Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta

Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta, a non-Indian, was convicted in Oklahoma state court for criminally neglecting his five-year-old stepdaughter, a Cherokee child with cerebral palsy, on the Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation. Following the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which recognized much of eastern Oklahoma as Indian country, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals vacated the conviction, holding that the state lacked jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indians for crimes against Indians in Indian country. Oklahoma appealed, arguing the state retained concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government over such offenses. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether a state has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians on tribal land. The case addressed critical questions of state sovereignty, federal preemption, and tribal jurisdiction, revisiting the boundaries set by McGirt.

In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court reversed the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The Court held that the State of Oklahoma possesses concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government to prosecute non-Indians for crimes against Indians on tribal reservations. The ruling determined that Indian country falls within state territory, states retain inherent sovereign interests in prosecuting crimes within their borders, and neither the General Crimes Act nor federal preemption principles categorically bar such state jurisdiction. Castro-Huerta's state conviction was reinstated. Justices Gorsuch, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented.

Whether a state has concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country, and whether the General Crimes Act or principles of federal preemption bar such state prosecutions.

The decision significantly curtailed the practical impact of McGirt v. Oklahoma by restoring state authority to prosecute non-Indian offenders who victimize Native Americans on reservation land. It was praised by state officials and some victim advocates as closing a dangerous jurisdictional gap that endangered Native victims. Tribal nations and sovereignty advocates strongly criticized the ruling, warning it eroded tribal legal authority and contradicted centuries of federal Indian law precedent by expanding state power into Indian country without congressional authorization. The case has led to increased jurisdictional complexity, with overlapping state and federal authority, and continues to fuel debates over public safety on reservations and the scope of tribal sovereignty.