Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 48.0

20 

OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

In 1906, Congress sought to deliver on its treaty promises 
when  it  adopted  the  Oklahoma  Enabling  Act.    That  law 
paved the way for the new State’s admission to the Union. 
But in doing so, Congress took care to require Oklahoma to
“agree and declare” that it would “forever disclaim all right 
and title in or to . . . all lands lying within [the State’s] lim-
its owned or held by any Indian, tribe, or nation.”  34 Stat. 
270.  Instead of granting the State some new power to pros-
ecute  crimes  by  or  against  tribal  members,  Congress  in-
sisted that tribal lands “shall be and remain subject to the 
jurisdiction,  disposal,  and  control  of  the  United  States.” 
Ibid.  Oklahoma complied with Congress’s instructions by
adopting both of these commitments verbatim in its Consti-
tution.  Art. I, § 3. 

Underscoring  the  nature  of  this  arrangement,  the  Ena-
bling  Act  further  provided  that  “nothing  contained  in  the 

—————— 
(internal quotation marks omitted).  In truth, while some members of the 
Tribe did side with the Confederacy, others fought for the Union.  See 1 
Litton 222, 224, 239.  Regardless, after the Civil War the federal govern-
ment punished the entire Tribe by stripping some of its lands in the 1866
Treaty of Washington.  See id., at 245.  But that pact did not terminate 
the  government’s  other  existing  treaty  promises.    To  the  contrary,  the 
new treaty expressly confirmed that “[a]ll provisions of treaties, hereto-
fore ratified . . . and not inconsistent with the provisions of this treaty, 
are hereby reaffirmed.”  Treaty with the Cherokee, Art. XXXI, 14 Stat. 
806.  As for the 1871 statute the Court cites, it makes plain that “nothing
herein contained shall be construed to invalidate or impair the obligation
of any treaty heretofore lawfully made and ratified with any . . . Indian 
nation or tribe.”  16 Stat. 566.  Recognizing as much, this Court in 1896
expressly recognized that the Tribe’s “guarantee of self-government” in
the Treaty of New Echota remained in force.  Talton, 163 U. S., at 380. 
In the years since, this Court and others have recognized the continuing 
vitality of various aspects of the treaty too.  See, e.g., Choctaw Nation v. 
Oklahoma,  397  U. S.  620,  628  (1970);  EEOC  v.  Cherokee  Nation,  871 
F. 2d 937, 938 (CA10 1989).  And in this very case, the federal govern-
ment has confirmed that the Nation’s treaties continue to “protect” the 
Tribe.  See Tr. of Oral Arg. 121.