https://kfor.com/news/local/oklahoma-tribes-respond-to-stitts-state-of-the-state/

Not far in "Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that McGirt is not retroactive."

https://kfor.com/news/local/supreme-court-mcgirt-should-not-be-applied-retroactively-to-past-cases/

"On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal of the Oklahoma court’s ruling. As a result, the lower court’s decision about McGirt not being applied retroactively to past cases stands."

How is refusing to hear an appeal the same thing as "We ruled that the state courts decision is legitimate"?

To me it seems obvious that the bid to limit federal/tribal law with a state ruling was a waste of time in general which is why there is no need to hear it.

if a state supreme court makes a ruling, and you want to appeal that ruling, the only court that can overrule the state SC is the US SC. if the US SC refuses the appeal, that means the state SC's ruling applies and that is now law, in that state.

Thing is the ruling they are trying to limit was in itself applied retroactively. So any state ruling would be in direct conflict with a US SC ruling on the matter. Meaning the original case used for the ruling made by the US SC would be back in state control.

The appeal they refused to hear wasn't the original so how can it be used to bypass a US SC ruling?

papa said no cookies, kid said im gonna eat a cookie unless someone says no to me, papa silent, kid eat cookie.

Papa said no to all the cookie ingredients but didn't say no to cookie itself

More realistic version for this one.