1. Was the Oklahoma court's decision to approve reinstating Ms. Tiger's convictions based on such a novel and unforeseeable change in state procedural law that this Court may review her challenge to the trial court's jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act and McGirt? See, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041–42 (1983) (explaining that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review state court rulings that are based on adequate and independent grounds in state law).

2. If so, should the Court grant the petition, vacate the judgment below, and remand this case for further proceedings in light of Cruz v. Arizona, 143 S. Ct. 650 (2023)?

Was the Oklahoma court's decision to approve reinstating Ms. Tiger's convictions based on such a novel and unforeseeable change in state procedural law that this Court may review her challenge to the trial court's jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act and McGirt?