Washington Foreign Press Center Briefing – Understanding America – Native American Rights, July 30, 2020.
Transcript
Okay. Gonna begin. Okay. So good afternoon. My name is John McAndrew. I’m a media relations officer with the Washington Foreign Press Center and the moderator for today’s On the Record Briefing on Native American Rights and the Supreme Court case. McGirt versus Oklahoma. Today’s briefer is legal expert Dr Lindsay Robertson Checks on Nation Endowed Chair in Native American Law at the University of Oklahoma and director of the Center for the Study of American Indian Law and Policy on behalf of the Washington Foreign Press Center Weeks in there thanks to Professor Robertson for giving us time stay to discuss this landmark Supreme Court case in the future of Native American rights and now for the ground rules, this briefing is on the record and the views of today’s briefer do not represent the views of the U. S. Government. We will post the transcript and video of this briefing later today on our website, which is f p c dot state dot gov. If you publish the story as a result of this briefing, please share your story with us by sending an email to D c F P C. At ST dot gov Professor Robertson will give short opening remarks, and then we will open it up for questions. If you have a question, please go to the chat box and virtually raise your hand. At that time, we willen mute you and turn on your video so that you can ask your questions. And with that, I will pass it over to Professor Robertson, every jennette’s of delight to be here. I am thrilled to have a chance to speak to people in the foreign press course. A lot of my work is international, including, and most of the countries I think that are represented. And so I invite your questions on any topic. Jen asked me to come and say a few words about the McGirt decision, and and so I have. I went ahead. I never write things out to read, but I But I did for today’s event, so there’d be something a little more coherent for you guys to use. Uh, and so momentarily, I’ll read a brief peace on a good case, but I want to be clear that I’m I’m open to any questions on anything having to do with indigenous rights in the United States, or if if you’d like to visit about international indigenous legal issues as well. That’s another area in which fairly, fairly well versed, uh, and, um, and and you may have my experience in dealing with person from other countries. Is there often issues about what you may have been curious and this so this is your chance, If you want, feel free to ask me absolutely, absolutely anything. The the word quickly about briefly about how tribes, which is the legal term that we use, operate in the United States first since I mentioned drives a word on vocabulary. The popular turn internationally now for indigenous people is his indigenous peoples. In the US we have a history of using the term Indian, and so you’ll hear that Ah, and I may well use it today. That’s a term that’s fairly common out here. It’s also, more importantly, the term that’s used throughout the United States code. So when we talk about federal statutes dealing with Indian law, Indian country, etcetera, that word crops up. And I know that’s a troublesome word in certain parts of the world where it is used any more, but it still is a term that’s conventional used in the U. S. Native American is another phrase that you’ll hear commonly, you know, probably use that and then the term native to. So if I use any of these words, I’m talking about the same thing, which are indigenous communities in the United States that actually operate as separate political communities. And that’s the second thinking. I’ll say an introductory word about, uh, tribes in the United States or indigenous nations or native nations are federally recognized political communities. They exercise sovereign power that is inherent to them. So it’s not power delegated to these communities by the United States government. They are agents of the federal government. They are separate political communities who have existed here since before Europeans arrived, and that circumstances recognized and always has been by the United States to mean that the power that they exercise their governance power is internally generated. That has a number of consequences, which I’m happy to speak about later if you’re interested. But it but it is the reality, and it’s virtually a unique situation globally that indigenous communities air recognized a separate political sovereigns who share territory with the United States and you exercise in here in power that federal recognition on this is the well, the penultimate point. I get some make, uh, is, um, important component of this. The tribes that are considered to be subject to the rules of what we call federal Indian law who are received by the federal government is exercising inherent power Are those of us that have been federally recognized, Which is to say, the United States, either through a treaty or a statute or court decision or an administrative process, has recognized that, Yes, this particular group is one of those indigenous groups that was here before we arrived. It’s the the same group that was here before we arrived. And so we recognize them and they’re literally hundreds of these. Between five and 600 separate tribal communities have been federally recognized. There are other