To: IGA Member Tribes From: Ernest L. Stevens, Jr., Chairman Jason C. Giles, Executive Director
Re: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta , Holding Oklahoma has Concurrent Criminal Jurisdiction over Non-Indian Crime in Indian Country Date: June 29, 2022 On Wednesday, June 29, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion on the appeal filed by the State of Oklahoma (“State”) concerning the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeal’s decision to apply McGirt v. Oklahoma and vacate Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta’s state criminal conviction for a crime committed against his daughter, a member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, in Tulsa on Indian lands. Finding for the State, the Supreme Court held that its “precedents establish that Indian country is part of a state’s territory and that, unless preempted, States have jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian country.” In doing so, the Court has conferred concurrent jurisdiction between the state and federal governments to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country. Castro-Huerta, a non-Indian, was convicted in state court for the malnourishment and neglect of his stepdaughter and was sentenced to thirty-five years of imprisonment. Following the release of McGirt , Castro-Huerta filed an appeal of his state conviction, asserting that only the federal government could prosecute him since his alleged crimes were committed against an Indian in Indian county. While his state appeal was pending, a federal grand jury indicted Castro-Huerta for the same conduct. In federal court, Castro-Huerta accepted a plea deal for a seven-year sentence. Castro-Huerta’s state appeal was eventually granted, and his state conviction was vacated. On April 27, 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments. During arguments, the State’s position relied heavily on the assertion that the federal government was failing to fill a gap left in law enforcement following the McGirt decision, and as a result, the State required concurrent jurisdiction to restore balance to its criminal justice system. During questioning by the Justices, the State agreed that the General Crimes Act did not preempt state jurisdiction as it did not affirmatively strip states of power in Indian country. Advocates for the side of Castro-Huerta argued that, per the Court’s own ruling in McGirt , states do not possess powers in Indian country unless there is specific authorization from Congress, and for the past 200 years, the Court has uniformly found that the General Crimes Act preempts state criminal prosecutions. On June 29, 2022, the 5-4 decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta , with a majority penned by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, took several steps back from the Court’s recognition of tribal sovereignty that Indian country received just two years prior. “In short, the court’s precedents establish that Indian Country is part of a state’s territory and that, unless preempted, states have jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian Country,” wrote Kavanaugh, further concluding that “any tribal self-government ‘justification for preemption of state jurisdiction’ would be ‘problematic.’” Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the dissent,
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs