“There’s a fundamental principle of law that derives from Sherlock Holmes, which is the dog that didn’t bark,” he said. “And how can it be that none of this was recognized by anybody or asserted by the Creek Nation, as far as I’m aware, for 100 years?”

Ian H. Gershengorn, a lawyer for Mr. Murphy, said the tribe had continued to exercise sovereignty after Oklahoma became a state. “It abolished tribal offices,” he said. “It created the office of executive interpreter and funded it.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was unimpressed. “That’s the best you’ve got?” he asked. “In terms of the ongoing functioning and relationship, the best example you have of the tribe’s continuing authority is hiring an interpreter?”

Other justices were more interested in the consequences of a ruling in Mr. Murphy’s favor. Edwin S. Kneedler, a lawyer for the federal government, arguing in favor of Oklahoma, listed what he said were some of them.

“Any crime involving an Indian as a victim or a perpetrator would be subject to federal jurisdiction, not state jurisdiction,” he said. That would, he said, strain the resources of the F.B.I. and federal prosecutors. The state would not be able to impose taxes on Native Americans, he added, and many other ordinary laws could be affected.

“This would be a dramatic change from the way everyone has understood it for the past 100 years,” Mr. Kneedler said.

Ms. Blatt said a ruling in favor of Mr. Murphy could affect many other convictions.

“There are 2,000 prisoners in state court who committed a crime in the former Indian Territory who self-identify as Native American,” she said. “This number is grossly underinclusive because, if the victim was Native American, the state court also lacked jurisdiction. That’s 155 murderers, 113 rapists and over 200 felons who committed crimes against children.”