groups that are in process of applying for federal recognition, may get it. And then there’s some that are state recognized drives. We have a number in Virginia who were recently federally recognized as well, and so the rules governing those tribes for a little bit different. All of the tribes that I’m going to talk about today and that are involved in them. A group decision and its aftermath are federally recognized tribe. So if I talk about the disco Be Creek or the Cherokee Nation, these air tribes that are recognized by the United States government as being separate sovereigns who share territory with the United States, who pre exist the United States, and to exercise inherent powers, including powers of self governance and some powers over over others over of non members of their community the sort of things that they do and this is the last introductory remarks make for document McGirt include all of the things that governments do. Most tribes in the United States have their own judicial systems, the room courts. I happen to be a Supreme Court justice for the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes. You were in western Oklahoma. They have their own police departments, most of them they have their own civil courts as well as criminal courts. Beneath the Supreme Court level, they have constitutions. Most of Britain constitutions. They have legislative branches, executive branches, some of them. They all have their own unique arrangement. Some of them have additional branches. The Shining Arapahoe, for instance, we have a fourth branch of government, all the tribal council, some our more traditional than others. Some apply traditional off. Some apply laws that would be more familiar to non native people. But they are governments to exercise jurisdiction over territories all within the broader territorial limits of the United States. And it’s a system that we’ve been living with since the US became the country. So we have more than two centuries experience of this sort of pleura and national existence, not just federal state, as most Americans know, but federal state tribal. They’re actually three separate forms of sovereign power in the United States. And again, I’m happy to talk about the details of any of that later. So let me on with apologies. Read this quick statement, sort of a summary of McGirt decision. Um, and on this will be available. I’m happy to provide a hard copy to Janet that she once it and of course, it will be in. The transcript was supposed to. So on July 9th, the Supreme Court issued its decision in McGirt versus Oklahoma, the most important indigenous rights decision issued by the Supreme Court in the 21st century. The case was challenged the prosecution. Jim See McGirt, a citizen of the Seminole Nation by the state of Oklahoma for the commission of the crime that occurred on land. That, according to Mr McGirt, was Misko G Creek Nation reservation land, in consequence of which, under federal law, Oklahoma had no jurisdiction and the crime should have been prosecuted by the United States. That’s Cokie Creek Nation is an indigenous nation that was forcibly removed from the southeastern United States to what’s now Oklahoma in the 18 thirties, and the reservation lands McGirt claimed for them included all or part of 11 Oklahoma counties and most of the city of Tulsa. The question for the court waas was Mr McGirt right, that the land was Misko Be Creek Nation reservation land? Or was Oklahoma right that while the land had once been reservation land, the reservation had been disestablished by Congress more than a century ago. The land had been allotted, divided up into individual farms and ranches and distributed to individual the Stony Creek citizens in the early 20th century. And the court had decided in earlier cases that if Congress clearly expressed in allotting indigenous lands that the lands were no longer reservation lands than they weren’t. If the a lot manak were unclear, the court could look to surrounding circumstances, including subsequent changes in land ownership to decide if a reservation have been disestablished. So that if, in theory, I said that in theory, if, as here most of a major city with hundreds of thousands of non native residents were within the reservation, the court could find it disestablished. In McGirt, the majority of the court decided the surrounding circumstances were irrelevant. And if the text of the A Lot Men Act did not clearly disestablished the reservation, it was not disestablished. Whatever the possible consequences and applying this rule, Mr McGurk, the court found, was correct. Muscogee Creek Reservation had not been disestablished, and Oklahoma had no jurisdiction to prosecute. This followed the opinion of the court. Incidentally, in another disestablishment case, Nebraska vs Parker, in which a small, non native town in Nebraska was held to be within a reservation. The migrant decision is important for a number of reasons. First, it’s important because the indigenous side one this hasn’t been the norm in many years, and many indigenous rights advocates, air now hopeful, worth the dawn of a new era for native rights. Second, it reinforces the rule in Parker that externalities are irrelevant in disestablishment cases. The clear language of the statute alone answers the question. This means that indigenous tribes should now be able to make claims