority rather than his own guilt? Does he expect to be found not guilty under the Cree Nation?