The Supreme Court recently ruled to allow state-level prosecution on Native American lands, specifically the prosecution of non-Natives who commit crimes on tribal lands. The decision will partially overturn previous SCOTUS rulings about jurisdiction on Native American lands.
USA Today reports that the Supreme Court recently ruled to grant Oklahoma jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Natives against Native Americans that occur on Native American lands. This decision was reached after Oklahoma state authorities charged Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta with child neglect. His stepdaughter was a 5-year-old member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals overturned Castro-Huerta’s original conviction because the crime occurred on Native lands, and therefore state courts did not have jurisdiction. SCOTUS overturned the Criminal Appeals Court’s ruling.
"In a 5-4 vote, U.S. Supreme Court limits ruling on tribal lands," Marie Coronel of ABC News wrote in a June 29 Twitter post. "Justice Kavanaugh wrote the opinion and Justices Gorsuch, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented. Gorsuch wrote this ruling allows an intrusion on ‘tribal sovereignty recognized since the founding."
According to the transcript from the case—Oklahoma v. Castro Huerta—the decision of the Supreme Court passed on a 5-4 margin. It was backed by Justice Brett Kavanaugh—who wrote the majority opinion—as well as Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.
The official holding of the court was that “The Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.” This is because “This Court has long held that Indian country is part of a state, not separate from it. Under the Constitution, states have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes within their territory except when preempted by federal law or by principles of tribal self-government. The default is that states have criminal jurisdiction in Indian country unless that jurisdiction is preempted. And that jurisdiction has not been preempted here.”
NPR reports that the decision in Oklahoma v. Castro Huerta comes three years after a previous SCOTUS ruling, in which it was determined that the eastern half of the state of Oklahoma was on tribal land, which meant that criminal prosecutors could not pursue cases on Indian lands without the permission of resident tribes. This ruling led to a decrease in state-level prosecutions on Native American lands, as only tribal courts and federal prosecutors could pursue criminal cases, and tribal courts were not authorized to prosecute non-American Indians. Federal prosecutions increased by 400%, but many criminals were not held accountable for crimes committed on Native American lands. This is what prompted the State of Oklahoma to pursue their case against Castro-Huerta and seek state-level prosecutory jurisdiction.