based on historic promises without fear that they will be defeated by subsequent, often unjust events. And it also has practical consequences in eastern Oklahoma for indigenous nations. In addition to the Muskoka Creek, Seminole Choctaw, Chickasaw Cherokee Nation’s were also forcibly removed to Oklahoma from the southeastern United States in the 18 thirties and forties. All four, like from the Scobie Creek, had their lands allotted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by the United States. Because there are a lot man acts are all similar to the Moscow Be Creek a lot Monette. It’s widely believed that the McGirt reasoning would apply to these other four as well. What would that mean? First, Federal Criminal Jurisdiction rules will apply in the Muscovy Creek Reservation and possibly in the lands of the other four nations, which together make up the eastern half of Oklahoma, where crimes were committed in these lands by or against tribal citizens. In most instances, the United States and in some instances the tribes will have jurisdiction to prosecute and not the state. On the civil side, the tribes will have jurisdiction to regulate the activities of tribal citizens and, in limited instances, for example, where nonmembers voluntarily engaged in commercial relations with the tribes, the conduct of non indigenous people as well. Because the exercise of criminal and some civil jurisdiction raises some logistical challenges and to eliminate uncertainty as to how jurisdiction will be exercised in future. The five indigenous nations with state and the federal government are now engaged in discussions to reach agreement on how all this will work. All parties have publicly expressed their commitment to a negotiated solution, and because all are experienced in working through jurisdictional issues, those of us were following talks are confident that they will succeed. That’s my McGirt overview in a brief intrude a federal Indian law, and I’m more than happy to spend the rest of her time taking any questions. Thank you for that. I will now invite our participants to ask questions by raising your hand in the chat box. I will then call on you if you could please state your name and your outlet. And if you have not already, please rename yourself with your name and your media outlet. I see the first question is from Elena Lindsay from El USA, a Portuguese media outlet. Elena, I will now on mute you. Oops. Hello? Hi. Can you hear me? I’m Rosa from the Portuguese News Agency. But I’m located in New York. And I would like to ask some questions to Dr Lindsey. Rob Robertson. The 1st 1 would be during this time. So the pandemic Do you consider that the indigenous Americans are being treated as citizens of their own countries and are getting the help it everybody in the country needs, like food helping? Are they getting health care? Yeah, well, it’s a funny. So the way us you us. The question invites two different answers. So are they being treated as citizens of their own country? I assume, based on the end of your question, you mean citizens of the United States? Yeah, but they’re certainly being treated a citizens of what they would consider to be their own country. Which is the tribe Which there? Citizen and eso the answer is yes and no. I think that there is there certainly certain indigenous nations, Navajo. It’s one that’s been in the news a lot, where for a variety of reasons, treating Cove in 19 for tribal citizens has been a real challenge. Part of the challenge has to do with, uh, just the topography of Navajo Nation and the the location of a lot of their citizens in rural communities. But but a lot of it has to do with lack of federal financial support. Ah, federal logistical support. And I think that’s that’s made this the situation particularly dire in in in much of Indian country. Navajo, I think, or at one extreme. But they’re certainly not unique. Um, we have a number of students from drives all over the country, in our various in Indian love programs that University of Oklahoma number of them working ASU online students on the front line of the covert fight on, and they’ve been attempting Teoh use whatever they resources. They have to access more federal resources in order to more effectively fight the virus. And then, of course, the other major news story that we’ve seen his tribal communities unaffected by the Corona virus, attempting to keep non native people off their lands in order to prevent the virus from coming in. And that’s created conflicts in certain states in the in the northern, the northern Plains region. It’s a it’s a great question, and I’m you know, I’m I’m personally grateful that you’re attentive to the to the issue because it is one that people should be paying attention to in to the extent that we can continue to raise broader public awareness of the particular problems being faced in what we call Indian country in Fighting Cove. It that’s all that’s all for the good. Thank you. I have a second question, if I may, about the indigenous about your experience in international field and the indigenous Brazilian people they are facing also attacks from the federal government of Brazil, and they also may be facing the risk of being exterminate like we can get to this even to this risk. Look at the Amazon fire that burned Nice mitt. Massive area of the land. How do you think that they can the indigenous