Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 54.0

26 

OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

omitted).  In Williams v. Lee, issued in 1959, this Court was 
clear  again:  “[I]f  the  crime  was  by  or  against  an  Indian,
tribal  jurisdiction  or  that  expressly  conferred  on  other
courts by Congress has remained exclusive.”  358 U. S., at 
220.  As  early  as  1926,  this  Court  made  the  same  point
while speaking directly to Oklahoma.  Ramsey, 271 U. S., 
at 469–470.  It is a point our cases have continued to make
in recent years.7  It is a point a host of other courts—includ-
ing state courts issuing decisions contrary to their own in-
terests—have acknowledged too.8 

The Executive Branch has likewise understood the States 
to lack authority to try crimes by or against Indians in In-
dian country absent congressional authorization.  Not only
did the Washington Administration recognize as much.  See 
Part I–A, supra.  The same view has persisted throughout 
the Nation’s history.  In 1940, the Acting Secretary of the
Interior  advised  Congress  that  state  criminal  jurisdiction
extends “only to situations where both the offender and the 
victim” are non-Indians.  S. Rep. No. 1523, 76th Cong., 3d 
Sess., 2 (Vol. 2).  A few decades later, the Solicitor General 
made a similar representation to this Court.  See Brief for 
United States as Amicus Curiae in Arizona v. Flint, O. T. 

—————— 

7 See, e.g., United States v. Bryant, 579 U. S. 140, 146 (2016); Nevada 
v. Hicks, 533 U. S. 353, 365 (2001); Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U. S. 463, 465, 
n.  2  (1984);  Washington  v.  Confederated  Bands  and  Tribes  of  Yakima 
Nation,  439  U. S.  463,  470–471  (1979);  McClanahan  v.  Arizona  Tax 
Comm’n, 411 U. S. 164, 170–171 (1973). 

8 See, e.g., State v. Cungtion, 969 N. W. 2d 501, 504–505 (Iowa 2022); 
State v. Sebastian, 243 Conn. 115, 128, and n. 21, 701 A. 2d 13, 22, and 
n.  21  (1997);  State  v.  Larson,  455  N. W. 2d  600,  600–601  (S.  D.  1990); 
State v. Flint, 157 Ariz. 227, 228, 756 P. 2d 324, 324–325 (App. 1988); 
State v. Greenwalt, 204 Mont. 196, 204–205, 663 P. 2d 1178, 1182–1183 
(1983);  State  v.  Warner,  71  N. M.  418,  421–422,  379  P.  2d  66,  68–69 
(1963); State v. Kuntz, 66 N. W. 2d 531, 532 (N. D. 1954); State v. Jack-
son, 218 Minn. 429, 430, 16 N. W. 2d 752, 754–755 (1944); see also United 
States v. Langford, 641 F. 3d 1195, 1199 (CA10 2011); United States v. 
Bruce, 394 F. 3d 1215, 1221 (CA9 2005).