Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

10 

OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA 

Opinion of the Court 

or  otherwise  lawfully  assumed  state  jurisdiction  to  prose-
cute crimes committed by non-Indians in Indian country.

Moreover,  if  Castro-Huerta’s  interpretation  of  the  Gen-
eral Crimes Act were correct, then the Act would preclude 
States from prosecuting any crimes in Indian country—pre-
sumably  even  those  crimes  committed  by  non-Indians 
against non-Indians—just as States ordinarily cannot pros-
ecute crimes committed in federal enclaves.  But this Court 
has long held that States may prosecute crimes committed 
by non-Indians against non-Indians in Indian country.  See 
McBratney,  104  U. S.,  at  623–624;  Draper,  164  U. S.,  at 
242–246.  Those holdings, too, contravene Castro-Huerta’s 
argument regarding the General Crimes Act.

In advancing his enclave argument, Castro-Huerta also
tries to analogize the text of the General Crimes Act to the
text  of  the  Major  Crimes  Act.    He  asserts  that  the  Major
Crimes Act grants the Federal Government exclusive juris-
diction to prosecute certain major crimes committed by In-
dians in Indian country.  But the Major Crimes Act contains
substantially different language than the General Crimes 
Act.  Unlike the General Crimes Act, the Major Crimes Act
says that defendants in Indian country “shall be subject to 
the  same  law”  as  defendants  in  federal  enclaves.    See  18 
U. S. C. §1153 (“Any Indian who commits against the per-
son or property of another Indian or other person any of ” 
certain major offenses “shall be subject to the same law and
penalties as all other persons committing any of the above
offenses,  within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United
States”).  So  even  assuming  that  the  text  of  the  Major 
Crimes Act provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction over 
major crimes committed by Indians in Indian country, see, 
e.g.,  United  States  v.  John,  437  U. S.  634,  651,  and  n.  22 
(1978); Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U. S. 99, 103 (1993), that 
conclusion does not translate to the differently worded Gen-
eral Crimes Act. 

In  short,  the  General  Crimes  Act  does  not  treat  Indian