Brazilian people to defend themselves? Well, yeah. So the indigenous in the Amazonia are facing something that indigenous peoples around the world have faced and continue to face, which is a battle between sort of their own continued existence and the natural resources and developmental interests of non native peoples. Here in the US this was a major problem in the 19th century. It continues to be to a certain extent, but what? What we’re seeing in Brazil now is is the government, um favoring the natural resources exploitation over the continued subsistence rights of native peoples. And so, as you say, that their fires but there with the goal of making more land available for agriculture Uh, there’s an attempt to extract natural resources, and these are completely irrational goals. But but they’re certainly running up against, uh, the interests and rights of the people who actually live there this time, the indigenous peoples themselves. I think you have certain resources, uh, or avenues available to them through the Brazilian system. To a certain extent, through the international system, there are a number of treaty bodies that exist in order to protect the human rights of, among other things, groups, indigenous peoples. The U. N. Human Rights Council is concerned through their universal periodic review process. The the served the convention of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which is the treaty body that sort of monitors compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Racial Discrimination, regularly hears. Um, uh, ports from indigenous groups concerning violation of rights of international human rights obligations by states exploiting are attempting to extract natural sources from indigenous territories. And so those are avenues and then the other. You know there are a number of really talented, well educated indigenous rights advocates, attorneys and law professors on others in Brazil, uh who, many of whom are involved in sort of attempting to protect the rights of these communities now. But it’s likely that there some who haven’t become directly involved. And if I were visiting with, um, indigenous groups or facing I know there’s accusations of genocide, currently certainly facing dispossession of land threats to have attacks, etcetera, I would be in contact with those folks. Thank you. I might have another question, but I don’t want to monopolize the conversation. So let’s see if anybody else wants to talk. Thank you. Thank you, Elena. If anybody else would I like to ask the question or if they have technical difficulties that can. Right? Well, your question in the chat box. Let’s see. I do have a question from Gabriela Martinez with El Universal. We will now on mute you, Gabriella. Go ahead. Thank you. Muted. Do we have you, Gabriella waken? See you but not hear you. Okay, well, we’re waiting for her to resolve her technical issues. We can go back to Elena and you hear me? Oh, is that you, Gabrielle? Yes. Please go ahead. Yes, I am. Okay. Um well, I have this year. If you think the decision of the court camp set a president and self to order in the generous movement because, for example, here in in both sides of the border in Qana them some be able. We have these community, the commune eyes, and they have a presence in the both sides of the border. But they are trying to stop these the work with the wall because they have some damage, you know, for example, they say something about the secret cemetery has problems with all the work, but also they lose some activities they share in the both sides. So they are trying to do something in the legal area, But I don’t know. With this president in the court, can they have How an opportunity to do something? Yeah, I don’t I don’t know either. In terms of using the domestic legal system, I will say that various A on international declaration of which I’m sure you’re familiar. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples That includes provisions or provisions relating to Transporter X best rights for indigenous communities whose lands lie on opposite sides of international borders. Um, this is a declaration that the United States and Mexico have both indicated their support for so it’s possible that there’s, ah, a political solution. I’m simply by reminding the respective governments that there are these rights that but the declaration contemplates that the two states have already pledged to work to support. Um, the problem with with those sorts of claims, of course, is that it runs up against national security concerns and these sorts of things, which makes any kind of transporter movement problematic. And that’s compound it now by the the Cove in 19 Corona virus. And so it may not be the best time Um, but it certainly, you know, that would be a place to go if you were looking for some sort of international legal support. Okay. Thank you. I believe we have a question from Helena Gustafsson from E T. C. Publishing. We will now on mute. You try. I’m here. My thanks for caring. Yes, Yes, it’s great. So I was wondering so before the court case was settled, I think the argument from Oklahoma from the state was that a lot of, uh, convicts would be released from prison and it would be a security risk, perhaps, and and also very unfair to victims of these convicted criminals. But what’s gonna happen in that department and can you say something