Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 12

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

First, Castro-Huerta advances what he describes as a tex-
tual  argument.    He  contends  that  the  text  of  the  General 
Crimes Act makes Indian country the jurisdictional equiv-
alent of a federal enclave.  To begin, he points out that the
Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute
crimes committed in federal enclaves such as military bases
and national parks.  And then Castro-Huerta asserts that 
the General Crimes Act in effect equates federal enclaves
and Indian country.  Therefore, according to Castro-Huerta,
it follows that the Federal Government also has exclusive 
jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed in Indian coun-
try.

Castro-Huerta’s syllogism is wrong as a textual matter.
The  Act  simply  borrows  the  body  of  federal  criminal  law 
that  applies  in  federal  enclaves  and  extends  it  to  Indian 
country.  The Act does not purport to equate Indian country 
and federal enclaves for jurisdictional purposes.  Moreover, 
it is not enough to speculate, as Castro-Huerta does, that 
Congress  might  have  implicitly  intended  a  jurisdictional 
parallel between Indian country and federal enclaves. 

Castro-Huerta’s  argument  also  directly  contradicts  this
Court’s precedents.  As far back as 1891, the Court stated 
that the phrase “sole and exclusive jurisdiction” in the Gen-
eral Crimes Act is “only used in the description of the laws
which are extended” to Indian country, not “to the jurisdic-
tion extended over the Indian country.”  In re Wilson, 140 
U. S. 575, 578 (1891).  The Court repeated that analysis in
1913, concluding that the phrase “sole and exclusive juris-
diction” is “used in order to describe the laws of the United 
States  which  by  that  section  are  extended  to  the  Indian 
country.”  Donnelly  v.  United  States,  228  U. S.  243,  268 
(1913).

Stated otherwise, the General Crimes Act provides that 
the federal criminal laws that apply to federal enclaves also 
apply in Indian country.  But the extension of those federal 
laws to Indian country does not silently erase preexisting