Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (2022): concurrent state jurisdiction over non-Indians in Indian country

What happened

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta asked who may prosecute a non-Indian who commits a crime against a Native victim in Indian country. Victor Castro-Huerta was convicted in state court. He argued that only the federal government could prosecute him, and the question reached the Supreme Court after McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) confirmed that the Creek reservation still exists for the Major Crimes Act.

The Court held on June 29, 2022, that the State has "concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians" in Indian country, alongside federal prosecutors. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for a five-justice majority. The majority wrote that Indian country is part of a State, and that a State may prosecute unless federal law or principles of tribal self-government stop it. It said the early view in Worcester v. Georgia, that a tribe's land was separate from the State, "has yielded to closer analysis."

Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. He wrote that after the Cherokee's exile "the federal government promised the Tribe that it would remain forever free from interference by state authorities," and he began: "Where this Court once stood firm, today it wilts."

This is context, not an adjudicated treaty violation. The majority decided the case on federal statutes and precedent, and the treaty promise described above is the dissent's account.

Good to know. The treaty promise described here comes from the dissent, not from the Court's ruling.

Summarized with AI assistance from 3 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error