else, but also the practical implications? You said there’s a negotiation going on, but there has, for example, been talk about domestic violence being it’s been a problem enforcing that because in tribal Yeah, yeah, I know there’s a great questions. So the state in its in its argument in this case and in the earlier case that raised the same issues the Murphy case from last year, which wasn’t ever decided because the court decided to go with them a good case raised the same sort of practical consequence problems, and they included on the criminal side. There are lots of people currently incarcerated in Oklahoma State prisons who we will have to release on, and they’ll be free and walking the streets and committing war crimes in this sort of thing. Um, I think that a lot of that was in developing arguments based on this earlier view of how we decided to establishment cases, that if you could convince the court that it would be sufficiently nightmarish, complicated and dangerous to find that a reservation still existed and that might be sufficient grounds for finding that it it didn’t the majority in this case, um, listen to those arguments and said, in its opinion, we think they’re greatly exaggerated. Uh, and even if we didn’t, we don’t care right? And that was because all they care about is what the language of the original statute says. But on the we think they’re greatly exaggerated point. What the majority said was that the fact is that even if the court finds that the state lacks jurisdiction or laughed jurisdiction over some of these people who are in state prisons. It’s our understanding that the individual prisoners themselves have to initiate an action to be released from state custody, and and if they if they’re successful in that, that doesn’t mean that they’re free. It means that they can then be re prosecuted by the federal government, which in many instances has tougher penalties for the commission of crimes. So they would actually be making their situation worse by successfully petitioning for release and re prosecution. And the majority said, So are a lot of people who will look at this and decide I don’t want to do that. I’m going to finish my state term and then be free there. Others, The majority suggested that might not be able to do that because they failed to raise the question of jurisdiction in the initial state appeal that they raised to their initial in their initial prosecution. And there is a state criminal law rule that says if you don’t make an argument in the state court appeal of your decision, then you’ve lost it. And virtually none of these people raised the argument that Muscogee Creek nations still existed. So this was Indian country, so it’s possible that under state criminal procedure, the great majority of those people will not be able to petition again to be retried by the federal government. So we don’t know yet. We don’t have. These things have started to come out. There are a few a handful of cases. Ah, prosecutions. I think that we’re pending where the appeals have now been brought. So these aren’t people currently incarcerated. But in the appeals, people are now raising this issue of, uh, lack of state jurisdiction. So we’ll see. But what’s interesting is that this the fear that all of these people would be released in walking the streets as a topic of public conversation in Oklahoma has largely disappeared. The state is now taking the position. Well, this is, you know, the criminal side is just something we’re going to have to work out to. So let’s sit down at the table and start working it out. Andi and we really haven’t experienced anything like the horrible situation that the state was. Our viewing might result from a decision in favor of Mr Maker and ah, just I had the second question as well about domestic violence being of course, yeah, so domestic violence, all of on all of the criminal jurisdiction side there. The issue isn’t really will people be prosecutor, not it’s who will prosecute them. And the domestic violence situation that you may be alluding to is the problem of domestic violence against native women. Yeah, yes, which was a bigot news issue in 2013 when Congress was passing the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and the Embassy International had produced some evidence that a disproportionate number of native women were victims of native of domestic violence committed by non native people. And that was a problem where those crimes occurred in Indian country because under Supreme Court case law that the tribes do not have criminal jurisdiction over non Indians over non native people. So that meant that the federal government was the only power that could prosecute them, and they and they hadn’t been, in many instances because of lack of resources. So what this will do this case may do is sort of expand the territory over which the solution that was reached in the Violence Against Women Act will apply, which is that if the acts of domestic violence air committed against native women by by non natives. Then the tribal court will have jurisdiction to prosecute that his people. So in that instance, I think what we’ll see is a shift from state prosecution, which many believe was was inadequate, that it wasn’t being cases were prosecuted to tribal prosecution, where there where there might actually be a greater interest in prosecuting. So we don’t really