The @nytimes has published numerous articles biased against Natives. But this @adamliptak piece is so one-sided that, with all due respect, it reads like a puff piece for Oklahoma (whose attorneys Adam knows personally). Let’s start with the title: 1/ nytimes.com/2021/08/16/us/…
Unlike Adam's article on the state of Miss. challenge to Roe v. Wade (another challenge that leverages the Court’s new composition) Adam calls OK challenge “bold” (courageous, not baldly political) and calls McGirt “at risk” rather than calling the petition "frivolous" 2/ 
He also doesn’t take the time to get the law right: Congress doesn’t just “remain free to address the matter.” Congress *must* be the branch that acts to unilaterally abrogate a treaty. The Court does not have that power. The Court held in McGirt that Congress had *not acted*. 3/
McGirt held that Congress had done nothing for over a hundred years. Congress has done *nothing* since McGirt was issued last summer. This description of the law would fail my exam. 4/
He also incorrectly calls McGirt “constitutional” w/r/t Barrett’s position on precedent. McGirt asked whether Congress had abrogated a treaty. That is *not* a constitutional question. It interprets acts of Congress, not the Constitution. 6/
Finally, he essentially restates the “facts” from OK’s brief as reality. If OK courts had been “plunged into chaos” the governor would have bargained quickly and in good faith with Native nations in OK. Instead, he mounted a political lawsuit that will take months to resolve. 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
