Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

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

19 

Opinion of the Court 

  Here,  Bracker  does  not  bar  the  State  from  prosecuting 
crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian 
country. 

First, the exercise of state jurisdiction here would not in-
fringe on tribal self-government.  In particular, a state pros-
ecution  of  a  crime  committed  by  a  non-Indian  against  an 
Indian would not deprive the tribe of any of its prosecutorial
authority.  That  is  because,  with  exceptions  not  invoked 
here,  Indian  tribes  lack  criminal  jurisdiction  to  prosecute 
crimes  committed  by  non-Indians  such  as  Castro-Huerta,
even when non-Indians commit crimes against Indians in 
Indian  country.  See  Oliphant  v.  Suquamish  Tribe,  435 
U. S. 191, 195 (1978).

Moreover,  a  state  prosecution  of  a  non-Indian  does  not 
involve the exercise of state power over any Indian or over 
any  tribe.  The  only  parties  to  the  criminal  case  are  the 
State  and  the  non-Indian  defendant.    Therefore,  as  has 
been  recognized,  any  tribal  self-government  “justification
for preemption of state jurisdiction” would be “problematic.”
American Indian Law Deskbook §4.8, at 260; see Three Af-
filiated Tribes, 467 U. S., at 148; see also Hicks, 533 U. S., 
at 364; McBratney, 104 U. S., at 623–624; Draper, 164 U. S., 
at 242–243.6 

Second,  a  state  prosecution  of  a  non-Indian  likewise
would  not  harm  the  federal  interest  in  protecting  Indian
victims.  State  prosecution  would  supplement  federal  au-
thority,  not  supplant  federal  authority.    As  the  United 
—————— 
Bracker balancing to determine whether the exercise of state jurisdiction
would unlawfully infringe on tribal self-government. 

6 To the extent that some tribes might have a policy preference for fed-
eral  jurisdiction  or  tribal  jurisdiction,  but  not  state  jurisdiction,  over 
crimes committed by non-Indians in Indian country, that policy prefer-
ence does not factor into the Bracker analysis. 

Furthermore,  this  case  does  not  involve  the  converse  situation  of  a 
State’s prosecution of crimes committed by an Indian against a non-In-
dian in Indian country.  We express no view on state jurisdiction over a 
criminal case of that kind.