know exactly how that will work out, but but their number of people in the field who are hopeful that this will mean that Mawr perpetrators of domestic violence against native women will be brought to justice. What was just one follow up? The resource is of the tribal courts. How is that different from tribe to tribe? Or is that’s yeah, yeah, it’s very different from trying to try. But what will What we all expect to happen is that more resources will be made available, uh, both two tribes who now have enhanced obligations, and we don’t know exactly how enhanced yet our expanded obligations and to the federal federal government. Because the federal United States Attorney’s Office in In Tulsa in particular, um, is now going to have jurisdiction to prosecute mawr crimes. Basically, every crime involving on a native person will now be subject to federal jurisdiction with a handful of exceptions. So they’re going to need more prosecutors. They’re going to need more investigators, etcetera. And so So I think part of the discussion is the three parties figure out how jurisdiction is actually going to work on the criminal side is who will need what new resources and and where will they come from? And I think most people are expecting most of the resource supplemental resources to come from the federal govern. That’s a great question. Thank you. Okay, if we don’t have any other questions, we can return to Elena. Linda? Yeah. Thank you so much. So my other question would be as Dr Lindsey recommends to create new organizations. Were associations for the indigenous peoples and Native Americans from all America’s, like from Brazil in America, USA or Peru or anything else and or do you think that they are enough? And how else can they? What else can they choose to also advocate better for the rights off indigenous in the Americas? Yeah, that’s a great question. There are actually a number of organisations working for the rights collectively of indigenous peoples in the Americas. Um, there, you know the the whole field of indigenous Peoples law has become internationalized and especially in the last 15 years with the adoption of the U. N. Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. But there’s been more contact through negotiations, that instrument and the American Declaration among indigenous peoples from from different parts of the of the Americas. I might mention this isn’t technically the advocacy side, but I’m involved in an organization where there is a new organization disclaimed that that I’m involved in, called the International Intertribal Trade and Investment Organization, which actually was founded to help build direct trade relations among indigenous peoples, especially in the Americas. Eso suppliers of Peruvian fish, for instance, sending fish selling fish two drives in the U. S. To sell in the restaurants that their casinos, for instance, in this sort of thing, there’s a website. I International video is the acronym video dot or different any of your interested. But they’re trying to build these networks, and that’s operating on kind of a private side, I guess, of building building community among the native peoples of the Americas. Um, I think all of that’s to the good. I think the State Department can play a role in that it has in the past. By sending delegations. I’ve had students from Bolivia come to my law school twice to study indigenous peoples. All with me on would love to have more groups come. Ondo State has also very generously, I think, smartly sponsored speaking tours by indigenous advocates and professors from different parts of the Americas. Coming back and forth organizations are fabulous. Asai say there are There are a number there could always be more. But they’re valuable, I think, primarily because of the interpersonal relationships that they create. Um and I just lastly and so this is a bit of encouragement to folks in the indigenous communities in Latin America. Think language is really important. Andi. I think part of what’s prevented the formation of those relationships is, um is a nen ability to communicate in in other people’s languages. And I’ve learned that sort of from experience they were following spoke with or Gugasian with or gave you Vienna’s Banyat, which is on you, and it’s much easier for me in consequence to navigate in these roads and for other people. So if states were to, for instance, train indigenous leaders in English in Brazil, I think that would open an entire world of connections to them, Teoh to help them internally. Um, not only sort of build viable advocacy communities, but maybe get outside support to advocate for their cause is in the project rights. Thank you. I could understand what she said in Portuguese. Okay, we actually have a question from the Asahi Shimbun room. My echo. Ishikawa. We will Now on Mute. You Okay? You hear me now? Yes, we can. Okay. Thank you. Hi. I have a question. Were this Oklahoma case Have any effect on pipeline cases like the Keystone or Ah, that got access pipelines? It’s a great question, and I don’t know the answer. In theory, it might if, ah, it turns out that the tribes whose lands were affected by the construction of the pipeline, um, have claims based on the new law that we got in the McGirt case to a larger reservation, as it is. Dakota access, for instance, didn’t go through the tribe’s reservation, went near it, and that