Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

7 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

Crimes Act (MCA).  See R. Anderson, S. Krakoff, & B. Ber-
ger, American Indian Law: Cases and Commentary 90–96 
(4th ed. 2008) (Anderson).  There, Congress directed that, 
moving  forward,  only  the  federal  government,  not  the 
Tribes,  could  prosecute  certain  serious  offenses  by  tribal 
members on tribal lands.  See 18 U. S. C. § 1153(a).  On its 
own initiative, this Court then went a step further.  Relying
on language in certain laws admitting specific States to the
Union, the Court held that States were now entitled to pros-
ecute crimes by non-Indians against non-Indians on tribal
lands.  See United States v. McBratney, 104 U. S. 621, 623 
(1882);  Draper  v.  United  States,  164  U. S.  240,  243,  247 
(1896).  Through all these developments, however, at least 
one promise remained:  States could play no role in the pros-
ecution of crimes by or against Native Americans on tribal
lands.  See Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217, 220 (1959). 

In 1906, Congress reaffirmed this promise to the Chero-
kee  in  Oklahoma.    As  a  condition  of  its  admission  to  the 
Union,  Congress  required  Oklahoma  to  “declare  that  [it]
forever disclaim[s] all right and title in or to . . . all lands 
lying  within  [the  State’s]  limits  owned  or  held  by  any  In-
dian, tribe, or nation.”  34 Stat. 270.  Instead, Congress pro-
vided that tribal lands would “remain subject to the juris-
diction,  disposal,  and  control  of  the  United  States.”  Ibid. 
As if the point wasn’t clear enough, Congress further pro-
vided that “nothing contained in the [new Oklahoma state] 
constitution shall be construed to . . . limit or affect the au-
thority of the Government of the United States . . . respect-
ing [the State’s] Indians . . . which it would have been com-
petent to make if this Act had never been passed.”  Id., at 
267–268.  The  following  year,  Oklahoma  adopted  a  State
Constitution consistent with Congress’s instructions.  Art. 
I, § 3; see also Clinton 961. 

In the years that followed, certain States sought arrange-
ments  different  from  Oklahoma’s.    And  once  more,  Con-
gress intervened.  In 1940, Kansas asked for and received