Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 34

6 

OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

consistent with, and even seemingly compelled by, the fed-
eral government’s treaties with various Tribes.  See F. Co-
hen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 731 (N. Newton et al. 
eds.  2005)  (Cohen);  R.  Clinton,  Development  of  Criminal
Jurisdiction  Over  Indian  Lands:  The  Historical  Perspec-
tive, 17 Ariz. L. Rev. 951, 958–962 (1975) (Clinton).  Second, 
because Worcester held that States lacked criminal jurisdic-
tion on tribal lands, Congress sought to ensure a federal fo-
rum for crimes committed by and against non-Indians.  See 
H.  Rep.  No.  474,  at  13.    Otherwise,  Congress  understood,
non-Indian  settlers  would  be  subject  to  tribal  jurisdiction
alone.  See id., at 13, 18; R. Barsh & J. Henderson, The Be-
trayal, Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe and the Hunt-
ing  of  the  Snark,  63  Minn.  L.  Rev.  609,  625–626  (1979).
Congress  reenacted  the  GCA  in  1948  with  minor  amend-
ments, but it remains in force today more or less in its orig-
inal form.  See 18 U. S. C. § 1152 (1946 ed., Supp. II).

Shortly after it adopted the GCA, the Senate ratified the 
Treaty of New Echota with the Cherokee in 1836.  After the 
Tribe’s removal from Georgia, the United States promised 
the Cherokee that they would enjoy a new home in the West 
where  they  could  “establish  . . .  a  government  of  their 
choice.”  Treaty  with  the  Cherokee,  Preamble,  Dec.  29, 
1835, 7 Stat. 478.  Acknowledging the Tribe’s past “difficul-
ties . . . under the jurisdiction and laws of the State Govern-
ments,” the treaty also pledged that the Tribe would remain
forever free from “State sovereignties.”  Ibid.; see Art. 5, id., 
at 481.  These promises constituted an “indemnity,” guar-
anteed by “the faith of the nation,” that “[t]he United States
and  the  Indian  tribes  [would  be]  the  sole  parties”  with
power  on  new  western  reservations  like  the  Cherokee’s. 
H. Rep. No. 474, at 18 (emphasis in original). 

Over time, Congress revised some of these arrangements. 
In 1885, dissatisfied with how the Sioux Tribe responded to
the murder of a tribal member, Congress adopted the Major