limited their power to control it. But in theory, if if it turns out that because of this case the pipeline actually went through their reservation, then that would strengthen their strengthen their claims. But, um, but I’m not sure, uh, directly how this would affect those cases. Otherwise, I suppose that the one other possibility would be that there isn’t. There seems to be a new majority on Indian law cases on the court now, including Justice Gorsuch, who has lots of experience working with indigenously issues because he was a judge on the 10th Circuit, which includes Oklahoma, before he became the Supreme Court justice. And the majority opinion, uh, evidence is a familiarity with the history of native peoples in a way that we really haven’t seen before. It’s a very powerful opinion about the importance of keeping promises and power imbalances and all sorts of things. And if if that sort of knew, if that represents a new vision on the court than than that might have an impact on any litigation that might reach the court as a result of the pipeline controversy, maybe that there’s a new majority that’s that’s willing to to take old promises more seriously. Maybe then we’ve seen before. And that might have an impact on the pipeline. Do you? It’s a great question. Okay. I’d like to return to Helena Gustafson with a follow up question from a T. C. Yeah. Thanks. About, um, so used. Sorry if I missed the little bits in the beginning. I hope you don’t have to repeat, but he talked about some indigenous advocates are seeing. This is the beginning of a new era. So it’s Could you talk a little bit more about that? What? What could happen next? The either legally or in the legal area? Or maybe more, general. Also, if you like. Yeah, well, I can certainly talk about the legal area in Supreme Court, and I think that the reason that a number of people are optimistic that that may be happening is what I said a minute ago that Justice Gorsuch, who is again from the 10th Circuit, which includes Oklahoma, has arrived on the court. There have always been a number of justices, including Justice Sotomayor, injustice Breyer who are are well versed in Indian law, interested in the topic of researched and studied. But this is the first justice we’ve had who who spent a significant part of his professional life working in Indian country in a part of the country, Um, where there are lots of indigenous peoples and and working while in that part of the country on resolving legal claims of those tribes? Uh, and his familiarity with the issues is is really well evidenced in the majority opinion, he wrote. That was joined. And this may be important also by all of the other justices in the majority, with no concurring opinions, meaning everybody said, We agree with Justice Gorsuch for the reasons that he said, Uh, and that’s also unusual in modern Indian law cases. We usually have a run of concurring opinions. I think the result is right, but I’m not sure that’s how the law works. So the fact that we have this, this union of use around a very sensitive understanding of the history of native peoples and and and the the law of native peoples, um, suggests that that maybe there is a majority in the court now that will be sensitive to other sorts of claims that the court has not been, ah, particularly sensitive of from other areas. Areas different from the establishment cases treaty interpretation cases, for instance, or old land claims that the court that the tribe was unable to bring for a variety of reasons the court in recent years has said, Well, there’s a lot of non native people living there now. It wouldn’t be fair to them, too. Allow that tried to bring this claim. Um, you Maybe there’s now a majority. That would say, there are a lot of non native people living there, but maybe they shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Yes, we’re willing to see what what the original promise was in your treaty. And as in McGirt, whatever the consequences happened to be, we’re prepared to live with them s so that the nation keeps its word. Do you think there’s a specific specific case or geographic area or tribe? That’s really that’s gonna be the first to to Yeah, I don’t know. You know, I suspect the first cases will probably be cases from Oklahoma. Um, but beyond that, I do not know. We’re all we’re all waiting to see. Thank you. Do we have any remaining questions from our participants? Give you just another minute. Professor Robert, would you like to give any concluding thoughts? Or we can conclude it there. No, I think that’s great. I do have to say, since we have a tea east, one correspondent from Japan, uh, if you would give my best wishes to my good friend Dr Todoroki Kumamoto at Qaida University, who runs the I knew center, You in Japan have lots of really interesting indigenous rights issues to deal with. And, ah, I loved your I’ve been to Japan several times and really, really have enjoyed my time there. And and Japan and away could be the sort of the new cutting edge on indigenous rights. Um, Brazil also, But, you know, they have sort of different different issues. Aziz Elena mentioned there. Okay, with that, I want to think Professor Robertson, for sharing your expertise on this very complex and timely topic and to all of our participants for your excellent questions. And that concludes today’s briefing. Good afternoon. Thank you. Thank you.