By SCOTT MCKIE B.P.
One Feather Staff
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday, June 29 that states now have the ability to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes in Indian Country. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court overturned Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta case from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta, a non-Indian in Tulsa, Okla. was convicted of child neglect of his then-5-year-old stepdaughter, a member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI), and he was sentenced to 35 years in prison. Several years later, the Supreme Court case of McGirt v. Oklahoma found that the U.S. Congress had never disestablished the Creek Reservation which, therefore, classified a large swath of territory in the eastern part of Oklahoma as Indian Country.
As a result, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals vacated Castro-Huerta’s conviction. According to Wednesday’s ruling, “While Castro-Huerta’s state appellate proceedings were ongoing, a federal grand jury in Oklahoma indicted Castro-Huerta for the same conduct. Castro-Huerta accepted a plea agreement for a 7-year sentence…”
The opinion of the Court, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, states, “We concluded that the federal government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian Country. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”
Justice Kavanaugh, who was joined in his opinion by Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett., further wrote, “Indian Country is part of the state, not separate from the state.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch, who dissented along with Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, wrote, “This Court has no business usurping congressional decisions about the appropriate balance between federal, tribal, and state interests. If the Court’s ruling today sounds like a legislative committee report touting the benefits of some newly-proposed bill, that’s because it is exactly that. And, given that a nine-member court is a poor substitute for the people’s elected representatives, it is not surprise that the Court’s cost-benefit analysis is radically incomplete. The Court’s decision is not just a juridical interpretation of the law’s meaning; it is the pastiche of a legislative process.”
EBCI Principal Chief Richard G. Sneed commented, “The recent United States Supreme Court decision in Oklahoma v. Castro Huerta is an affront to tribal sovereignty and further exacerbates the injustice caused by the inability of tribal nations to assert jurisdiction over non-Indian individuals who commit crimes on tribal lands against tribal citizens.”
“The Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, found that states have criminal jurisdiction over many criminal acts committed by non-Indians against tribal citizens on tribal lands, in direct violation of over 100 years of settled Indian law doctrine…this decision by the Court insinuates that tribes may not be separate sovereigns at all but are, in fact, part of the state in which they reside.”
Chief Sneed added, “This decision overturns roughly 200 years of High Court precedent that recognized the inherent rights of tribal nations to self-govern, free from state interference. If the Supreme Court is truly interested in seeing justice for the victims of violence crimes in Indian Country, then it should look to overturn Oliphant v. Suquamish (1978) and allow tribal nations to exercise their jurisdictional authority over all individuals who commit crimes on tribal lands.”
Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt opposed the McGirt ruling and applauded the ruling in Castro-Huerta in a statement, “Today’s ruling is a clear victory for all four million Oklahomans, the state of Oklahoma, and the rule of law. I am heartened that the Supreme Court ruled in our favor, allowing Oklahoma to prosecute non-Natives who violate the law and protect Native victims. Since the Court’s 2020 McGirt decision, federal prosecutors have declined thousands of cases like Castro-Huerta, a non-Native who monstrously abused his 5-year-old Native stepdaughter. Justice has been delayed and denied to thousands of Native victims in our state for no reason other than their race. Now, Oklahoma law enforcement can help uphold and enforce the law equally, as we have done for over a century.”
The decision was met with opposition from Indian Country, especially from tribal leaders in Oklahoma.
“With today’s decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against legal precedent and the basic principles of congressional authority and Indian law,” said Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. in a statement. “During arguments, Justice Gorsuch asked if the Court would wilt today because of a social media campaign – it is unfortunate that the answer appears to be yes. The dissent today did not mince words – the Court failed in its duty to honor the nation’s promises, defied Congress’s statutes, and accepted the ‘lawless disregard of the Cherokee’s sovereignty’.”
Fawn Sharp, National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) president, noted in a statement, “The Supreme Court’s decision today is an attack on tribal sovereignty and the hard-fought progress of our ancestors to exercise our inherent sovereignty over our own territories…the Supreme Court has dealt a massive blow to tribal sovereignty and Congress must, again, respond.”
Quapaw Nation Business Committee Chairman Joseph Tali Byrd, noted in a statement, “Today, the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision that is an affront to tribal sovereignty and erodes centuries of well-settled federal Indian law. By inserting itself into an area reserved specifically for Congress, SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States), signals that plenary power is no longer absolute when it comes to Indian affairs.”
Chairman Byrd, a graduate of the University of New Mexico School of Law, went on to state, “The Quapaw Nation remains steadfast and committed to ensuring public safety for all citizens within our reservation and will continue to work with the State of Oklahoma in a concurrent jurisdiction framework.”
Choctaw Nation Chief Gary Batton, said in a statement, “We are disappointed in this ruling, but we respect the authority of the Supreme Court, and we will integrate its decision into our continued efforts to provide effective criminal justice in our reservation. As always, we will continue to work with law enforcement agencies at the federal, state, and tribal level. To be clear, this ruling does not affect the main holding of the McGirt decision, which affirmed tribal sovereignty and requires the United States to uphold its treaty obligations. Our focus remains on protecting our members, as well as all 4 million Oklahoma residents.”
Federal legislators and officials also reacted to the ruling.
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) praised the ruling in a statement. “Since the 2020 Supreme Court decision in McGirt, the FBI has been overwhelmed prosecuting criminal cases in Oklahoma. The Supreme Court’s decision today affirms the responsibility of federal and state officials to work together to pursue justice for victims of crimes on reservation land.”
Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) called the ruling “a direct assault on tribal sovereignty” and said, “This shocking decision erodes bedrock protections for tribal sovereignty and has far-reaching implications for tribal jurisdiction, public safety, and federal resources. Never in American history have we seen a Supreme Court show such blatant disregard for settled law and fundamental rights protected by our Constitution.”
U.S. Attorneys Christopher J. Wilson, Clinton J. Johnson, and Robert J. Troester said in a joint statement, “The United States Attorney’s Offices in the Eastern, Northern, and Western Districts of Oklahoma will continue to enforce federal law in Indian Country. We will also continue to coordinate and cooperate with our state, local, and tribal law enforcement partners as well as state and tribal prosecutors.”
