Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

22 

OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA 

Opinion of the Court 

from  a  State,  the  second  question  here—the  question  re-
garding  the  State’s  jurisdiction  to  prosecute  Castro-
Huerta—is also straightforward.  Under the Constitution, 
States  have  jurisdiction  to  prosecute  crimes  within  their
territory  except  when  preempted  (in  a  manner  consistent 
with  the  Constitution)  by  federal  law  or  by  principles  of 
tribal  self-government.  As  we  have  explained,  no  federal
law preempts the State’s exercise of jurisdiction over crimes 
committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian coun-
try.  And principles of tribal self-government likewise do not 
preempt state jurisdiction here.

As a corollary to its argument that Indian country is in-
herently  separate  from  States,  the  dissent  contends  that 
Congress  must  affirmatively  authorize  States  to  exercise 
jurisdiction  in  Indian  country,  even  jurisdiction  to  prose-
cute crimes committed by non-Indians.  But under the Con-
stitution  and  this  Court’s  precedents,  the  default  is  that 
States may exercise criminal jurisdiction within their terri-
tory.  See Amdt. 10.  States do not need a permission slip 
from  Congress  to  exercise  their  sovereign  authority.    In 
other words, the default is that States have criminal juris-
diction  in  Indian  country  unless  that  jurisdiction  is 
preempted.  In the dissent’s view, by contrast, the default is 
that States do not have criminal jurisdiction in Indian coun-
try unless Congress specifically provides it.  The dissent’s 
view is inconsistent with the Constitution’s structure, the 
States’ inherent sovereignty, and the Court’s precedents. 

Straying  further  afield,  the  dissent  seizes  on  treaties
from  the  1800s.    Post,  at  18−20,  and  n. 4  (opinion  of 
GORSUCH, J.).8  But those treaties do not preclude state ju-
risdiction  here.  The  dissent  relies  heavily  on  the  1835 
Treaty  of  New  Echota,  which  stated  that  Indian  country 
—————— 

8 Congress  “abolished  treatymaking  with  the  Indian  nations  in  1871 
and has itself subjected the tribes to substantial bodies of state and fed-
eral law.”  County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Ya-
kima Nation, 502 U. S. 251, 257 (1992) (citation omitted).