No. 21-259
Oklahoma v. Arnold Dean Howell
Tags: criminal-law criminal-procedure federal-jurisdiction indian-law judicial-review McGirt-precedent native-american-rights oklahoma-sovereignty stare-decisis state-jurisdiction statutory-interpretation tribal-jurisdiction
Latest Conference:
2022-01-21
(distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452
(2020), should be overruled.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma should be overruled
Docket Entries
2022-01-24
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.
2022-01-24
Petition DENIED.
2022-01-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/21/2022.
2022-01-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/14/2022.
2021-12-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
2021-10-28
Reply of petitioner Oklahoma filed.
2021-10-15
Brief amicus curiae of Muscogee (Creek) Nation filed.
2021-10-15
Brief of respondent Arnold D. Howell in opposition filed.
2021-10-15
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Arnold D. Howell.
2021-09-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 22, 2021.
2021-09-22
Letter from counsel for petitioner filed.
2021-09-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 22, 2021 to October 22, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-08-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 22, 2021)
Attorneys
Arnold D. Howell
Zachary Charles Schauf — Jenner & Block, LLP, Respondent
Muscogee (Creek) Nation
Riyaz Amir Kanji — Kanji & Kantzen, PLLC, Amicus
Oklahoma
Mithun Mansinghani — Solicitor General, Petitioner