I found this:[0]

> In February 2005, the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs (a traditional Haudenosaunee government), the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe , and the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne signed an agreement with Governor George Pataki to resolve their historic claim to lands in Northern New York.

> Represented by the Indian Law Resource Center, the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs approved the agreement only after years of vigorous advocacy to ensure that the deal adequately protected the interests of their community and of future generations of Mohawks. “Through a lot of hard work at home and at the negotiating table, the Council of Chiefs has forged an agreement they can be very proud of,” said Indian Law Resource Center attorney Alex Page.

> The settlement agreement resolves legal claims first filed in federal court nearly twenty-five years ago. Those claims site repeated violations of a federal treaty confirming Mohawk land rights. Under the settlement, the Mohawks will receive lands and monetary compensation, as well as the opportunity to further expand their territory through purchases from willing sellers. The agreement does not include casinos or taxation, two issues the Mohawks successfully fought to keep separate from the land claim.

But near the end, I see this:

> Although legislation implementing the settlement passed the New York Assembly in 2005, the State Senate was not able to vote on the measure. We hope to see such legislation passed in the near future.

So maybe it's still in limbo.

Edit: From ciabattabread's comment, I gather that it remains unresolved.[1]

0) https://indianlaw.org/molr/landrights/mohawk

1) https://www.srmt-nsn.gov/resolve-the-boundary

I imagine Congress is going to pass a law the ensures that Tulsa is not on part of the reservation. ...because that would be ludicrous.

The Supreme Court is essentially forcing Congress to take a stance.

This is what Justice Thomas has been doing for a long time now (to a fault), and Gorsuch has also taken up: Congress, do your job rather than make the judicial branch perform extralegal bench activism.

Sure in theory Thomas is doing that, but it feels a lot like cosplay when such a resolution would go against his general views on power in general (see this case).

People might have their legal doctrines, but it’s rarely as clearcut as you lay out and all the justices can only at most be “problematic faves”

I agree on Thomas, hence the "to a fault" part in parens.

“to a fault” means “to an extent verging on excess.”

You seem to be using it to mean “to a point limited sharply by his policy preferences”, which is pretty much the opposite.

Large parts of Tacoma Washington are tribal land owned by non-tribe members and it functions. I would assume a similar arrangement would work in Tulsa.