Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta - 142 S. Ct. 2486 (2022)

Rule:

The Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country. By its terms, the General Crimes Act does not preempt the State’s authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country. The text of the Act simply “extends” federal law to Indian country, leaving untouched the background principle of state jurisdiction over crimes committed within the State, including in Indian country. Also, Public Law 280 affirmatively grants certain States broad jurisdiction to prosecute state-law offenses committed by or against Indians in Indian country. Other States may opt in, with tribal consent. But Public Law 280 does not preempt any preexisting or otherwise lawfully assumed jurisdiction that States possess to prosecute crimes in Indian country. Public Law 280 contains no language that preempts States’ civil or criminal jurisdiction.

Facts:

In 2015, respondent Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta was charged by the petitioner State of Oklahoma for child neglect. Respondent was convicted in state court and sentenced to 35 years of imprisonment. While respondent’s state-court appeal was pending, this Court decided a case where, the court held that the Creek Nation’s reservation in eastern Oklahoma had never been properly disestablished and therefore remained Indian country. In light of that case, the eastern part of Oklahoma, including Tulsa, was recognized as Indian country. Following this development, respondent argued that the Federal Government had exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute him who is a non-Indian for a crime committed against his stepdaughter who is a Cherokee Indian in Tulsa, and that the petitioner therefore lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him. The court of criminal appeals agreed and vacated his conviction. 

Issue:

Did petitioner state have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that petitioner state had concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by a non-Indian against an Indian in Indian country because no federal law, including the General Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1152, or Public Law 280, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1162, preempted the petitioner state’s exercise of jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country. Also, the principles of tribal self-government likewise did not preempt state jurisdiction because a state prosecution of a crime committed by a non-Indian against an Indian would not deprive the tribe of any of its prosecutorial authority. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the case.