![handle is hein.crs/govehyc0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congressional ____
S£Research Service
SCOTUS Bolsters State Criminal Jurisdiction
on Tribal Lands
July 1, 2022
Rejecting the view that states lack criminal jurisdiction on tribal reservations unless Congress specifically
grants such jurisdiction, on June 29, 2022, the Supreme Court announced in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
that the default is that States have criminal jurisdiction in Indian country unless that jurisdiction is
preempted. In practice, this decision will allow Oklahoma-and likely other states that choose to follow
Oklahoma's lead-to prosecute crimes involving non-Indian perpetrators within reservations and other
Indian lands, even when the victims are members of federally recognized tribes.
Legal Background
In the 2020 case ofMcGirt v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court decided that land reserved for a tribe in
Oklahoma remained Indian country for criminal jurisdiction purposes. Explaining that [s]tate courts
generally have no jurisdiction to [prosecute] Indians for conduct committed in 'Indian country' absent
congressional authorization, the Court overturned the petitioner's Oklahoma state conviction.
In the wake ofMcGirt, the State of Oklahoma filed dozens of petitions for certiorari asking the Supreme
Court to reconsider its ruling and to address additional jurisdictional questions. The Court ultimately
granted certiorari in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta to answer the question of whether states have inherent
authority to prosecute non-Indians-that is, persons who are not members of a federally recognized
tribe-who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country (though the Court declined Oklahoma's
invitation to consider overruling McGirt outright).
The Majority Opinion
In a 5-4 decision, the Castro-Huerta Court concluded that states have inherent criminal jurisdiction over
non-Indians, except where such jurisdiction is preempted by (1) federal law or (2) the interests of tribal
self-government. Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged that this conclusion
appears contrary to the holding of one of the foundational federal Indian law cases, Worcester v. Georgia.
That 1832 case held that Georgia state law had no force within the Cherokee Nation's boundaries.
However, in Castro-Huerta the Court determined that subsequent judicial holdings had eroded Worcester
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10778
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.crs/govehyc0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most