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

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

Citizenship · Conviction · Criminology · Federal jurisdiction · Government (linguistics · Jurisdiction · Original jurisdiction · Political science · Politics · Sociology · State (computer science · Supreme court · Child Abuse and Trauma · Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare · Law · Migration, Health and Trauma

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

  Open Access•Amy Hendrix-Dicken, Sarah J Passmore et al.•The AMA Journal of Ethic•2023

  Incluir item

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

  Open Access•Amy Hendrix-Dicken, Sarah J Passmore et al.•The AMA Journal of Ethic•2023

  Incluir item