Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 56.0

28 

OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

D 

Against  all  this  evidence,  what  is  the  Court’s  reply?    It 
acknowledges that, at the Nation’s founding, tribal sover-
eignty precluded States from prosecuting crimes on tribal 
lands by or against tribal members without congressional
authorization.  See ante, at 5.  But the Court suggests this 
traditional “ ‘notion’ ” flipped 180 degrees sometime in “the
latter  half  of  the  1800s.”  Ante,  at  5,  21.   Since  then,  the 
Court says, Oklahoma has enjoyed the “inherent” power to
try at least crimes by non-Indians against tribal members 
on tribal reservations until and unless Congress preempts
state authority.

But exactly when and how did this change happen?  The 
Court  never  explains.    Instead,  the  Court  seeks  to  cast 
blame for its ruling on a grab bag of decisions issued by our 
predecessors.  But the failure of that effort is transparent. 
Start  with  McBratney,  which  the  Court  describes  as  our 
“leading case in the criminal context.”  Ante, at 6.  There, as 
we  have  seen,  the  Court  said  that  States  admitted  to  the 
Union may gain the right to prosecute cases involving only 
non-Indians on tribal lands, but they do not gain any inher-
ent right to punish “crimes committed by or against Indi-
ans”  on  tribal  lands.    McBratney,  104  U. S.,  at  624.    The 
Court’s reliance on Draper fares no better, for that case is-
sued a similar disclaimer.  See 164 U. S., at 247.  Tellingly,
not even Oklahoma thinks McBratney and Draper compel a 
ruling in its favor.  See Brief for Petitioner 12.  And if any-
thing, the Court’s invocation of Donnelly, 228 U. S. 243, is 
more baffling still.  Ante, at 14, n. 3.  There, the Court once 
more  reaffirmed  the  rule  that  “offenses  committed  by  or
against Indians” on tribal lands remain subject to federal,
not state, jurisdiction.  Donnelly, 228 U. S., at 271; see also 
Ramsey, 271 U. S., at 469. 

That  leaves  the  Court  to  assemble  a  string  of  carefully
curated snippets—a clause here, a sentence there—from six