McGirt v Oklahoma and What Clinicians Should Know About Present-Day Child Abuse and Legacies of Forced Migration

0Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

In 1997, Jimcy McGirt was convicted by the State of Oklahoma for sex crimes against a minor. McGirt appealed his conviction, citing that Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction over the case due to his tribal citizenship, since the crime took place on tribal territory. On July 9, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) reversed the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' original decision for the case, citing that Congress had failed to disestablish reservations with regard to the Major Crimes Act, which gave the federal government jurisdiction over major felony crimes perpetrated by Native Americans on reservations. This ruling has already caused sweeping changes in the investigations and prosecutions of child maltreatment in eastern Oklahoma, as such cases may fall under the jurisdiction of federal agencies or tribal law enforcement. This article details the historic significance of the decision and the experiences of 3 child abuse pediatricians working as part of a multidisciplinary team while jurisdictional changes were implemented following the SCOTUS ruling.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hendrix-Dicken, A. D., Passmore, S. J., Baxter, M. A., & Conway, L. K. (2023). McGirt v Oklahoma and What Clinicians Should Know About Present-Day Child Abuse and Legacies of Forced Migration. AMA Journal of Ethics, 25(2), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2023.123

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free