Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 38

10 

OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

The  State  only  disavowed  that  practice  in  1991,  after  de-
feats  in  state  and  federal  court.    See  Haney,  1991  WL 
567868, *1–*3; see also State v. Klindt, 782 P. 2d 401, 404 
(Okla. Crim. App. 1989); Ross v. Neff, 905 F. 2d 1349, 1353 
(CA10 1990). 

Still, it seems old habits die slowly.  Even after renounc-
ing the power to try criminal cases involving Native Amer-
icans on allotted tribal lands, Oklahoma continued to claim 
the power to prosecute crimes by or against Native Ameri-
cans within tribal reservations.  The State did so on the the-
ory that at some (unspecified) point in the past, Congress 
had disestablished those reservations.  In McGirt v. Okla-
homa, this Court rejected that argument in a case involving
the Muscogee (Creek) Tribe.  591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip 
op., at 1).  We explained that Congress had never disestab-
lished the Creek Reservation.  Nor were we willing to usurp
Congress’s authority and disestablish that reservation by a
lawless act of judicial fiat.  See id., at ___ (slip op., at 42). 
Accordingly,  only  federal  and  tribal  authorities  were  law-
fully entitled to try crimes by or against Native Americans
within the Tribe’s reservation.  Ibid.  Following McGirt, Ok-
lahoma’s  courts  recognized  that  what  held  true  for  the 
Creek also held true for the Cherokee:  Congress had never
disestablished  its  reservation  and,  accordingly,  the  State 
lacked authority to try offenses by or against tribal mem-
bers within the Cherokee Reservation.  See Spears v. State, 
2021 OK CR 7, ¶¶ 10–14, 485 P. 3d 873, 876–877.

Once more, Oklahoma could have  responded to this de-
velopment by asking Congress for state-specific legislation
authorizing  it  to  exercise  criminal  jurisdiction  on  tribal 
lands, as Kansas and various other States have done.  The 
State  could  have  employed  the  procedures  of  Public  Law 
280 to amend its own laws and obtain tribal consent.  In-
stead,  Oklahoma  responded  with  a  media  and  litigation 
campaign seeking to portray reservations within its State—
where federal and tribal authorities may prosecute crimes